The Core

[hobarth]

The prevailing wisdom amongst Leaf fans is that TO gets out goalied every year in the playoffs

I like how you say this like it's some crazy fan theory and not what we've all seen happen plain as day.

Since Matthews/Marner/Nylander have been on this team the Leafs have played in seven Best of 7 series'. In every single one, all seven, the goalie they faced was a Vezina winner.

So you agree or rather accept the popular this goalied theory.

Let's look back in time and see Chicago's first Cup in the 2000s was earned with some guy named Niemala(I'm too lazy to look up his name, Pitts won 2 Cups with Murray goaltending, there were Vezina trophy winners those seasons yet they didn't goalie their opposition to ultimately win the Cup, TO thru 7 years gets goalied out of the playoffs, amazing coincidence, don't you think?

The weak will succumb, the strong will overcome. What we're seeing from this TO team during the regular season isn't something new, the Sittler teams were very good, the Quinn teams were also strong. Hang onto these losers for longer and the 56 year drought will be extended many more years, realize that they are losers and use them to rebuild could be a faster and better way to win the Cup.

Get rid of this core and TO will probably not make the playoffs, the major benefit of this, TO will not be goalied out of the playoffs for an 8th straight year, ha.

I didn't mind anything Dubie did for his first years, giving AM & MM those big contracts wasn't out of line for their talent, signing JT made tons of more sense than the nonsensical signing of Marleau, 2 great centers, a great winger and another exceptional winger was a good starting point, covid ruined that.

We've all seen where teams want to protect the youth from the losing culture of a bad team, I think AM, MM and WN have been exposed to bad culture in TO, heads needed to roll because of the constant poor playoff showings, Dubie keeping his job and not finding better ways to improve the Leafs seems a systemic acceptance of losing, he should've been fired last year and he definitely needs to go now along with Keefe and especially Shanny.

 

[Kin]

Let's look back in time and see Chicago's first Cup in the 2000s was earned with some guy named Niemala(I'm too lazy to look up his name, Pitts won 2 Cups with Murray goaltending, there were Vezina trophy winners those seasons yet they didn't goalie their opposition to ultimately win the Cup, TO thru 7 years gets goalied out of the playoffs, amazing coincidence, don't you think?

No, it's just a fact. There's nothing particularly unusual about teams with not very good goaltending getting eliminated in the playoffs by teams with better goaltending. It is very frequently the deciding factor between series of relatively equal teams and is usually the main cause of what passes for upsets in the modern NHL. The Sundin-Roberts Leafs were often on the other end of that behind Cujo.

 

[4EVRLEAFAN]

The prevailing wisdom amongst Leaf fans is that TO gets out goalied every year in the playoffs

I like how you say this like it's some crazy fan theory and not what we've all seen happen plain as day.

Since Matthews/Marner/Nylander have been on this team the Leafs have played in seven Best of 7 series'. In every single one, all seven, the goalie they faced was a Vezina winner.

So you agree or rather accept the popular this goalied theory.

Let's look back in time and see Chicago's first Cup in the 2000s was earned with some guy named Niemala(I'm too lazy to look up his name, Pitts won 2 Cups with Murray goaltending, there were Vezina trophy winners those seasons yet they didn't goalie their opposition to ultimately win the Cup, TO thru 7 years gets goalied out of the playoffs, amazing coincidence, don't you think?

The weak will succumb, the strong will overcome. What we're seeing from this TO team during the regular season isn't something new, the Sittler teams were very good, the Quinn teams were also strong. Hang onto these losers for longer and the 56 year drought will be extended many more years, realize that they are losers and use them to rebuild could be a faster and better way to win the Cup.

Get rid of this core and TO will probably not make the playoffs, the major benefit of this, TO will not be goalied out of the playoffs for an 8th straight year, ha.

I didn't mind anything Dubie did for his first years, giving AM & MM those big contracts wasn't out of line for their talent, signing JT made tons of more sense than the nonsensical signing of Marleau, 2 great centers, a great winger and another exceptional winger was a good starting point, covid ruined that.

We've all seen where teams want to protect the youth from the losing culture of a bad team, I think AM, MM and WN have been exposed to bad culture in TO, heads needed to roll because of the constant poor playoff showings, Dubie keeping his job and not finding better ways to improve the Leafs seems a systemic acceptance of losing, he should've been fired last year and he definitely needs to go now along with Keefe and especially Shanny.

Let's look back in time and see Chicago's first Cup in the 2000s was earned with some guy named Niemala(I'm too lazy to look up his name, Pitts won 2 Cups with Murray goaltending, there were Vezina trophy winners those seasons yet they didn't goalie their opposition to ultimately win the Cup, TO thru 7 years gets goalied out of the playoffs, amazing coincidence, don't you think?

No, it's just a fact. There's nothing particularly unusual about teams with not very good goaltending getting eliminated in the playoffs by teams with better goaltending. It is very frequently the deciding factor between series of relatively equal teams and is usually the main cause of what passes for upsets in the modern NHL. The Sundin-Roberts Leafs were often on the other end of that behind Cujo.

Amazing how many aren't seeing it, I'm just as upset as everyone else but if they can't see what Bobrovsky is doing we can't help them. "IF" and I can't stress that enough as we know he can falter but if he can keep it up we are watching 1993 Roy again and the Panthers will win the Cup.

 

[cabber24]

I'm talking playoffs, Matthews does what he does every year and normally the excuse is he's playing hurt.

Again TO could only score 2 goals, Matthews zero, superstars show up when it counts, no excuses well maybe occasionally but certainly not consistently like Matthews.

TO isn't going to do well in the playoffs relying on Matthews and he's only signed for one more year, time to move on.

Thank you for the post.  This is very enlightening.  I appreciate getting the perspective of the Leafs from the other side of the bell curve.

These are the same type of posters who then, years later say, "why did they give up on Kessel, see what a force he was in those 2 Cup wins? Why did they give up on Kadri, see what a force he was in that Cup win?". You can't win with these haters. Grass is always greener on the other side

Yup which is why I choose to ignore most of them.

