The media predictions for the Leafs.
- Thread starter Ronco
- Start date
BlueWhiteBlood
New member
Zee said:
I have no passion for Simmons and could care less what he says, but carry on....
Alright, I'll play ball. Forgive any lapses in grammar and sentence structure - currently at work 
I'm not sure how improving offensive numbers necessarily means Wilson isn't trying to instill defensive responsibility in his players. He's said on a number of occassions that he wants his players to backcheck and be defensively responsible. Offense and defense aren't mutually exclusive. And the GF/GA differential is improved by Reimer playing better than .900 hockey, which I think he's capable of doing based on his play and his demeanor. Whether offense takes "riskier" plays is different from "defense joining in offense."
I think this is not a face value statement. I think he's taking a stab at both players. Players get let go and picked up all the time, so this shouldn't be a value statement on the player.
Ok, tempering expectations. This is fine, but Connolly as a first line player is more than a marginal upgrade on Bozak. Lombardi adds depth that make the Leafs a pretty good team 1-9. They won't be breaking records but I don't think the team sinks like a stone either. A better analysis, in my mind, would be there is a better chance of the Leafs making the playoffs this year with this group of forwards, than last year with last year's group of forwards. To what degree? I'm not sure it's easily quantifiable, but GF/GA differential should be closing due to more balanced and depth offense, Reimer playing a full season, and a dedication to backchecking. Will it be enough? I'm not sure, but I think at the very least it's a step forward rather than a step back.
So Liles ISN'T a one trick pony? He can score when he's NOT on the PP as well? Not much issue with this paragraph. He was brought in to replace Kaberle as a puck moving, offensive defenseman. Finishing 9th in even strength points by a defenseman is fine by me, and I don't think it matters a whole lot that Kaberle had six more pts on the PP to be quite honest. We have more depth on the backend offensively this year which should help distribute the load.
Fair enough, but I thought the whole point of the analysis is the team THIS year, not the team last year, or the year before, or criticizing Brian Burke sound bytes. Have they addressed their needs? Yes, to some degree they have. Are the moves they made perfect? Not a chance, they did not bring in Brad Richards which, it seems, the organization coveted. There's no guarantee they'll make the playoffs much like the shocking swan dive of the Devils only to see them go on an almost unimaginable hot streak.
But the whole point of the analysis should've been this: Do the Leafs, all things being equal, have a better shot at making the playoffs this year? Like I said in a post yesterday: While not perfect, the Leafs have addressed most of their needs. 1C is locked with a player who has approached a PPG pace in the past. This pushes Bozak to the third line - a line which we'll see greater chemistry and scoring depth from this year. The second line may regress but it'll still be a thorn in the side of opposing teams. Therefore, we have offensive depth on the forwards.
We're gambling on our defense a little bit by being more offensive minded at the possible risk of defense. However, Phaneuf, Komi and Schenn are still available as puck clearing defensemen, so it may not be that big of an issue. The logic is Reimer has shown that he is able to make up for defensive gaps better than any goaltender we've seen since the lockout - this is also a calculated risk, however it could also maximize our GF/GA differential assuming Reimer plays up to his capabilities.
Do they have a shot? Based on what I stated above I would say they end up no lower than 10th spot and no higher than 6th.
In the end I would argue that Simmons' perspective, while could be logical, takes a very harsh look at things. I wouldn't necessarily call it reality unless both good possibility and bad possibility are weighed against each other. It's a bit of a misnomer to say his views are based on 100% objectivity, or "reality." They're based on a very colored version of reality, and I think the truth, more than likely, lies somewhere in between his version of reality and the "Be-leaf" version.
I'm not sure how improving offensive numbers necessarily means Wilson isn't trying to instill defensive responsibility in his players. He's said on a number of occassions that he wants his players to backcheck and be defensively responsible. Offense and defense aren't mutually exclusive. And the GF/GA differential is improved by Reimer playing better than .900 hockey, which I think he's capable of doing based on his play and his demeanor. Whether offense takes "riskier" plays is different from "defense joining in offense."
I think this is not a face value statement. I think he's taking a stab at both players. Players get let go and picked up all the time, so this shouldn't be a value statement on the player.
