Auston Matthews Discussion Thread

[Gallagbi]

Marner, Matthew's and Rielly were the top 3 in shot contribution in the playoffs. The logical fallacy is that they weren't getting chances which they were in spades. A better analysis would be questioning why other lines weren't getting scoring chances with defense so concentrated on the first line. There is data available to show rushes and the transition from rushes to scoring chances. Goals are considered randomized events that correlate somewhat to scoring chances better than any other metric by far. A rush that dies regularly is where to look and those guys are not the worse on the team by quite a bit.

Agreed that the top line generated chances and quality ones at that, the lack of finish is what killed them. At the end of the day, that line is paid to outplay and outproduce a shutdown line, but they didn't.

 

[Notsince67]

Agreed that the top line generated chances and quality ones at that, the lack of finish is what killed them. At the end of the day, that line is paid to outplay and outproduce a shutdown line, but they didn't.

That is a very different thing than engagement. They were engaged. They were generating chances. By all accounts you can blame anyone in any industry with some end of the day, bottom line assessment on accountability but it is neither constructive nor interesting being the arbiter of such things beyond your willingness to continue watching or purchasing a product. If you believe that the reason that the substantial number of quality shots didnt go in because of some character flaw, you might as well buy a ouija board to help you make decisions about everything in life. Analytical acumen would not be your strong suit.

 

[Gallagbi]

That is a very different thing than engagement. They were engaged. They were generating chances. By all accounts you can blame anyone in any industry with some end of the day, bottom line assessment on accountability but it is neither constructive nor interesting being the arbiter of such things beyond your willingness to continue watching or purchasing a product. If you believe that the reason that the substantial number of quality shots didnt go in because of some character flaw, you might as well buy a ouija board to help you make decisions about everything in life. Analytical acumen would not be your strong suit.

Where did I say anything about engagement in the posts you quoted?

To expand, I don't for a second believe this core is content with losing and just want their pay day. I think it's a group feeling tremendous pressure and forcing/overthinking as a result. I thought we saw golden changes that didn't result in the quality of shot we typically get. Sometimes we had a rushed attempt that was flubbed with time and space. Others we saw players taking themselves out of those prime opportunities. And you also had the typical good saves, posts, general bad luck that often happens. None of that is lack of engagement for me.

 

[DarkKnight]

That is a very different thing than engagement. They were engaged. They were generating chances. By all accounts you can blame anyone in any industry with some end of the day, bottom line assessment on accountability but it is neither constructive nor interesting being the arbiter of such things beyond your willingness to continue watching or purchasing a product. If you believe that the reason that the substantial number of quality shots didnt go in because of some character flaw, you might as well buy a ouija board to help you make decisions about everything in life. Analytical acumen would not be your strong suit.

One thing about engagement, the last three games in particular I thought 34 was waiting for the game to come to him, rather than seizing it. Sure there were chances, I mean they’re on the ice 40 percent of the time, but he really didn’t seem particularly engaged, or perhaps better, playing with any urgency whatsoever . Didn’t seem to want the puck on his stick, didn’t seem to show the heart to lead and impact the game, again just laid back, passively waiting for things to click. That’s why I’m down on him as a true leader, the guy has one gear and everything seems to come too easy for him, where’s the edge and fire. Literally pathetic the last three games IMO.

 

[ER89]

why is everyone continuing to engage in conversation with paul marner? I mean the stories this guy can spin to make his pathetic kid look better is honestly a joke.

 

[Notsince67]

Where did I say anything about engagement in the posts you quoted?

you said "I'd like to see him get an extended look with Nylander again next year. Put Mitch back with Tavares so he's forced to carry more of the play".
Marner already carried substantial amounts of the play. What did you mean other than engagement?

 

[Notsince67]

One thing about engagement, the last three games in particular I thought 34 was waiting for the game to come to him, rather than seizing it. Sure there were chances, I mean they’re on the ice 40 percent of the time, but he really didn’t seem particularly engaged, or perhaps better, playing with any urgency whatsoever . Didn’t seem to want the puck on his stick, didn’t seem to show the heart to lead and impact the game, again just laid back, passively waiting for things to click. That’s why I’m down on him as a true leader, the guy has one gear and everything seems to come too easy for him, where’s the edge and fire. Literally pathetic the last three games IMO.

I understand what you are saying and I was totally frustrated as well by everyone. The thing is, how can you be so sure that this wasn't by design? The coach could have been drawing up plays that centered on everyone getting the puck to Matthews through hot potato plays for a shot attempts. It seemed puzzling to me that Keefe had zero criticism of the first line (as far as effort went ) and that to me, points to the very real possibility that they were executing his direction to a tee.

 

[Gallagbi]

you said "I'd like to see him get an extended look with Nylander again next year. Put Mitch back with Tavares so he's forced to carry more of the play".
Marner already carried substantial amounts of the play. What did you mean other than engagement?
View attachment 450494

He becomes the primary driver on a line with Tavares. He carries the puck more since that isn't Tavares strength whereas with Matthews they share that load. I think you see more of the play flowing from Marner with Tavares than you do with Matthews. Basically the concept is there is only so much puck yo go around and Matthews/Marner together are sharing more of the time together.