It's also the reason no one's here anymore.

 

[cabber24]

Unless you can trade any of the core for another team's core defenseman I think you run it back again with a new coach.

 

[Guilt Trip]

I'm talking playoffs, Matthews does what he does every year and normally the excuse is he's playing hurt.

Again TO could only score 2 goals, Matthews zero, superstars show up when it counts, no excuses well maybe occasionally but certainly not consistently like Matthews.

TO isn't going to do well in the playoffs relying on Matthews and he's only signed for one more year, time to move on.

Thank you for the post.  This is very enlightening.  I appreciate getting the perspective of the Leafs from the other side of the bell curve.

These are the same type of posters who then, years later say, "why did they give up on Kessel, see what a force he was in those 2 Cup wins? Why did they give up on Kadri, see what a force he was in that Cup win?". You can't win with these haters. Grass is always greener on the other side

Yup which is why I choose to ignore most of them.

It's also the reason no one's here anymore.

Yup. So tiring reading the same bullshit over and over again.

Unless you can trade any of the core for another team's core defenseman I think you run it back again with a new coach.

See my thing is, they didn't lose because of defence. They couldn't score enough again. I think they have the cash to grab a D man and I really hope that Knies and JT are our top 2 LWs next season. Leafs need to also play the kids in more prominent roles. Like if Robertson makes the team, play him top 6 and leave him there. Same with McMann or whoever. Put them in the roles they played on the Marlies.
And I agree, I like Keefe but I think they need a new voice. Not a guy reluctant to take Marner away from Matthews.

 

[rdowdall]

The prevailing wisdom amongst Leaf fans is that TO gets out goalied every year in the playoffs, every year, unlikely I'd say, too many peripheral players, not enough quality shots off of rebounds or from the slot. I've felt especially in this playoff that the quality of TO's offense was poor, Matthews constantly taking distance shots and never going to the net wasn't working like it has against Anaheim and Detroit during the regular season, TO's core can't/won't adapt year after year so TO gets goalied out of the playoffs.

I know we do occasionally see Matthews parked in front of the opposition's net, what we needed from him and others was for him to carry the puck to the opposition's net using his size to impose his will, I question his will, his character.

That's why you unfortunately ship him off. I am completely dumbfounded by some on here who say get on him and get an extension. I just cringe at the amount of money they will probably give him. Personally I don't think a raise is even warranted. They haven't proved a single thing in the playoffs and were paid handsomely yet we'll probably stay with the same core and screwup our cap even more. We've been unable to bring in a bonafide goalie or D man because of our cap. Make some changes and if not I guarantee you guys will be talking about the same disappointment next year. It aint working. How much more do we have to see to figure that out.

So just because the Leafs trade Matthews, that doesn't necessarily guarantee the following:
a) That the Leafs will make the playoffs again
b) That they will perform better in the playoffs.

Which team is going to trade assets for Matthews?  If he is as horrible a player as you say, do you think the Leafs are going to fool other teams into giving them this amazing hockey player who will guarantee playoff wins for the Leafs in exchange for Matthews who doesn't do anything for a team wins at all?  How exactly are the Leafs selling that trade?

Right now the Leafs make the playoffs.  They have made it each year that Matthews has been on the team.  Are you going to be happy to going back to not making the playoffs at all?  Just because something changes does not guarantee that the change will be positive for the Leafs, so it is possible that once you trade Matthews, all of sudden the Leafs stop making the playoffs altogether.  There are two possible ways that trading Matthews could go, and in all your talk, all you ever focus on is this hypothetical better scenario where the Leafs win the cup just by trading out Matthews. What if that doesn't happen?

Who says he?s a horrible player. Where have I actually stated that. My beef and it has been ever since we paid him and Marner top dollar before proving anything. If you look and I?ve stated this before at other teams with less talent going further than us. If they trade him is it 100% guaranteed they will miss the playoffs? Nobody can answer that. Will they be worse off? Who know all depends on the return. My biggest issue with the two stars is they don?t perform well in the playoffs or under pressure. Is that going to change? Who knows. My question is how long do you keep going with it until enough is enough? Trading a star not only helps us maybe fill in some holes but it may help us cap wise. Team was in cap hell and if we resign him to an even bigger contract along with Nylander we?ll be there again until Tavares comes off the books. The core and heavy contracts for the 4 of them in my opinion hasn?t worked so maybe a change in philosophy is needed. That?s why I say somebody needs to go. You?d be surprised with a well rounded team with some grit and heart how far they can go. Talent isn?t the only thing that wins you a cup.

I think the most damning thing that you can say about a hockey player is to say that they don't care.  In any high-level sport, you need to be motivated to be the best to get to that level to go along with your skill level.  Saying that they don't care about winning is a pretty strong indictment that they are probably not where they are supposed to be.  So by saying that Matthews and Marner don't care about being in the playoffs, you are in fact saying that they are pretty horrible hockey players. 

It took Steve Yzerman 13 years to win his first cup.  He was 31 years old when he won it.  That is 6 years older than Matthews today.  That would be 6 more years of playoff failures that you would have to come on to this site and say that you've been saying it all along how Matthews can't win it.

In Yzerman's case, there were multiple issues that lead to him not winning a cup till he was 31.  Some of the time it was because there were better teams in the conference around him.  Some of the time it was because the goalie they had on the team wasn't very good.  Some of the time, it was because he didn't play the right way in the playoffs.  He was almost traded out of Detroit because he couldn't get it done in the playoffs.  The popular theory is that Scotty Bowman came in and got Yzerman to commit to playing a different way.  Overall though, it wasn't till all of those problems were solved that Yzerman was able to win a cup. 

People have brought up Ovechkin before as well.  Ovechkin took a long time to win a cup.  He even sat down with Gretzky to ask what you have to do to win a cup.  A lot of the criticism levelled Ovechkin's way was that he tried to do too much himself come playoff time, and he took on too much responsibility and stopped playing a team game.  He eventually figured it out, and so did the team around him and they won a cup 14 years into his career. 

