Horachek's impact on the team

[Al14]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

There is the old saying (something like) "your best players have to be your best players to win consistently" And that has some merit.

Saw good and bad times with Keon, Sittler, Salming, Clark, Gilmour & Sundin. Can't say I saw anything from them like what we've seen with Kessel.

Bluntly, I saw down moments but I never saw any of them throw in the towel like or to the degree Kessel appears to have.

I think that is a key component in what I find most offensive in this mess.

I can accept poor results if they try. I can't accept them blatantly not trying - which is where many of them, including Kessel, seem to be right now.

The talent on this team seems better than their record. The character on this team seems to leave a lot to be desired.

At this point, it sure looks like Kessel would rather be fishing somewhere in Florida.  However, half the team looks like they'd be happier playing tiddlywinks in Kalamazoo!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

There is the old saying (something like) "your best players have to be your best players to win consistently" And that has some merit.

Saw good and bad times with Keon, Sittler, Salming, Clark, Gilmour & Sundin. Can't say I saw anything from them like what we've seen with Kessel.

Bluntly, I saw down moments but I never saw any of them throw in the towel like or to the degree Kessel appears to have.

I think that is a key component in what I find most offensive in this mess.

I can accept poor results if they try. I can't accept them blatantly not trying - which is where many of them, including Kessel, seem to be right now.

The talent on this team seems better than their record. The character on this team seems to leave a lot to be desired.

At this point, it sure looks like Kessel would rather be fishing somewhere in Florida.  However, half the team looks like they'd be happier playing tiddlywinks in Kalamazoo!

They've got nothing left to play for - it's actually in their interest if they're here long term for the team to be as bad as possible and get better players in the draft.  Ferraro and everyone can talk about playing for pride or whatever, but his stats went down towards the end of seasons he was missing the playoffs too.

There's a weird scenario around here where everyone wants the team to lose but also somehow want Kessel to be showing 110% and scoring or something.

 

[TML fan]

I just stubbed my toe. Pretty sure Kessel's getting blamed for this one. Him and his lousy +\-.

Kessel does have the ability to affect the + part of the +/- stat.  Since Jan. 1st, he has simply chosen not to!  LOL

No, that's the point. He's not good enough to do it on his own. Nobody is.

 

[Al14]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

There is the old saying (something like) "your best players have to be your best players to win consistently" And that has some merit.

Saw good and bad times with Keon, Sittler, Salming, Clark, Gilmour & Sundin. Can't say I saw anything from them like what we've seen with Kessel.

Bluntly, I saw down moments but I never saw any of them throw in the towel like or to the degree Kessel appears to have.

I think that is a key component in what I find most offensive in this mess.

I can accept poor results if they try. I can't accept them blatantly not trying - which is where many of them, including Kessel, seem to be right now.

The talent on this team seems better than their record. The character on this team seems to leave a lot to be desired.

At this point, it sure looks like Kessel would rather be fishing somewhere in Florida.  However, half the team looks like they'd be happier playing tiddlywinks in Kalamazoo!

They've got nothing left to play for - it's actually in their interest if they're here long term for the team to be as bad as possible and get better players in the draft.  Ferraro and everyone can talk about playing for pride or whatever, but his stats went down towards the end of seasons he was missing the playoffs too.

There's a weird scenario around here where everyone wants the team to lose but also somehow want Kessel to be showing 110% and scoring or something.

Play for PRIDE!  Be a difference maker by being a spoiler!  Wait... what?... never mind, keep doing what you're doing, it's better for the tank.

Help the Senaturds make the playoffs... and take themselves out of the McDavid sweestakes!

 

[cw]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

Read this article:
the Star
Horachek. ?You?ve got to be driven by your best players. We can?t get a start, we can?t get a work ethic that is acceptable. It was like a pro team playing a non-pro team. Outclassed, out-worked, out-skated.
?It wasn?t good.?
...
?We need an effort,? said Horachek. ?We need everybody pushing, and not sitting back and pulling on the chain. We need to be pushing, we need to be going after it. We need that kind of attitude. It?s not there. We?re sitting back.?
...
?We talk about how we want to play, that we?re behind 10 of the last 15 games and we chased the game,? said Horachek. ?If you don?t have the courage or character to be able to understand that that?s the most important thing, and be ready to play and to be pushing, then there?s a problem.?
...
?We?ve got to rally around it,? said Horachek. ?We understand we?re not in the playoffs. But it doesn?t change your work ethic. One thing you have is an attitude all the time. One thing you can give to your teammates and to your fans is your attitude and your approach to the game. Your worth ethic doesn?t have to change.

?I see Sam Carrick working hard. I see Zach Sill trying to do what he can.

?If you can?t bring a good attitude and work ethic to drive this team, while we?re short and when things are hard . . . that?s when you should get revved up. That?s not good enough for me.?
...
?Bernier does his thing, he stays in there and keeps us in the game,? said Horachek. ?He?s a pro. There are certain guys who are doing their thing the way they are supposed to.?

It pretty much says it all.