Ok, tempering expectations. This is fine, but Connolly as a first line player is more than a marginal upgrade on Bozak. Lombardi adds depth that make the Leafs a pretty good team 1-9. They won't be breaking records but I don't think the team sinks like a stone either. A better analysis, in my mind, would be there is a better chance of the Leafs making the playoffs this year with this group of forwards, than last year with last year's group of forwards. To what degree? I'm not sure it's easily quantifiable, but GF/GA differential should be closing due to more balanced and depth offense, Reimer playing a full season, and a dedication to backchecking. Will it be enough? I'm not sure, but I think at the very least it's a step forward rather than a step back.
Franson >>>> Lebda. Regardless, he's still a very young defenseman and he was the price tag fixed to taking Lombardi's contract. There's nothing wrong with a PP specialist to add more offense from the back end. He's still very young and ought to be coachable in the defensive side of the game as well. The concern I have is we may have one too many offensive defensemen on our team but its a nice problem to have when the organization has at least 7 NHL ready defensemen.
So Liles ISN'T a one trick pony? He can score when he's NOT on the PP as well? Not much issue with this paragraph. He was brought in to replace Kaberle as a puck moving, offensive defenseman. Finishing 9th in even strength points by a defenseman is fine by me, and I don't think it matters a whole lot that Kaberle had six more pts on the PP to be quite honest. We have more depth on the backend offensively this year which should help distribute the load.
Fair enough, but I thought the whole point of the analysis is the team THIS year, not the team last year, or the year before, or criticizing Brian Burke sound bytes. Have they addressed their needs? Yes, to some degree they have. Are the moves they made perfect? Not a chance, they did not bring in Brad Richards which, it seems, the organization coveted. There's no guarantee they'll make the playoffs much like the shocking swan dive of the Devils only to see them go on an almost unimaginable hot streak.
But the whole point of the analysis should've been this: Do the Leafs, all things being equal, have a better shot at making the playoffs this year? Like I said in a post yesterday: While not perfect, the Leafs have addressed most of their needs. 1C is locked with a player who has approached a PPG pace in the past. This pushes Bozak to the third line - a line which we'll see greater chemistry and scoring depth from this year. The second line may regress but it'll still be a thorn in the side of opposing teams. Therefore, we have offensive depth on the forwards.
We're gambling on our defense a little bit by being more offensive minded at the possible risk of defense. However, Phaneuf, Komi and Schenn are still available as puck clearing defensemen, so it may not be that big of an issue. The logic is Reimer has shown that he is able to make up for defensive gaps better than any goaltender we've seen since the lockout - this is also a calculated risk, however it could also maximize our GF/GA differential assuming Reimer plays up to his capabilities.
Do they have a shot? Based on what I stated above I would say they end up no lower than 10th spot and no higher than 6th.
In the end I would argue that Simmons' perspective, while could be logical, takes a very harsh look at things. I wouldn't necessarily call it reality unless both good possibility and bad possibility are weighed against each other. It's a bit of a misnomer to say his views are based on 100% objectivity, or "reality." They're based on a very colored version of reality, and I think the truth, more than likely, lies somewhere in between his version of reality and the "Be-leaf" version.
bustaheims
Well-known member
I'm not a fan of Simmons in the slightest. I think he's a lazy writer, intentionally overly pessimistic in order to create controversy, makes stunning leaps in logic and/or interpretation and he's inevitably hypocritical . . . which brings me to my real issues with this article:
While I don't really have much of an issue with analysis of the East, as it's close to mine (though, I think he's being awfully kind to Winnipeg and over-estimating where the Islanders are on the rebuilding path), my issue is the route he takes to get there. When Wilson says the playoffs are "doable," he's right and he's not saying anything more than that - this season's Leafs have enough talent to make the playoffs. That's it. Simmons somehow twists this into someone espousing the beliefs that playoffs are a lock or a sure thing or whatever. That little tack on line at the end of the paragraph was completely unnecessary and really does nothing to reinforce his argument - it's already pretty clear that making the playoffs is no sure thing. I also feel like he used this section to takes shots at the fans, invoke 1967 and so on. There's a fair amount of unnecessary here.