A lot of things have to go right for a team to win a cup.

 

[bustaheims]

See my thing is, they didn't lose because of defence. They couldn't score enough again. I think they have the cash to grab a D man and I really hope that Knies and JT are our top 2 LWs next season. Leafs need to also play the kids in more prominent roles. Like if Robertson makes the team, play him top 6 and leave him there. Same with McMann or whoever. Put them in the roles they played on the Marlies.
And I agree, I like Keefe but I think they need a new voice. Not a guy reluctant to take Marner away from Matthews.

Yes and no. They didn't lose because of their defensive play, but part of their struggles was due to not having a 2nd dman they trusted defensively who was good at carrying and distributing the puck. I don't think that's someone who they need to move a core guy to acquire - really, we're looking at a 2nd pairing type with good speed and vision - but, definitely an area that cost them. It was something they lacked all season (Sandin wasn't a particularly good skater, which limited him to 3rd pair duties), and it really showed when teams got in hard on the forecheck.

 

[Guilt Trip]

See my thing is, they didn't lose because of defence. They couldn't score enough again. I think they have the cash to grab a D man and I really hope that Knies and JT are our top 2 LWs next season. Leafs need to also play the kids in more prominent roles. Like if Robertson makes the team, play him top 6 and leave him there. Same with McMann or whoever. Put them in the roles they played on the Marlies.
And I agree, I like Keefe but I think they need a new voice. Not a guy reluctant to take Marner away from Matthews.

Yes and no. They didn't lose because of their defensive play, but part of their struggles was due to not having a 2nd dman they trusted defensively who was good at carrying and distributing the puck. I don't think that's someone who they need to move a core guy to acquire - really, we're looking at a 2nd pairing type with good speed and vision - but, definitely an area that cost them. It was something they lacked all season (Sandin wasn't a particularly good skater, which limited him to 3rd pair duties), and it really showed when teams got in hard on the forecheck.

Sandin would've been eaten alive. They need another puck mover. Not guys that treat it like a grenade, ala Holl.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Yes and no. They didn't lose because of their defensive play, but part of their struggles was due to not having a 2nd dman they trusted defensively who was good at carrying and distributing the puck. I don't think that's someone who they need to move a core guy to acquire - really, we're looking at a 2nd pairing type with good speed and vision - but, definitely an area that cost them. It was something they lacked all season (Sandin wasn't a particularly good skater, which limited him to 3rd pair duties), and it really showed when teams got in hard on the forecheck.

All eyes are on the forwards right now, and understandably so, but I do wonder if we see a "core" change to the defence. Right now we already have 6 NHL defencemen locked up next year:

Rielly-Brodie
McCabe-Liljegren
Giordano-Timmins

Brodie, McCabe, and Giordano all played at a lower standard in the playoffs than the high levels they set during the regular season. Liljegren hasn't yet been able to step up to fill the role that Holl is almost certainly leaving. Timmins is a wild card and could still be bumped down to 7D if Schenn returns.

I think a couple of months ago people would have been at least comfortable with that to start, but now it seems shaky. How much does the team react to those playoff performances in building the defence next season?

 

[Arn]

Yes and no. They didn't lose because of their defensive play, but part of their struggles was due to not having a 2nd dman they trusted defensively who was good at carrying and distributing the puck. I don't think that's someone who they need to move a core guy to acquire - really, we're looking at a 2nd pairing type with good speed and vision - but, definitely an area that cost them. It was something they lacked all season (Sandin wasn't a particularly good skater, which limited him to 3rd pair duties), and it really showed when teams got in hard on the forecheck.

All eyes are on the forwards right now, and understandably so, but I do wonder if we see a "core" change to the defence. Right now we already have 6 NHL defencemen locked up next year:

Rielly-Brodie
McCabe-Liljegren
Giordano-Timmins

Brodie, McCabe, and Giordano all played at a lower standard in the playoffs than the high levels they set during the regular season. Liljegren hasn't yet been able to step up to fill the role that Holl is almost certainly leaving. Timmins is a wild card and could still be bumped down to 7D if Schenn returns.

I think a couple of months ago people would have been at least comfortable with that to start, but now it seems shaky. How much does the team react to those playoff performances in building the defence next season?

I?d like Schenn back. And they?ve never really replaced Muzzin.

 

[azzurri63]

Button asked if the core 4 should be run again and he says absolutely not. Someone sees what's been going on the last 4 years. They have not delivered in the post season, no accountability etc etc. Dubas built this team around the 4 and he's bang on they haven't come through so make some changes. Shelled out large chunk of the cap around these 4 and quite simply they haven't got it done and I don't think he's talking of winning a cup. It's the lack of winning series and showing up to some degree. Going to be an interesting next month or two.

 

[azzurri63]

The prevailing wisdom amongst Leaf fans is that TO gets out goalied every year in the playoffs, every year, unlikely I'd say, too many peripheral players, not enough quality shots off of rebounds or from the slot. I've felt especially in this playoff that the quality of TO's offense was poor, Matthews constantly taking distance shots and never going to the net wasn't working like it has against Anaheim and Detroit during the regular season, TO's core can't/won't adapt year after year so TO gets goalied out of the playoffs.

I know we do occasionally see Matthews parked in front of the opposition's net, what we needed from him and others was for him to carry the puck to the opposition's net using his size to impose his will, I question his will, his character.

That's why you unfortunately ship him off. I am completely dumbfounded by some on here who say get on him and get an extension. I just cringe at the amount of money they will probably give him. Personally I don't think a raise is even warranted. They haven't proved a single thing in the playoffs and were paid handsomely yet we'll probably stay with the same core and screwup our cap even more. We've been unable to bring in a bonafide goalie or D man because of our cap. Make some changes and if not I guarantee you guys will be talking about the same disappointment next year. It aint working. How much more do we have to see to figure that out.

So just because the Leafs trade Matthews, that doesn't necessarily guarantee the following:
a) That the Leafs will make the playoffs again
b) That they will perform better in the playoffs.