If you split them up, you weaken the top line, but ideally strengthen the top 6 in the process.

I expanded on the engagement in my last post just to clarify what I think happened on their quality of chances.

As for the " forces him to" piece, because I expect that is what caught you. I find Mitch has a tendency to slow his pace and wait for things, especially when he's not carrying the puck. I think he's at his best moving his feet and getting D to chase him in space, rather than being stationary and playing from a standstill. Having him with the puck more puts him in a position to do that more.

 

[Notsince67]

He becomes the primary driver on a line with Tavares. He carries the puck more since that isn't Tavares strength whereas with Matthews they share that load. I think you see more of the play flowing from Marner with Tavares than you do with Matthews. Basically the concept is there is only so much puck yo go around and Matthews/Marner together are sharing more of the time together.

If you split them up, you weaken the top line, but ideally strengthen the top 6 in the process.

I expanded on the engagement in my last post just to clarify what I think happened on their quality of chances.

I don't disagree that the lines should have been mixed. I think the opposing teams strategy is the variable that drives this.
Strategically, the weakness of a phalanx (in a battle) can be exploited through the use of a rear attack or a a flank. A rear attack means dump ins and speed to support it (you are correct here). A flank requires talent to be distributed across more than one line (you are right again). The issue is that when you play an offensively gifted team, you might want to stack lines a bit (if you have star talent) to outscore a very deep forward corp. The other lines can then just rag the puck and neutralize (to some degree) the other forward depth.

 

[Gallagbi]

I don't disagree that the lines should have been mixed. I think the opposing teams strategy is the variable that drives this.
Strategically, the weakness of a phalanx (in a battle) can be exploited through the use of a rear attack or a a flank. A rear attack means dump ins and speed to support it (you are correct here). A flank requires talent to be distributed across more than one line (you are right again). The issue is that when you play an offensively gifted team, you might want to stack lines a bit (if you have star talent) to outscore a very deep forward corp. The other lines can then just rag the puck and neutralize (to some degree) the other forward depth.

From a playoff perspective, Tavares really hurt our matchups abilities and weakens the rest of the lines.

We still had the horses to win, and really given the actual gameplay should have, but we didn't convert well enough.

You'll likely blame Keefe for not getting enough out of the other lines and adjusting, but at the end of the day we still carried the play, the chances, led the series in actual goals scored. We really did the majority of things well, but didn't close out the series when we had golden opportunities. Some of that is the top line not finishing (easily could have ended this in Game 6 OT) , some if it is stupid plays unforced plays by Gally, Sandin, Dermott and Jumbo. We saw mistakes by the Habs too, they just didn't end up in their net as regularly...or at the key times

 

[Notsince67]

From a playoff perspective, Tavares really hurt our matchups abilities and weakens the rest of the lines.

We still had the horses to win, and really given the actual gameplay should have, but we didn't convert well enough.

You'll likely blame Keefe for not getting enough out of the other lines and adjusting, but at the end of the day we still carried the play, the chances, led the series in actual goals scored. We really did the majority of things well, but didn't close out the series when we had golden opportunities. Some of that is the top line not finishing (easily could have ended this in Game 6 OT) , some if it is stupid plays unforced plays by Gally, Sandin, Dermott and Jumbo. We saw mistakes by the Habs too, they just didn't end up in their net as regularly...or at the key times

True but that requires adjustment. The big dmen should have been run ragged through dump ins and decentralizing forward strength when such a big piece such as Tavares is gone is critical in thinning out the habs shutdown players.
It can also shift momentum. Keefe was outcoached. I really hope he has learned his lesson.

 

[Gallagbi]

True but that requires adjustment. The big dmen should have been run ragged through dump ins and decentralizing forward strength when such a big piece such as Tavares is gone is critical in thinning out the habs shutdown players.
It can also shift momentum. Keefe was outcoached. I really hope he has learned his lesson.

I wouldn't have been running the Habs D, I don't think we have the personnel to do it well. I do think our pace was too slow and we needed to have that D core skating as much as possible. More tempo, more movement and just general buzzing. We were too stationary for my liking.

Basically I wanted their D tired, not sore.

Not sure I'd say he was outcoached, but I think there was more he could have done. Just like id say for most of the team.

 

[Notsince67]

I wouldn't have been running the Habs D, I don't think we have the personnel to do it well. I do think our pace was too slow and we needed to have that D core skating as much as possible. More tempo, more movement and just general buzzing. We were too stationary for my liking.

Basically I wanted their D tired, not sore.

Not sure I'd say he was outcoached, but I think there was more he could have done. Just like id say for most of the team.

