Phil Kessel's college style of play could hurt his chances of staying in Boston. (Photo: Flickr user egasbarino)
Two Sundays ago, Kevin Paul Dupont’s Boston Globe Hockey Notes column led off with a discussion was whether or not the Boston Bruins will resign restricted free agent forward Phil Kessel. Said Dupont:
“For all his flash, dash, and goal scoring, Kessel has some troubling holes in his game. It’s a contact sport, one full of one-on-one battles, and in most cases, Kessel prefers to motor around those battles. When he is forced to battle for a puck, he usually looks for a different option….
Remember, this is a team that puts great weight in what Cam Neely thinks of players, and No. 8’s standard read on a skilled-but-soft contributor has been, “That dog won’t hunt.”
Having listened to Neely’s reads for more than two decades, and knowing both Kessel’s strengths and shortcomings, I think the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls for Kessel.”
Despite his breakout season, the Bruins appear not to hold signing Kessel a priority. Front office supporters may argue that the proposed amounts of $4.5 – 5 million are quite high for a 22 year old who has quite awful luck when it comes to injury and illness, who needed benching to shake up his game during the 2008 playoffs, and who has only “proven” himself for one year.
But what concerns me about the Bruins’ discussion of Kessel is the parts of his game they are picking on – very much the college aspects of his play.
Kessel played one year at Minnesota, and prior to that, played with the US Under 18 team when it was stacked with name players in 2004-05. Although he played less college hockey than a lot of players out there, it still influenced his play. College players are passionate, skilled players – but they have to play a different style of hockey than their major junior counterparts. Fights are avoided. Players aren’t going to put themselves in circumstances where a fight could develop because they know they’ll get tossed if one does. It affects the game – maybe a college player doesn’t engage in that “one-on-one” battle for a puck as much.
That style of hockey might take longer to get out of one’s system than others, or some, particularly those with a combination of injuries like Kessel’s, is never going to be a style that they engage in. What the Bruins have to decide is if this difference in playing style is something they can live with.
I believe that the way the Kessel matter is resolved will set the tone for the Bruins’ dealings with other college-raised players in the future, such as Blake Wheeler. Wheeler also plays a college style of hockey, and has been treated similarly to Kessel – being benched during the playoffs for “poor performance.”
NHL teams seem to be heading in two directions right now – those, like Pittsburgh, who embrace college-raised players, and those like Detriot, who do not. There is not nesscarily a right or a wrong to this. Some teams have more luck with college players than others, and some would rather pluck talent out of major junior and develop them at a younger age.
If the Bruins get rid of Kessel, then is that a statement that their system doesn’t value the college style of play, and that any college player in their system needs to lose that style of play quickly? Further, does this then set the developmental mindset with their AHL affiliate in Providence and future player acquisitions towards one of a major junior path rather than taking a chance on college players?
The decision on Kessel could end up having little to do with his college style of play, and be a more straight numbers decision. Or it could have everything to do with his style of play, as Dupont seems to warn in his column. But in an era where we have reached a hay-day in college hockey and it continues to grow as a popular option for some of the most talented youth hockey players, is the eschewing of the college style of play a message the Bruins want to send? And if they do, will it screw them out of college talent moving forward because they don’t value the style of play those players accustomed to?
I don’t think the Bruins are knocking college hockey as a whole, I think this is more a testament to Kessel not being a Bruins style of player. For every guy that is “soft” out of college hockey, you have guys like Grier, Orpik, and Pandolfo that thrive on the board battles. I said when he got drafted, that Kessel wasn’t the right player for the Bruins system. They like em big, and they like mashers (which is why I think Savard’s name is all of a sudden in the trade rumors as well). The fans want the blue collar guy that beats people up, not the pretty boy that scores lots of goals. The Bruins were lucky with Neely, because they got the blue collar guy who had a scorer’s touch, and now they want a team full of them. If you don’t go into traffic, you won’t stay on this team. I could go on forever since the Bruins way of running their team just intrigues me, come over some time and we’ll discuss over some Sam Adams.
Up front, I have to say that Cam Neely was one of my all-time favorites. Man, he could play tough and bury the puck.
That said, I wonder how much of his success had to also go to the likes of a Craig Janney or an Adam Oates — the set-up guys. Sure, I saw Neely go coast-to-coast a few times, and he made plenty of other outstanding plays. But the goals I remember best had the set-up guy stickhandling all around and drawing lots of attention, with him finally dishing the puck to Big Cam for a lightening shot-off-the-pass.
My point here: Teams and lines usually have to be made-up of all kinds. And, if the B’s carry their share of muckers and grinders, there ought to be a roster spot or two kept open for guys who can make plays.