Which team is going to trade assets for Matthews?  If he is as horrible a player as you say, do you think the Leafs are going to fool other teams into giving them this amazing hockey player who will guarantee playoff wins for the Leafs in exchange for Matthews who doesn't do anything for a team wins at all?  How exactly are the Leafs selling that trade?

Right now the Leafs make the playoffs.  They have made it each year that Matthews has been on the team.  Are you going to be happy to going back to not making the playoffs at all?  Just because something changes does not guarantee that the change will be positive for the Leafs, so it is possible that once you trade Matthews, all of sudden the Leafs stop making the playoffs altogether.  There are two possible ways that trading Matthews could go, and in all your talk, all you ever focus on is this hypothetical better scenario where the Leafs win the cup just by trading out Matthews. What if that doesn't happen?

Who says he?s a horrible player. Where have I actually stated that. My beef and it has been ever since we paid him and Marner top dollar before proving anything. If you look and I?ve stated this before at other teams with less talent going further than us. If they trade him is it 100% guaranteed they will miss the playoffs? Nobody can answer that. Will they be worse off? Who know all depends on the return. My biggest issue with the two stars is they don?t perform well in the playoffs or under pressure. Is that going to change? Who knows. My question is how long do you keep going with it until enough is enough? Trading a star not only helps us maybe fill in some holes but it may help us cap wise. Team was in cap hell and if we resign him to an even bigger contract along with Nylander we?ll be there again until Tavares comes off the books. The core and heavy contracts for the 4 of them in my opinion hasn?t worked so maybe a change in philosophy is needed. That?s why I say somebody needs to go. You?d be surprised with a well rounded team with some grit and heart how far they can go. Talent isn?t the only thing that wins you a cup.

I think the most damning thing that you can say about a hockey player is to say that they don't care.  In any high-level sport, you need to be motivated to be the best to get to that level to go along with your skill level.  Saying that they don't care about winning is a pretty strong indictment that they are probably not where they are supposed to be.  So by saying that Matthews and Marner don't care about being in the playoffs, you are in fact saying that they are pretty horrible hockey players. 

It took Steve Yzerman 13 years to win his first cup.  He was 31 years old when he won it.  That is 6 years older than Matthews today.  That would be 6 more years of playoff failures that you would have to come on to this site and say that you've been saying it all along how Matthews can't win it.

In Yzerman's case, there were multiple issues that lead to him not winning a cup till he was 31.  Some of the time it was because there were better teams in the conference around him.  Some of the time it was because the goalie they had on the team wasn't very good.  Some of the time, it was because he didn't play the right way in the playoffs.  He was almost traded out of Detroit because he couldn't get it done in the playoffs.  The popular theory is that Scotty Bowman came in and got Yzerman to commit to playing a different way.  Overall though, it wasn't till all of those problems were solved that Yzerman was able to win a cup. 

People have brought up Ovechkin before as well.  Ovechkin took a long time to win a cup.  He even sat down with Gretzky to ask what you have to do to win a cup.  A lot of the criticism levelled Ovechkin's way was that he tried to do too much himself come playoff time, and he took on too much responsibility and stopped playing a team game.  He eventually figured it out, and so did the team around him and they won a cup 14 years into his career. 

A lot of things have to go right for a team to win a cup.

I don't think you are getting what my biggest beef is. If the Leafs got to the finals and lost I would be upset but I wouldn't be totally disappointed with that. I understand it takes a lot for a team to go all the way.

The biggest thing I see with the 2 stars especially is their game doesn't elevate come playoff time and in retrospect it falters come playoff time. We can sit here and argue that we got goalies, someone might be injured but bottom line is these 2 have failed to show up in the playoffs. That is where my frustration lies. For those that think Matthews performance in these playoffs was suffice I'm sorry your wrong and why he is being called out on various forums and sites. Same goes for Marner. Players of this magnitude and pay scale should be more noticeable and taking over games. If it was a bad playoff we could live with that but we've seen this same script year after year. Again I had this debate with Nik when some of you bring up OV and how long it took him to finally win. Again it's not about hoisting the cup sure we would love to see it but it's the effort and progression and steps improving each playoff which we haven't seen. M&M are so skilled but for whatever reason they seem to not be able to handle the playoff pressure etc.

 

[Kin]

In Yzerman's case, there were multiple issues that lead to him not winning a cup till he was 31.  Some of the time it was because there were better teams in the conference around him.  Some of the time it was because the goalie they had on the team wasn't very good.  Some of the time, it was because he didn't play the right way in the playoffs.  He was almost traded out of Detroit because he couldn't get it done in the playoffs.  The popular theory is that Scotty Bowman came in and got Yzerman to commit to playing a different way.  Overall though, it wasn't till all of those problems were solved that Yzerman was able to win a cup. 

People have brought up Ovechkin before as well.  Ovechkin took a long time to win a cup.  He even sat down with Gretzky to ask what you have to do to win a cup.  A lot of the criticism levelled Ovechkin's way was that he tried to do too much himself come playoff time, and he took on too much responsibility and stopped playing a team game.  He eventually figured it out, and so did the team around him and they won a cup 14 years into his career. 

A lot of things have to go right for a team to win a cup.

So I think that while this is mostly correct I still think that presenting these cup wins as largely a by-product of individual changes Yzerman or Ovechkin made is maybe buying a little bit too much into the idea that there's a right way to play to win a cup or a certain mindset that you need to have. I don't want to say there's absolutely nothing of substance to the supposed Bowman conversation or whatever it may have been that Gretzky said but I'm not sure there's a really good case for it to be a significant and meaningful factor either.