You misunderstood. I didnt mean hit them...I meant exhaust them with dump ins

 

[Gallagbi]

You misunderstood. I didnt mean hit them...I meant exhaust them with dump ins

Gotcha, appreciate the clarification

 

[Garthinater]

Still can't belive the rocket winner could only score 1 goal in 7 games vs Montreal.

Matthews lost in the first round back in the Swiss league and has lost every single series since then.

He has 24 points in 34 games or roughly 62 points per 82.

Point has 56 points in the last 2 PO alone.

Matthews was the leagues highest paid player this year! Made 16 million while only playing 59 games.

Most of the leagues top players sign for a high cap hit but they also generally signed for 8 or even longer (crosby 12, ovy 13, mcdavid and eichel 8). Auston only gave us 5. These other players end up being steals by half way through their contract where as matthews will never be good value as his contract ends by then.

I've yet to see anything out of matthews that truly shows he's a team player. Took as much money as he could, doesn't show up when it matters most (elimination games) and is either immature or has serious decision making issues (pulling pants down at a female security guard.

He literally has a nmc in his last year and then is a(n) ufa.

How does a player get that kind of contract with a career high of 63 points? Dubas royally f****ed us with that one.

 

[mapleleaf979]

Anyone recall Matthews helmet off and he is on the ice getting rag dolled by Shea Weber in the playoffs? This is the lasting image of the playoffs, a player with no pride it seemed, no fight back as Weber is bullying him. This reminded me of the Sedin twins getting bullied by Marchand and doing nothing. Matthews is 6-3 220....

 

[Notsince67]

Still can't belive the rocket winner could only score 1 goal in 7 games vs Montreal.

Matthews lost in the first round back in the Swiss league and has lost every single series since then.

He has 24 points in 34 games or roughly 62 points per 82.

Point has 56 points in the last 2 PO alone.

Matthews was the leagues highest paid player this year! Made 16 million while only playing 59 games.

Most of the leagues top players sign for a high cap hit but they also generally signed for 8 or even longer (crosby 12, ovy 13, mcdavid and eichel 8). Auston only gave us 5. These other players end up being steals by half way through their contract where as matthews will never be good value as his contract ends by then.

I've yet to see anything out of matthews that truly shows he's a team player. Took as much money as he could, doesn't show up when it matters most (elimination games) and is either immature or has serious decision making issues (pulling pants down at a female security guard.

He literally has a nmc in his last year and then is a(n) ufa.

How does a player get that kind of contract with a career high of 63 points? Dubas royally f****ed us with that one.

Point doesnt have the point share of Matthews. In such a situation, it's easy to strategize a concentration of defensive resources and plays against Matthews because there are few scoring threats down line.

 

[supsens]

you said "I'd like to see him get an extended look with Nylander again next year. Put Mitch back with Tavares so he's forced to carry more of the play".
Marner already carried substantial amounts of the play. What did you mean other than engagement?
View attachment 450494

The 'advanced stats' guys dont even bother to make an effort and do any ice time adjustments?

 

[Notsince67]

The 'advanced stats' guys dont even bother to make an effort and do any ice time adjustments?

It was addressed by keefe. Nylander had pretty close to the same number of shifts but was short shifting himself.
You can argue that the first line was on too long but gas didnt seem like an issue with them.

 

[Bluelines]

From a playoff perspective, Tavares really hurt our matchups abilities and weakens the rest of the lines.

We still had the horses to win, and really given the actual gameplay should have, but we didn't convert well enough.

You'll likely blame Keefe for not getting enough out of the other lines and adjusting, but at the end of the day we still carried the play, the chances, led the series in actual goals scored. We really did the majority of things well, but didn't close out the series when we had golden opportunities. Some of that is the top line not finishing (easily could have ended this in Game 6 OT) , some if it is stupid plays unforced plays by Gally, Sandin, Dermott and Jumbo. We saw mistakes by the Habs too, they just didn't end up in their net as regularly...or at the key times

Not enough credit is being given to Price and Danault for this, Leaf fans see it as a failure of our top 2 players, Hab fans see it as a victory from their coaching staff, Price and Danault's line. Simply put they won because they were better.

 

[Bluelines]

Anyone recall Matthews helmet off and he is on the ice getting rag dolled by Shea Weber in the playoffs? This is the lasting image of the playoffs, a player with no pride it seemed, no fight back as Weber is bullying him. This reminded me of the Sedin twins getting bullied by Marchand and doing nothing. Matthews is 6-3 220....

Nope don't recall it at all...

 

[saffronleaf]

Matthews would thrive in the Swiss league. I think that's really what he is most suited for.

 

[The CyNick]

Seems to be a great regular season goal scorer and that's about it. For nearly 12M a year you would like to get more.

 

[Garthinater]

Point doesnt have the point share of Matthews. In such a situation, it's easy to strategize a concentration of defensive resources and plays against Matthews because there are few scoring threats down line.

Since 2016-17 (matthews first playoffs) he ranks 51st in ppg (minimum 15 games played).

This year he was 45th in ppg.

He is not delivering on that terrible contract.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

@meecrob
You aren't wrong