Dreakmur
Registered User
Confirming opinions based merely on the presence of opposing positions is pretty interesting, and concerning.
It's just more data.
Confirming opinions based merely on the presence of opposing positions is pretty interesting, and concerning.
You mean kind of what other teams impose on the Leafs?There seems to be a lack of understanding with Dubas/Keefe that the harder you make life for the other team with physical play, chip and chase, cycle game and other annoyances that burn up the clock, the less scoring and active defending you have to do. The more you wear out the opposition in the attrition, the less gas they have for counter attacking, late game rallies and other nonsense that has hurt the Leafs closeout.
Do the hardest work earliest and protect your advantage throughout the game.
So you think hard to play against means licking faces, picking fights and actions that intend to injure?The main issue in that post was that the individual was attempting to speak for an entire group of people, and apply his own personal feelings to them.
But it is also untrue that we are "soft" and "easy to play against". The idea that it's "easy to play against" one of the top teams in the league is laughable.
As for the whole "soft" thing, some people just don't realize or refuse to accept that the game has changed in the last 30 years, and what they're expecting is not a reality for any team.
We are less physical than some teams, because we prioritize positioning and possession, and have the puck more than most teams. We don't try to injure people, and we don't lick people's faces. We don't go out looking to pick fights. But that doesn't make a team "soft". If we are in a rough and tumble type of games, like the Winnipeg game, we can handle things just fine and dish some out ourselves.
Weird post, considering that not only did I answer both posts in question, but I also answered your similar question earlier in the thread (which you actually avoided responding to).
Your two statements contradict each other. We're not easy to play against, and if you think my description sums it up, that only means that the label is irrelevant and does not represent anything of actual concern.We are easy to play against. Difficult to outscore. And he was right, you summed it up perfectly.
You could say that about any number of players across the league. In hindsight, it would have been a good get, but we had already placed our bets on that kind of player months prior to Perry realizing his actual worth, and I'm not sure what it accomplishes to look up all of the best free agent outcomes with hindsight and then get upset that your GM didn't do all of them.At $750,000 there was no risk with Perry, there was no downside... It could have been accommodated and we wouldn't have needed Galchenyuk later that season.
No, I don't think that. That's why I said pretty much the exact opposite. Unfortunately, some people do think those type of displays are relevant, as is even seen in the responses to that post.So you think hard to play against means licking faces, picking fights and actions that intend to injure?
You mean kind of what other teams impose on the Leafs?
You'd honestly think they'd look more into the type of game that beats them a lot (by far less talented teams in the playoffs at that) but no.
I'm pretty sure any person who replaces Dubie will be able to slide a blank contract across the table and hope he fills it in and signs .Might be close to time to pulling the plug on Dubas given how the Leafs seem to not have any stable part to them. The only real reasons for keeping him is it's an inconvenient time to find a replacement and who will negotiate the Matthews deal.
He'll be remembered as one of the biggest mistakes in the organization's history. Which he is.
He's gonna be the poster boy for not letting people with no experience get big gigs
If we lose tommorrow we're 4-5-1 with our starting goalie having played 1 game and broken into glass
Our 1B is playing good but he's not a 60 game starter
Our current backup is a starting ECHL goalie
I cant believe in what will probably be his last offseason running the team, his big move was Matt Murray.
Dubas going out sad damn.
Whoever the fk is in charge of the pro scouting department should be fired.
But that's why it will be his last season.
The team needed a shakeup. Like, even if you're not trading one of the big 4 move Kerfoot, Holl .. some complimentary guy.
But nothing. Team looks uninspired.
But that's why it will be his last season.
The team needed a shakeup. Like, even if you're not trading one of the big 4 move Kerfoot, Holl .. some complimentary guy.
But nothing. Team looks uninspired.
It would be an interesting mid season moves - try and find a hockey trade for say each of Holl and Kerfoot. At the very least signals to the core that things can't continue
Let’s call it SkynetI think we need to be the first team to have an AI GM. It's our only hope.
I think a real message would be a hockey trade at the Rielly, Nylander level. Rielly is quietly a defensive tire fire who doesn't seem capable of providing the transition game for the offense...
But I don't think we need to send messages. Just take a step back and retool the organization on more foundational principles. We've reached a dead end.