Kessel & Co (other better players) have packed it in and are basically refusing to make an effort.

Kessel got 15 mins in ice time (down for him) but I don't know what else the coach can do except put him in the press box (which is what I would have done long before now). I'd let guys who want to play, like Booth, play.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

There is the old saying (something like) "your best players have to be your best players to win consistently" And that has some merit.

Saw good and bad times with Keon, Sittler, Salming, Clark, Gilmour & Sundin. Can't say I saw anything from them like what we've seen with Kessel.

Bluntly, I saw down moments but I never saw any of them throw in the towel like or to the degree Kessel appears to have.

I think that is a key component in what I find most offensive in this mess.

I can accept poor results if they try. I can't accept them blatantly not trying - which is where many of them, including Kessel, seem to be right now.

The talent on this team seems better than their record. The character on this team seems to leave a lot to be desired.

At this point, it sure looks like Kessel would rather be fishing somewhere in Florida.  However, half the team looks like they'd be happier playing tiddlywinks in Kalamazoo!

They've got nothing left to play for - it's actually in their interest if they're here long term for the team to be as bad as possible and get better players in the draft.  Ferraro and everyone can talk about playing for pride or whatever, but his stats went down towards the end of seasons he was missing the playoffs too.

There's a weird scenario around here where everyone wants the team to lose but also somehow want Kessel to be showing 110% and scoring or something.

Play for PRIDE!  Be a difference maker by being a spoiler!  Wait... what?... never mind, keep doing what you're doing, it's better for the tank.

Help the Senaturds make the playoffs... and take themselves out of the McDavid sweestakes!

That gets at what I mean though - if he plays well now, people will criticize him for (a) hurting their draft position if they win and (b) "only playing well when the pressure's off"

But he's playing poorly and he's getting criticized for not trying, for not scoring, etc.

 

[Al14]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

Read this article:
the Star
Horachek. ?You?ve got to be driven by your best players. We can?t get a start, we can?t get a work ethic that is acceptable. It was like a pro team playing a non-pro team. Outclassed, out-worked, out-skated.
?It wasn?t good.?
...
?We need an effort,? said Horachek. ?We need everybody pushing, and not sitting back and pulling on the chain. We need to be pushing, we need to be going after it. We need that kind of attitude. It?s not there. We?re sitting back.?
...
?We talk about how we want to play, that we?re behind 10 of the last 15 games and we chased the game,? said Horachek. ?If you don?t have the courage or character to be able to understand that that?s the most important thing, and be ready to play and to be pushing, then there?s a problem.?
...
?We?ve got to rally around it,? said Horachek. ?We understand we?re not in the playoffs. But it doesn?t change your work ethic. One thing you have is an attitude all the time. One thing you can give to your teammates and to your fans is your attitude and your approach to the game. Your worth ethic doesn?t have to change.

?I see Sam Carrick working hard. I see Zach Sill trying to do what he can.

?If you can?t bring a good attitude and work ethic to drive this team, while we?re short and when things are hard . . . that?s when you should get revved up. That?s not good enough for me.?
...
?Bernier does his thing, he stays in there and keeps us in the game,? said Horachek. ?He?s a pro. There are certain guys who are doing their thing the way they are supposed to.?

It pretty much says it all.

Kessel & Co (other better players) have packed it in and are basically refusing to make an effort.

Kessel got 15 mins in ice time (down for him) but I don't know what else the coach can do except put him in the press box (which is what I would have done long before now). I'd let guys who want to play, like Booth, play.

I agree, let's those players that are trying to win play, however, Kessel, with his lack of effort, is great for the tank.

 

[Chris]

Regarding the 2006-2007 Bruins...if you look at their stats you'll see that the vast majority of the team is between -10 and -30, including Chara. If you look at the current Leafs, you see a very different picture. Most of the team is much closer to 0. Kessel and company are extreme outliers at -30 to -35. This just confirms what we can all see happening over the past couple of months - the collapse is driven almost completely by one line on the team. The 2006-2007 Bruins appeared to be an overall team problem. That's really all I've been trying to say. I don't believe you can really effectively use +/- across seasons and teams, but I do believe it can be carefully used within a team/season. I know many of you don't agree...so be it!

 

[cw]

Mirtle Globe Link
Horachek has coached 32 games now in Toronto, and the Leafs have lost 26 of them (6-23-3) as they?ve plummeted down the standings.

If you look at who has been contributing in that time, it?s a pretty short list.

Phil Kessel has three points in 32 games at 5-on-5. James van Riemsdyk has five; Tyler Bozak has six. Joffrey Lupul has only two assists at 5-on-5 in 19 games since returning from injury.

It?s almost unbelievably bad.

Heck, the Leafs leading scorer at even strength under the new coach remains Dan Winnik, who was traded away to Pittsburgh 12 games ago.

And people are blaming Horachek for the team?s record in that span.

It?s no wonder the coach is upset, even if making the playoffs became an impossibility months ago and even if he has little chance to be back. He wants to see this group, regardless of who?s left, playing for pride, and they?re simply not.