The Red Wings teams that Yzerman won cups with were absurdly talented. They won the way almost every pre-lockout team won. Multiple HOFers at the centre position. HOFers on Defense and Wing as well. That was basically the bare minimum for cup winning then. Sure occasionally a fluke happened and a team with a top 5 all time goalie(Roy, Brodeur) took a less talented team to a cup but for the most part unless your #2 C was a guy like Forsberg, Fedorov, Francis or Nieuwendyk you weren't winning a cup. Don't have a Bourque, Lidstrom or Niedermayer on Defense? Tough luck. The 2002 Team Yzerman won a cup with, their top 9 scorers had 8 guys in the HOF and 1 guy who'll be there eventually(Datsyuk). Sure, maybe Yzerman playing tough nosed defense helped them get by other absurdly talented teams but it's not like that was really a pre-requisite for the other teams who won. The top C's in those days with Cups to their names were all great but stylistically they were varied. Lemieux wasn't like Forsberg who wasn't like Modano.

These days, of course, it's a little different. There aren't wild talent differences between teams. Sure some teams are a little better than others but usually it's a trade off. One team has more star power, the other has better depth. One team has better puck movers, the other has more physicality. Goaltending can be the difference but goaltending tends to be pretty unpredictable.

So did Ovechkin just flip a switch and learn Playoff hockey? Maybe. In the three playoffs prior to winning the cup he had just 29 points in 39 playoff games. Not a great total for an all-time great. Then, boom, he wins the cup with 15 goals and 27 points in 24 games full of that Gretzky knowledge.

But then what? Did he forget what Gretzky told him? Still hungover? In the four playoffs post the cup Ovechkin is back at under a PPG and they get out of the first round just once where they immediately get rolled in the 2nd round by a significantly lesser Islanders team.

Sure, there are obviously other factors. The Caps were less good as a team post-cup. Ovechkin aged somewhat. But I think if you look at the broader landscape of great players in the post-lockout era you keep coming back to a pretty common an inescapable pattern. There is no switch that certain guys turn on to be especially good come playoff time or hidden knowledge. Everyone plays their best in the playoffs and sometimes they get good results and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they get tough matchups, sometimes they don't.

Sid Crosby is probably a top 10 player of all-time with just about every possible measurable that says he's someone who can play well in crunch time. Conn Smythe Trophy? 2 of them. Big goals when it matters? Who can forget Vancouver. Get named Captain everywhere he goes? Sure.

But even Crosby has had stretches where he doesn't produce in the playoffs and the Penguins get whooped. It happens. It happens to just about everyone. Patrick Kane, Evgeni Malkin, Steven Stamkos. All the cups they've won prove they can be good in the playoffs but sometimes? They just don't get it done. Heck we just saw Ryan O'Reilly, for all the "playoff warrior" talk, be just as ineffective in the 2nd round as anyone else. 

The problem is everyone has this argument backwards. They infer narrative from results with only slightly more sophistication than the guy who busts out hitting on a couple of 12s thinking the deck he was playing must have more face cards in it than other decks. Guys are playoff warriors because they've won and they're not if they lost. There's nothing more to what the loud and dumb are saying than that. There's no sophisticated analysis. No meaningful examination of anything physical or psychological lacking. Just "eye of the tiger" nonsense built around rolling craps a few times in a row.

 

[dappleganger]

Imagine if Tampa Bay blew up their core after tying the record for most wins in a season and getting swept in the first round in 2019...

Playoffs are weird sometimes. All you can do is put yourself in the best position to win. Keeping all of Matthews, Marner, and Nylander is most likely the best route for that, barring something unforeseen.

 

[rdowdall]

In Yzerman's case, there were multiple issues that lead to him not winning a cup till he was 31.  Some of the time it was because there were better teams in the conference around him.  Some of the time it was because the goalie they had on the team wasn't very good.  Some of the time, it was because he didn't play the right way in the playoffs.  He was almost traded out of Detroit because he couldn't get it done in the playoffs.  The popular theory is that Scotty Bowman came in and got Yzerman to commit to playing a different way.  Overall though, it wasn't till all of those problems were solved that Yzerman was able to win a cup. 

People have brought up Ovechkin before as well.  Ovechkin took a long time to win a cup.  He even sat down with Gretzky to ask what you have to do to win a cup.  A lot of the criticism levelled Ovechkin's way was that he tried to do too much himself come playoff time, and he took on too much responsibility and stopped playing a team game.  He eventually figured it out, and so did the team around him and they won a cup 14 years into his career. 

A lot of things have to go right for a team to win a cup.

So I think that while this is mostly correct I still think that presenting these cup wins as largely a by-product of individual changes Yzerman or Ovechkin made is maybe buying a little bit too much into the idea that there's a right way to play to win a cup or a certain mindset that you need to have. I don't want to say there's absolutely nothing of substance to the supposed Bowman conversation or whatever it may have been that Gretzky said but I'm not sure there's a really good case for it to be a significant and meaningful factor either.

The Red Wings teams that Yzerman won cups with were absurdly talented. They won the way almost every pre-lockout team won. Multiple HOFers at the centre position. HOFers on Defense and Wing as well. That was basically the bare minimum for cup winning then. Sure occasionally a fluke happened and a team with a top 5 all time goalie(Roy, Brodeur) took a less talented team to a cup but for the most part unless your #2 C was a guy like Forsberg, Fedorov, Francis or Nieuwendyk you weren't winning a cup. Don't have a Bourque, Lidstrom or Niedermayer on Defense? Tough luck. The 2002 Team Yzerman won a cup with, their top 9 scorers had 8 guys in the HOF and 1 guy who'll be there eventually(Datsyuk). Sure, maybe Yzerman playing tough nosed defense helped them get by other absurdly talented teams but it's not like that was really a pre-requisite for the other teams who won. The top C's in those days with Cups to their names were all great but stylistically they were varied. Lemieux wasn't like Forsberg who wasn't like Modano.

These days, of course, it's a little different. There aren't wild talent differences between teams. Sure some teams are a little better than others but usually it's a trade off. One team has more star power, the other has better depth. One team has better puck movers, the other has more physicality. Goaltending can be the difference but goaltending tends to be pretty unpredictable.

