2019-20 Habs In-Depth Playoff Report Cards

<a rel=. . . JORDAN WEAL. D+

B. There is barely anything for me to grade with <a rel=. . . CHARLES HUDON

C+. The Alex Belzile story is a heartwarming one, undrafted ECHL/AHL journeyman gets signed by the Laval Rocket, earns an NHL contract with his boyhood club in the Montreal Canadiens and makes his first NHL appearance in the postseason and even gets a point shortly after. Story aside, though, Belzile is a good AHLer and not a very good NHL player. He hustles, and hard work is certainly admirable, but he isn’t great defensively, and he isn’t a threat offensively. With Belzile on the ice at even strength, the Montreal Canadiens controlled 60.56% of the shot attempts,100% of the goals (1 was scored), 49.83% of the expected goals and 40% of the high danger chances. This smorgasbord of stats conveys that Belzile and his linemates would shoot a lot from low-danger areas, but struggled to create high-danger chances while also getting lucky for scoring the only goal when deployed on the ice. Hopefully, the Habs can add a good offensive piece in the offseason; the trickle-down effect will be important for this team, adding another good 4th liner could help as well.. . . ALEX BELZILE

A. I like Paul Byron, I really, really do. I could almost copy-paste what I wrote for Lehkonen in here. Byron is a great player to have on your 3rd or 4th line. He’s quick, he controls possession, he creates chances on the rush, he’s a leader, he’s consistent, and he kills penalties. He scored a goal and three assists (two of which were primary) in ten games. The opposing power play scored just once every 11:11 when Byron was on the PK, and Armia’s shorthanded goal came when Byron was on the ice. When Byron was playing at even strength, the Montreal Canadiens controlled 52.89% of the shot attempts, 54.76% of the high danger chances, 61.42% of the expected goals and scored 66.67% of the goals. He even had 20 hits, 19 more than Mete registered. While his contract may not age particularly well, at this point in time, Byron is still an extremely useful piece that just about any team would like to add. He controls possession and uses his speed to create chances; just look at Lehkonen’s series-winning goal against Pittsburgh.. . . PAUL BYRON

I had a brief moment of hesitation before finalizing Tatar’s grade because his possession metrics were pretty good in the postseason, but that was just a very brief moment. While possession metrics are nice and all, I find them more telling for defensemen and bottom 6 players than for the players that are meant to produce. I could care less if the Montreal Canadiens controlled 66.67% of the even-strength high-danger chances when Tatar was on the ice if those chances can’t be capitalized upon. Tatar’s role is to score and to produce, above all else. In the regular season, Tatar led the Habs in points with 61 and held the joint lead in goals with 22, yet, when the Montreal Canadiens needed him most, he vanished. In the10 postseason games, Tatar scored two goals and had no assists, and just like with Max Domi, Tatar’s entire production came in Game 2 of the Philly series, with zeroes on the board for the other 9 games. For the sake of giving you the same metrics for Tatar as for everyone else, here they are 57.39 CF%, 49.07 xGF%, 42.86 GF%. These playoffs, paired with the dissolution of the Tatar-Danault-Gallagher top line, has convinced me that the Habs may be best off trading Tatar away this offseason. His contract is up in a year, and I doubt it would be wise to hand him an extension. He would fetch quite the bounty, despite this poor playoff performance, he was on pace for a 26-goal and 73-point season had he been able to play in 82 games; that’s a valuable piece and more than a few GMs would be willing to take a gamble on the Czech. Considering Kapanen was able to garner the 15th overall pick and a decent prospect in Hallander, Tatar should be able to get something similar. Tatar is a better player than Kapanen, but Kapanen’s younger age and secure contractual situation would minimize that gap. Still, Bergevin may not want to trade Tatar, or any other good roster player, for futures now that the team has shown it can be competitive in a playoff format. It’s certainly something to keep an eye on throughout this offseason, though.. . . TOMAS TATAR. C

. JONATHAN DROUIN. A. I wasn’t expecting to give Drouin an A; I really like him and didn’t want to give him an unfairly high mark as I did for the Pittsburgh series (he was a B at best there, not a B+); and yet here we are. Of course, just like with Suzuki and Armia, the final two games really boosted Drouin’s stats. He recorded 4 assists (2 of which were absolute beauties from behind the net), so before those two games, he had a goal and two assists in 8 games, not great. However, his play had looked pretty good to me throughout the Philly series, despite the many fans that called for his benching. There are two main differences between the plays of Drouin and Tatar in these playoffs: Drouin produced when the Montreal Canadiens were desperate for offensive production while Tatar did not, and when he was not producing, Drouin was at the heart of creating chances against Philadelphia, while Tatar was more of a passenger throughout the playoffs. So Drouin finished the postseason tied for first in points (7) and was first in assists (6). Once he scored that deflection goal against Pittsburgh, Drouin gained a lot of confidence, and a confident Drouin is a pretty darned good player. There is no denying that Drouin is highly skilled; he just struggled to translate that skill to be an effective and dangerous NHL player because he lacked extremely skilled linemates. Once he was paired with Nick Suzuki, a player who is as skilled as Drouin and sees the ice in a similar way, Drouin flourished. That’s the huge difference between <a rel=.

Next. 5 goaltenders to purse in free agency. dark