Many appear to have given up.

So we have to play like this to move up a couple of places on the draft order? How sad.

This isn't Horachek's fault.

 

[Deebo]

That gets at what I mean though - if he plays well now, people will criticize him for (a) hurting their draft position if they win and (b) "only playing well when the pressure's off"

I still see fans make references to Boyd Deveraux's hat trick in 2009 that "cost" the Leafs Brayden Schenn.

 

[Derk]

The FAN seems to be trolling Kessel (and Phaneuf) by pointing out in their 12 o'clock sports update that "as usual", they were the last two on the ice for practice.

 

[ZBBM]

Horachek is 100% right.  Reading that makes my frustration rise too.

In fact, reading those two articles has really made me pissed.  I've had it with the defenders of Kessel, Phaneuf, JVR, etc.  Horachek is right.  You are wrong.  Period.  End of argument.

God, the day can't come fast enough when they get rid of the lot of them.

 

[Chris]

That gets at what I mean though - if he plays well now, people will criticize him for (a) hurting their draft position if they win and (b) "only playing well when the pressure's off"

I still see fans make references to Boyd Deveraux's hat trick in 2009 that "cost" the Leafs Brayden Schenn.

The end result (better draft position/chance at McDavid) will be "good". The way we got there is a disgrace. It's one thing to trade away all your talent (ahem Buffalo) or to have a "team" populated mostly by young developing one-dimensional players (Edmonton). It's another to still have many of your "core" players and have them playing like this.

 

[Deebo]

In fact, reading those two articles has really made me pissed.  I've had it with the defenders of Kessel, Phaneuf, JVR, etc.  Horachek is right.  You are wrong.  Period.  End of argument.

That's not how message boards work, if you don't want to participate in the argument, then don't.

 

[Al14]

That gets at what I mean though - if he plays well now, people will criticize him for (a) hurting their draft position if they win and (b) "only playing well when the pressure's off"

I still see fans make references to Boyd Deveraux's hat trick in 2009 that "cost" the Leafs Brayden Schenn.

As it  turns out, missing out on Brayden Schenn has cost us nothing.  Matter of fact, we may not have JvR today, if we had gotten the 2nd half of the Schenn brothers.

 

[Deebo]

That gets at what I mean though - if he plays well now, people will criticize him for (a) hurting their draft position if they win and (b) "only playing well when the pressure's off"

I still see fans make references to Boyd Deveraux's hat trick in 2009 that "cost" the Leafs Brayden Schenn.

As it  turns out, missing out on Brayden Schenn has cost us nothing.  Matter of fact, we may not have JvR today, if we had gotten the 2nd half of the Schenn brothers.

That's why cost is in quotation marks.

 

[Al14]

That gets at what I mean though - if he plays well now, people will criticize him for (a) hurting their draft position if they win and (b) "only playing well when the pressure's off"

I still see fans make references to Boyd Deveraux's hat trick in 2009 that "cost" the Leafs Brayden Schenn.

As it  turns out, missing out on Brayden Schenn has cost us nothing.  Matter of fact, we may not have JvR today, if we had gotten the 2nd half of the Schenn brothers.

That's why cost is in quotation marks.

Ok, got it! 

 

[dappleganger]

That gets at what I mean though - if he plays well now, people will criticize him for (a) hurting their draft position if they win and (b) "only playing well when the pressure's off"

I still see fans make references to Boyd Deveraux's hat trick in 2009 that "cost" the Leafs Brayden Schenn.

As it  turns out, missing out on Brayden Schenn has cost us nothing.  Matter of fact, we may not have JvR today, if we had gotten the 2nd half of the Schenn brothers.

That's why cost is in quotation marks.

Leafs still would have taken Kadri at 5. He was the best player in the draft. 

 

[Al14]

That gets at what I mean though - if he plays well now, people will criticize him for (a) hurting their draft position if they win and (b) "only playing well when the pressure's off"

I still see fans make references to Boyd Deveraux's hat trick in 2009 that "cost" the Leafs Brayden Schenn.

As it  turns out, missing out on Brayden Schenn has cost us nothing.  Matter of fact, we may not have JvR today, if we had gotten the 2nd half of the Schenn brothers.

That's why cost is in quotation marks.

Leafs still would have taken Kadri at 5. He was the best player in the draft. 

Nice one. Touch?!  LOL

 

[Bender]

That gets at what I mean though - if he plays well now, people will criticize him for (a) hurting their draft position if they win and (b) "only playing well when the pressure's off"

I still see fans make references to Boyd Deveraux's hat trick in 2009 that "cost" the Leafs Brayden Schenn.

As it  turns out, missing out on Brayden Schenn has cost us nothing.  Matter of fact, we may not have JvR today, if we had gotten the 2nd half of the Schenn brothers.

That's why cost is in quotation marks.

Leafs still would have taken Kadri at 5. He was the best player in the draft. 

Nice one. Touch?!  LOL

Although I think you could honestly argue that outside of maybe Ryan O'Reilly and maybe one more that he was the best player available outside the top 5 that draft year.