So did Ovechkin just flip a switch and learn Playoff hockey? Maybe. In the three playoffs prior to winning the cup he had just 29 points in 39 playoff games. Not a great total for an all-time great. Then, boom, he wins the cup with 15 goals and 27 points in 24 games full of that Gretzky knowledge.

But then what? Did he forget what Gretzky told him? Still hungover? In the four playoffs post the cup Ovechkin is back at under a PPG and they get out of the first round just once where they immediately get rolled in the 2nd round by a significantly lesser Islanders team.

Sure, there are obviously other factors. The Caps were less good as a team post-cup. Ovechkin aged somewhat. But I think if you look at the broader landscape of great players in the post-lockout era you keep coming back to a pretty common an inescapable pattern. There is no switch that certain guys turn on to be especially good come playoff time or hidden knowledge. Everyone plays their best in the playoffs and sometimes they get good results and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they get tough matchups, sometimes they don't.

Sid Crosby is probably a top 10 player of all-time with just about every possible measurable that says he's someone who can play well in crunch time. Conn Smythe Trophy? 2 of them. Big goals when it matters? Who can forget Vancouver. Get named Captain everywhere he goes? Sure.

But even Crosby has had stretches where he doesn't produce in the playoffs and the Penguins get whooped. It happens. It happens to just about everyone. Patrick Kane, Evgeni Malkin, Steven Stamkos. All the cups they've won prove they can be good in the playoffs but sometimes? They just don't get it done. Heck we just saw Ryan O'Reilly, for all the "playoff warrior" talk, be just as ineffective in the 2nd round as anyone else. 

The problem is everyone has this argument backwards. They infer narrative from results with only slightly more sophistication than the guy who busts out hitting on a couple of 12s thinking the deck he was playing must have more face cards in it than other decks. Guys are playoff warriors because they've won and they're not if they lost. There's nothing more to what the loud and dumb are saying than that. There's no sophisticated analysis. No meaningful examination of anything physical or psychological lacking. Just "eye of the tiger" nonsense built around rolling craps a few times in a row.

Thanks Nik, the point that I was trying to make was that the narrative that somehow players don't have it in their mental makeup to win is flawed.  I just didn't explain it well. 

There are several factors that go into winning a cup.  Sometimes players do have to change their playstyle a little bit for the playoffs to compete at the level the playoffs present, and that change in playstyle can take several years to accomplish.  The player has to understand what pressure can now be applied to them because they are now playing the same team every second night, and the refs aren't going to make the same calls they did in the regular season, so some of those plays you got away with in the regular season aren't going to work in the playoffs.  Things like that change the way the game is played.  Some players games are just suited to it, some others have to learn and adapt.  Adaptation takes time.  As they adapt they will become more effective in the playoffs, but even if they adapt fully, and understand how they can be the most effective in the playoffs, they can't overcome team shortcomings that will sink their chances of winning, like shoddy defence, or a goalie that lets in soft goals.  When it all comes together though, then that's when you win the cup.   

That's why I mentioned that in the Red Wings case, the team also had to make changes, as well as the player had to have some growth, but neither of those teams changes involved trading away a player whose talent level allows them to score 60+ goals in the regular season.

I also think that it's convenient to place all of the teams failures over the last 7 seasons on two players, when each of them have provided memorable games where they stepped up in the playoffs and pushed the team a game further, but because the Leaf's as a team haven't made it to where they want to, it's all on Matthews and Marner.  I get it, they make a lot of money.  I'm sure if someone told them "Hey just do this and it will guarantee you a cup", they would do it.  The problem is that no one can make that guarantee.  It's like people forget the good things, and only want to focus on the failures because that is the last thing that they are left with each season.

It's like the Dan Marino argument.  Some fans out there believe that Dan Marino wasn't a good quarterback because he couldn't get it done in the Super Bowl.  Was he really a bad QB, or was it just that the Dolphins wouldn't bring in a coach that would limit his pass attempts late in the game when they were winning, or spend on a running back to run the clock down?

 

[azzurri63]

In Yzerman's case, there were multiple issues that lead to him not winning a cup till he was 31.  Some of the time it was because there were better teams in the conference around him.  Some of the time it was because the goalie they had on the team wasn't very good.  Some of the time, it was because he didn't play the right way in the playoffs.  He was almost traded out of Detroit because he couldn't get it done in the playoffs.  The popular theory is that Scotty Bowman came in and got Yzerman to commit to playing a different way.  Overall though, it wasn't till all of those problems were solved that Yzerman was able to win a cup. 

People have brought up Ovechkin before as well.  Ovechkin took a long time to win a cup.  He even sat down with Gretzky to ask what you have to do to win a cup.  A lot of the criticism levelled Ovechkin's way was that he tried to do too much himself come playoff time, and he took on too much responsibility and stopped playing a team game.  He eventually figured it out, and so did the team around him and they won a cup 14 years into his career. 

A lot of things have to go right for a team to win a cup.

So I think that while this is mostly correct I still think that presenting these cup wins as largely a by-product of individual changes Yzerman or Ovechkin made is maybe buying a little bit too much into the idea that there's a right way to play to win a cup or a certain mindset that you need to have. I don't want to say there's absolutely nothing of substance to the supposed Bowman conversation or whatever it may have been that Gretzky said but I'm not sure there's a really good case for it to be a significant and meaningful factor either.

The Red Wings teams that Yzerman won cups with were absurdly talented. They won the way almost every pre-lockout team won. Multiple HOFers at the centre position. HOFers on Defense and Wing as well. That was basically the bare minimum for cup winning then. Sure occasionally a fluke happened and a team with a top 5 all time goalie(Roy, Brodeur) took a less talented team to a cup but for the most part unless your #2 C was a guy like Forsberg, Fedorov, Francis or Nieuwendyk you weren't winning a cup. Don't have a Bourque, Lidstrom or Niedermayer on Defense? Tough luck. The 2002 Team Yzerman won a cup with, their top 9 scorers had 8 guys in the HOF and 1 guy who'll be there eventually(Datsyuk). Sure, maybe Yzerman playing tough nosed defense helped them get by other absurdly talented teams but it's not like that was really a pre-requisite for the other teams who won. The top C's in those days with Cups to their names were all great but stylistically they were varied. Lemieux wasn't like Forsberg who wasn't like Modano.