However, what irks me the most is that I know if the Leafs miss the playoffs, he will lambaste them to no end. That is his M.O., after all. He'll chide them for not even having the smallest modicum of success and so on, yet, here, he's raising the bar of what making the playoffs means. He goes out of his way to call earning the 8th spot an accomplishment and not a sure thing - which, granted, has a large degree of truth to it, but, it's also something I'm confident he'll conveniently forget if the Leafs don't make the playoffs this spring. At the end of the day, this is my biggest issue with Simmons and this article. He's setting himself up for his inevitable hypocrisy - something he could have very easily avoided by simply omitting those final two sentences.
While I don't really have much of an issue with analysis of the East, as it's close to mine (though, I think he's being awfully kind to Winnipeg and over-estimating where the Islanders are on the rebuilding path), my issue is the route he takes to get there. When Wilson says the playoffs are "doable," he's right and he's not saying anything more than that - this season's Leafs have enough talent to make the playoffs. That's it. Simmons somehow twists this into someone espousing the beliefs that playoffs are a lock or a sure thing or whatever. That little tack on line at the end of the paragraph was completely unnecessary and really does nothing to reinforce his argument - it's already pretty clear that making the playoffs is no sure thing. I also feel like he used this section to takes shots at the fans, invoke 1967 and so on. There's a fair amount of unnecessary here.
However, what irks me the most is that I know if the Leafs miss the playoffs, he will lambaste them to no end. That is his M.O., after all. He'll chide them for not even having the smallest modicum of success and so on, yet, here, he's raising the bar of what making the playoffs means. He goes out of his way to call earning the 8th spot an accomplishment and not a sure thing - which, granted, has a large degree of truth to it, but, it's also something I'm confident he'll conveniently forget if the Leafs don't make the playoffs this spring. At the end of the day, this is my biggest issue with Simmons and this article. He's setting himself up for his inevitable hypocrisy - something he could have very easily avoided by simply omitting those final two sentences.
Busta Reims said:
I also find it difficult to read into what he says. He'll say "this is truth" but say it with hints of insinuation, or facetiousness. How can you be definitive on what is sarcasm and what isn't in certain cases? For example, the last sentence: "Being eighth now is an accomplishment. And no sure thing." Is that sarcastic? Is he referencing Leafs fans after mentioning "almost celebrating mediocrity"? Is he being sincere? And where will he take it if the Leafs do or don't make the playoffs? If they do: They're in, but we shouldn't be excited. They're mediocre. If they don't: I told you so!
Kin
Active member
Bender said:
Except it absolutely is. If a team voluntarily walks away from a player it means something. I don't think he's "taking a stab" at both players so much as making the point that the paragraph focuses on. Both guys are good, but not great. To you and me, sure, that's stating the obvious but the reality is that Steve Simmons isn't writing these columns exclusively for the people who watch pre-season games and debate over who's the best option for the 4th line winger spot that's open.
Bender said:
All of those statements are fine but, and I think you'd have to agree, none of them are set in stone. Someone taking the opposite perspective on these moves has validity to their argument as well and is no more being overly pessimistic than you are being blinded by blue and white glasses or whatever.
Like you and me have said recently, nothing that the Leafs have done this summer is a sure thing which means a lot of viewpoints about them are valid.
Bender said:
There are literally dozens of things Simmons could have written that would have been more in-depth than what he did write. Problem is this is an 800 word newspaper column. An indepth analysis of the Leafs playoff chances would require more space than that even before you got to the point that any Leafs' improvements or regressions would have to be put into context alongside the other teams in the conference and their improvements and regressions. That this piece isn't that isn't necessarily a flaw so much as it is a reality of the medium. Again, I don't think a hockey column in the Sun is the place any of us die-hards should be expecting to see comprehensive analysis.
Bender said:
One of the interesting things I thought about the Simmons article was that particular sentence regarding the Leafs "stealing" Lebda only because we had that same argument here not too long ago.
I don't know what the Leafs have in Franson. I don't know that any of us do. I don't even know what being better than Lebda means even if it is true. Lebda got 13 minutes a game in 41 games last year as the team's #7 defenseman(and a big chunk of that was because of injuries). An upgrade on him is probably going to be pretty marginal to the team's fortunes.
