General Leafs Talk
- Thread starter armche123
- Start date
- Status
Andy007
Active member
Zee said:
Well, Hamilton's tenure with the big club hasn't really been positive or negative. McLaren and Orr, imo, have been mostly negative. So the way I calculated it, 0 is greater than -1 (ignoring the fact that Hamilton actually has a bit a skill mixed with some grit and may actually contribute to the team).
Heck, I'd rather even have Colborne in the lineup over the two goons.
Zee
Active member
Andy007 said:
McLaren and Orr's tenure has been mostly negative? Try asking the other players on the team who swear that they're getting more room on the ice because those 2 goons hold other teams accountable for hitting our skilled players. I'm not a goon-supporter by any means, but I hardly think they've been a negative influence on the team's success.
Andy007
Active member
Zee said:
What players are getting more room because of Orr and McLaren barely playing 5 minutes a night?
Quite frankly if anyone is creating room for other players it's smart, tenacious guys like Komarov and McLement. Orr takes stupid penalties and fights guys in the 1st period.
Corn Flake
New member
Andy007 said:
It will depend on the team we draw, but there's a very good chance that one or both are out at some point very early on or not in at all. if the Leafs draw the Habs, there is far less reason to carry two tough guys. Prust will be a factor that probably keeps Orr in, but after that, they will need other assets than facepuncing. Carlyle scratched Parros quite a bit in the Ducks run so it's not like he hasn't done it before.
If the Leafs ended up drawing Boston I actually think you need both guys in. The B's will be all about intimidation in the post season, and for Toronto to drop both guys from the lineup takes away the big part of the team that has kep the skill guys feeling protected. Believe it or not, it's the reality.
But other than Boston I don't see an opponent that requires having both, or maybe even either one of them in the lineup.
Corn Flake
New member
Zee said:
Agreed. My only qualm with the two tough guys was engaging the Islanders tough guys right after the Leafs went up 2-0 in that game. The Isles were a far better team after those two fights. They should have left well alone. but anyway...
On top of what you said, the skilled players have made it pretty clear that this year they feel protected out there. You don't need to have a fighter on your line to feel that way either. I don't think we as fans who can't hear the dialogue going on the ice during a game understand all the stuff that goes on. Believe it or not, just having a guy like Orr on the bench makes a difference.
The Leafs of the last few seasons have been easily intimidated. No, Thornton wasn't out pounding on Kessel becasue Orr wasn't on his line, but you can be that all the goon squad on the B's were chirping at him all game long making him and others feel as uncomfortable as possible.
It's been said many times how much the other team quiets down when Orr is out on the ice. I have seen a LOT less liberties taken with the Leafs skill guys this year. Even though there has been the odd one, it's way way less than it used to be.
Zee
Active member
I hope Lupul is back to 100% and able to play like he was during that crazy stretch of games with Kadri. If the Leafs can get scoring out of that line, it'll be far tougher for opponents who normally just key off the Kessel line. Clinching early and having these final 3 games as a tune up is the best thing that could have happened for the Leafs. Aside from the ongoing Gunnarson issue, I think the team is fairly healthy right now.
Heroic Shrimp
Active member
Frank E said:
You're looking for a list of guys who elect to speak up and say, "that guy over there, we don't really need him on the team"...?
gilmourthegreat
New member
Heroic Shrimp said:
Fixed that type for you
Frank E
Active member
Heroic Shrimp said:
No, not really.
Just some evidence from players that suggest that the tough guys don't make any difference in their game.
I know a handful of NHLers (most of them ex-now), and they suggest that it certainly makes a difference, especially when they were younger. As they got older, they were comfortable enough that they could handle whatever came at them...but as young players, they weren't nearly as confident without some back-up.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Frank E said:
Probably anybody who has played on the Red Wings the past decade. They've only intermittently had a player who would fight on their team, and their results haven't changed a whole lot in the regular season over that time.
Corn Flake
New member
Potvin29 said:
But the Wings really are one of the only - if not THE only - exmaple of a team that hasn't carried an enforcer for an extended period of time.
To Frank's point, perhaps Det being a veteran team for so long helped them carry a certain cache where there is a bit more respet out there for them vs. other teams, so they don't need the toughness as much.
But really, one example like that looks more like an abberitian than everyone else doing something completely pointless when it comes to carrying goons.
Kin
New member
Frank E said:
Ok. A lot of coaches are ex-players. When they coach in the playoffs, they sit their goons and fighting stops. If dressing goons was universally acknowledged to provide a legitimate benefit to their teams, why would those coaches chose to ignore that benefit in the playoffs?
Honestly, if I were someone who really believed that the whole "you dress a fighter so we dress a fighter" stuff made teams better I wouldn't be defending fighting, I'd be too busy going out of my mind trying to figure out why so many coaches choose to make their teams worse when playing for the Stanley Cup.
- Status