These days, of course, it's a little different. There aren't wild talent differences between teams. Sure some teams are a little better than others but usually it's a trade off. One team has more star power, the other has better depth. One team has better puck movers, the other has more physicality. Goaltending can be the difference but goaltending tends to be pretty unpredictable.

So did Ovechkin just flip a switch and learn Playoff hockey? Maybe. In the three playoffs prior to winning the cup he had just 29 points in 39 playoff games. Not a great total for an all-time great. Then, boom, he wins the cup with 15 goals and 27 points in 24 games full of that Gretzky knowledge.

But then what? Did he forget what Gretzky told him? Still hungover? In the four playoffs post the cup Ovechkin is back at under a PPG and they get out of the first round just once where they immediately get rolled in the 2nd round by a significantly lesser Islanders team.

Sure, there are obviously other factors. The Caps were less good as a team post-cup. Ovechkin aged somewhat. But I think if you look at the broader landscape of great players in the post-lockout era you keep coming back to a pretty common an inescapable pattern. There is no switch that certain guys turn on to be especially good come playoff time or hidden knowledge. Everyone plays their best in the playoffs and sometimes they get good results and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they get tough matchups, sometimes they don't.

Sid Crosby is probably a top 10 player of all-time with just about every possible measurable that says he's someone who can play well in crunch time. Conn Smythe Trophy? 2 of them. Big goals when it matters? Who can forget Vancouver. Get named Captain everywhere he goes? Sure.

But even Crosby has had stretches where he doesn't produce in the playoffs and the Penguins get whooped. It happens. It happens to just about everyone. Patrick Kane, Evgeni Malkin, Steven Stamkos. All the cups they've won prove they can be good in the playoffs but sometimes? They just don't get it done. Heck we just saw Ryan O'Reilly, for all the "playoff warrior" talk, be just as ineffective in the 2nd round as anyone else. 

The problem is everyone has this argument backwards. They infer narrative from results with only slightly more sophistication than the guy who busts out hitting on a couple of 12s thinking the deck he was playing must have more face cards in it than other decks. Guys are playoff warriors because they've won and they're not if they lost. There's nothing more to what the loud and dumb are saying than that. There's no sophisticated analysis. No meaningful examination of anything physical or psychological lacking. Just "eye of the tiger" nonsense built around rolling craps a few times in a row.

Thanks Nik, the point that I was trying to make was that the narrative that somehow players don't have it in their mental makeup to win is flawed.  I just didn't explain it well. 

There are several factors that go into winning a cup.  Sometimes players do have to change their playstyle a little bit for the playoffs to compete at the level the playoffs present, and that change in playstyle can take several years to accomplish.  The player has to understand what pressure can now be applied to them because they are now playing the same team every second night, and the refs aren't going to make the same calls they did in the regular season, so some of those plays you got away with in the regular season aren't going to work in the playoffs.  Things like that change the way the game is played.  Some players games are just suited to it, some others have to learn and adapt.  Adaptation takes time.  As they adapt they will become more effective in the playoffs, but even if they adapt fully, and understand how they can be the most effective in the playoffs, they can't overcome team shortcomings that will sink their chances of winning, like shoddy defence, or a goalie that lets in soft goals.  When it all comes together though, then that's when you win the cup.   

That's why I mentioned that in the Red Wings case, the team also had to make changes, as well as the player had to have some growth, but neither of those teams changes involved trading away a player whose talent level allows them to score 60+ goals in the regular season.

I also think that it's convenient to place all of the teams failures over the last 7 seasons on two players, when each of them have provided memorable games where they stepped up in the playoffs and pushed the team a game further, but because the Leaf's as a team haven't made it to where they want to, it's all on Matthews and Marner.  I get it, they make a lot of money.  I'm sure if someone told them "Hey just do this and it will guarantee you a cup", they would do it.  The problem is that no one can make that guarantee.  It's like people forget the good things, and only want to focus on the failures because that is the last thing that they are left with each season.

It's like the Dan Marino argument.  Some fans out there believe that Dan Marino wasn't a good quarterback because he couldn't get it done in the Super Bowl.  Was he really a bad QB, or was it just that the Dolphins wouldn't bring in a coach that would limit his pass attempts late in the game when they were winning, or spend on a running back to run the clock down?

I agree with a lot of your comments here. Question I ask you is

a) Sometimes players do have to change their playstyle a little bit for the playoffs to compete at the level the playoffs present, and that change in playstyle can take several years to accomplish.

Yes I agree with that but 1 do you see that happening with the big two and 2) how long do you wait to see they don't have it. Personally I've seen enough where I don't see that happening.

b) I also think that it's convenient to place all of the teams failures over the last 7 seasons on two players, when each of them have provided memorable games where they stepped up in the playoffs and pushed the team a game further.

It's not on just them but you also state they make a lot of money and that's exactly why they shoulder the blame. As far as stepping it up it's not like they've been totally non existent but they need to bring that every game. Too many games they do not show up or are invisible. Regular season you can live with that but playoffs that can't happen. 

 

[Kin]

I also think that it's convenient to place all of the teams failures over the last 7 seasons on two players, when each of them have provided memorable games where they stepped up in the playoffs and pushed the team a game further.

This is a perfect example of how what you're saying makes such little sense. In order to make this statement you need to be the sort of person who sees what the Leafs did in 2016-2017, where as a group of rookies without much in the way of depth the current core took the Leafs to the playoffs and took a very good Washington team to 6 games as "a failure". It is not a realistic or reasonable interpretation of events.

It's not on just them but you also state they make a lot of money and that's exactly why they shoulder the blame. As far as stepping it up it's not like they've been totally non existent but they need to bring that every game.

Again, this is not a reasonable or realistic concept of how hockey works. Nobody is good every game. Not Crosby, Not Ovechkin, Not McDavid. Everyone has off nights, especially in the playoffs where the level of competition is higher.