Either way, I think the point that Franson is still a question mark is a largely fair one. Slapping the Leafs on the back for that deal before he plays a game for the team is premature.
Bender said:
Again, I think the question of Liles vs. Kaberle on the PP is a fair one to ask and one I don't know the answer to. As said, Simmons doesn't even come out on one side or the other.
Bender said:
I think talking about this team, and the context of this team not having made the playoffs in some time, is fair when talking about the current state of the Leafs which, to me, is what the article is about.
Bender said:
Expecting an 800 word column to do that, or rather to expect every 800 word column to do that doesn't strike me as terribly reasonable. Especially when, as you essentially say yourself, any such effort would really only have him arrive at where he seems to be already. The best answer any of us can give is a firm maybe.
Bender said:
Like I said, there's nothing outlandish or sensationalistic here. There's not really any outright predictions either. This is an 800 word way of saying "maybe". While there are all manner of reasons to criticize that, to do so on the basis of not being tethered to reality is far more hyperbolic than anything that's in what Simmons actually wrote.
We can go back and forth as to whether Simmons take here is right, although we have no way of knowing, but there's nothing he says that stretches the limits of realism or is even definitive enough to be called a prediction. The criticism being leveled here isn't so much fact based as it seems to be about whether or not Simmons is sufficiently "positive". That's the sort of thing that makes a Leafs fan sound like a Sarah Palin supporter. Not all people who say "I don't think the Leafs will make the playoffs this year" are biased or crazy or unreasonable.
Kin
Active member
Busta Reims said:
That's interesting because, to me, that's one of the things he says that I think is really true and welcome to hear for a change from the 1967-obsessed Leafs media. Simmons says, to my mind anyway, the issue isn't 1967 but what's happened recently.
Busta Reims said:
I think you're being a little unfair here. To say that a team making the playoffs would be an accomplishment and isn't pre-ordained and then criticize them for not doing so isn't hypocritical. The Leafs not making the playoffs would still be a failing. That a playoff spot isn't a guarantee doesn't mean that if you try and fail, you're somehow off the hook for that failure because the failure was always a possibility.
I agree, if Simmons writes a subsequent article if the Leafs get knocked out the playoffs where he says something like "The Leafs didn't make the playoffs like they said they would, which makes the failure worse" then he'll be talking out of his butt. If he says "the Leafs didn't make the playoffs, another season of futility, despite ample chance to do so" then he'd be echoing, again, the sort of commonly held perception that they're in the running.
hockeyfan1
New member
I woudn't take Simmons' words too seriously at this point in time, for the simple reason that, the official NHL season has not begun yet, and it is still too early to tell, even in these few pre-season games that have been played, the overall Leafs picture, so to speak.
Simmons take will hold validity as the season unfolds and we begin to see just where the Leafs will be headed for.... hopefully, to negate Simmons' viewpoint... into the playoffs.
Simmons take will hold validity as the season unfolds and we begin to see just where the Leafs will be headed for.... hopefully, to negate Simmons' viewpoint... into the playoffs.
One question? why it it that even after a 29-29 season grabo is not classed as a #1 center. i think we have had a top center all along we just needed to wait for him to get to this point. i'm betting he improves on his numbers this season. and as for Simmons he is a typical to media writer, always down on there team, maybe some day they will do it right and get behind there team. the leafs will be better then eight this year.
J
Jalili
Guest
nutman said:
That's easy... there are 30 or more centers that are better than Grabovski.
maplesyrup
New member
Jalili said:
Yeah, I think Grabovski a real nice #2. Nobody should pretend he's anything more.
BlueWhiteBlood
New member
Floyd said:
So what would make him a #1? Is it points? Face-off ability? What?
maplesyrup
New member
BlueWhiteBlood said:
All of the above I think. Also, I'm still most interested to see if he can repeat last year's numbers.
BlueWhiteBlood
New member
Floyd said:
I wouldn't rule out improvement either though. I sensed finality in your response, as I think he can be more. Whether or not he is or reaches for a higher spot is another story, but I wouldn't be so quick to rule it out.
maplesyrup
New member
BlueWhiteBlood said:
I agree... but I'm not banking on it. It's kind of like Kessel. COULD he get 50 goals this year? It's not out of the question but I'm not banking on that either.