You are judging them against an entirely fictitious standard that in no way resembles reality.

 

[azzurri63]

I also think that it's convenient to place all of the teams failures over the last 7 seasons on two players, when each of them have provided memorable games where they stepped up in the playoffs and pushed the team a game further.

This is a perfect example of how what you're saying makes such little sense. In order to make this statement you need to be the sort of person who sees what the Leafs did in 2016-2017, where as a group of rookies without much in the way of depth the current core took the Leafs to the playoffs and took a very good Washington team to 6 games as "a failure". It is not a realistic or reasonable interpretation of events.

It's not on just them but you also state they make a lot of money and that's exactly why they shoulder the blame. As far as stepping it up it's not like they've been totally non existent but they need to bring that every game.

Again, this is not a reasonable or realistic concept of how hockey works. Nobody is good every game. Not Crosby, Not Ovechkin, Not McDavid. Everyone has off nights, especially in the playoffs where the level of competition is higher.

You are judging them against an entirely fictitious standard that in no way resembles reality.

Nik not sure of what you're saying. The first comment was not mine. I quoted on it and then commented on it. Secondly I agree with you as players can't be good every game but I think the concern is when they don't show up as was the case in Game 3 in the last round. You eluded on the site different forum I believe that we took that game to overtime and were ok with that. It didn't go to OT because of M&M as they were a complete no show that game. All we ask from a fans standpoint is a solid effort and you can't tell me you have seen that from the two stars every night. Fans aren't going to rag on Giordano, Kerfoot, Bunting etc for us losing the series. It falls on the guys that should be carrying the team who seem to disappear or regress come playoff time. Lesser players seem to elevate their game come playoffs should be the same for highly paid stars but it seems with M&M it regresses.

 

[rdowdall]

I agree with a lot of your comments here. Question I ask you is

a) Sometimes players do have to change their playstyle a little bit for the playoffs to compete at the level the playoffs present, and that change in playstyle can take several years to accomplish.

Yes I agree with that but 1 do you see that happening with the big two and 2) how long do you wait to see they don't have it. Personally I've seen enough where I don't see that happening.

I think it has already happened to a degree with some players.  Think back to the Montreal series and that horrible giveaway that Kerfoot made.  I haven't seen him do that since.  So he learned.  In the Florida series this year, Matthews bobbled the puck in game 2 which lead to one of the goals for their comeback.  Was that bad luck, or was it Matthews trying to do too much in that situation?  Could he have made a different play, or was it the play by Marner that put him in that situation, and he was screwed once the decision was made to pass him the puck?  I don't know but that is the sort of play that maybe doesn't get made in the future, and rather than forcing a play that isn't there, the puck just gets dumped out.  That would be an area where a player could adapt their play style to be a little more conservative.

One of the areas of growth that I have seen from Matthews is he doesn't try those little behind-the-back passes into the slot in the defensive end anymore.  That's good.  Those definitely didn't fly in the playoffs. So there is growth there. Do I think they can grow a little more, and become a little better?  Yeah, I do.  They aren't even 26 yet, so I do think they have some years to grow as human beings if not hockey players.  I know the person I am today is different than the person I was at 26.

One thing with this though is it isn't a binary, on/off thing.  Some games will be good games and some games will be bad games.  I have good days and bad days, and no amount of money is going to change that for me, so I can't expect it from others either.

Look a Draisaitl against Vegas in round 2.  He scores 6 goals in the first two games and then goes goalless in the next 4.  He had a bad game.  I don't see anyone questioning his desire to win but he went goalless for exactly one less game than Matthews and Tavares.     

I think as long as the players are committed to improving, and learning, and are willing to try and change things in order to win, then you stick with them, because that is the only thing that the player actually controls in this situation.

b) I also think that it's convenient to place all of the teams failures over the last 7 seasons on two players, when each of them have provided memorable games where they stepped up in the playoffs and pushed the team a game further.

It's not on just them but you also state they make a lot of money and that's exactly why they shoulder the blame. As far as stepping it up it's not like they've been totally non existent but they need to bring that every game. Too many games they do not show up or are invisible. Regular season you can live with that but playoffs that can't happen. 

I'll have to disagree with you on this.  I just don't believe that it is possible for a human being to be at 100% all the time.  Sometimes a player is injured, and sometimes a player is sick.  Or maybe there is some family thing weighing on them, or maybe they got broken up with, or are thinking of proposing.  Life happens to everyone, even athletes.  No amount of money can take that away.  So as much as they are committed to trying to be the best they can be all the time, it just isn't something that is feasible.  They will have bad games or a stretch of bad games.  It's the commitment to the game as a whole that I think needs to be measured, and I think both Matthews and Marner have shown that commitment to date. 

But even then, I don't attribute the failures in the second round this year to the Leafs playing that badly.  Game 3 was bad, yes, but not the whole series.  Game 1, I think it was a hangover situation, and they emotionally couldn't get up for the game.  That happens to every team, not just the Leafs.  Game 2, they came out and gave it everything they had to win, and you had the couple of plays that happened in the second.  Were those mistakes?  Yes. Was it because of a lack of caring, or a lack of trying?  I don't think so, I think they just made mistakes.  Game 3 they were bad.  Worst time to have a bad game, but that could have been for a number of reasons.  Could be that they were fragile because of game 2, could have been they weren't prepared enough.  I wasn't in the room, so I don't really know.  Game 4 they played a near-perfect game and won by 1 goal.  That to me is the telling stat of the series.  The Leafs played about as good a game as a team can, and they won by one goal. 

Game 5, they lost in overtime after coming back to tie it after being down by two early.  So even though they could have given up, they didn't, which I think shows some character.

So overall I think there are positives from the year to build on, and I think you maybe change the coach to see if that change can get you different results.  If there is a deal to be made to get another really good defenseman in the top 4, then you look into that.  But I am not actively looking to trade Matthews or Marner just because of the way the season ended.