Why is it embarrassing though? Do you think it makes Matthews look weak, or something? I literally don't understand.
He's laughing in the face of someone who's trying and failing to rough him up. That's embarrassing for the other guy, not him.
Speculation: Does Engvall deserve to be on the Leafs?
- Thread starter CupcakeSprinkles
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Why is it embarrassing though? Do you think it makes Matthews look weak, or something? I literally don't understand.
He's laughing in the face of someone who's trying and failing to rough him up. That's embarrassing for the other guy, not him.
i understand why people hate engvall but TODAY probably the best option at 4C.
we have no depth after kampf.
we picked up a crap ton of wingers and part of me is starting to wonder what the plan down the middle is going to be ...
we have no depth after kampf.
we picked up a crap ton of wingers and part of me is starting to wonder what the plan down the middle is going to be ...
I kinda get why people don't like Engvall stylistically (big guyzz need 2 do big HITZZ), but he is certainly one of their 12 best forwards and should be on the team.
He has positive defensive impact and is decent in transition. Plus he has the best forecheck pressure and dump-in recovery numbers on the Leafs. Those are nice value-adds in the bottom-six. He has tools that help control play.
And even his scoring (another criticism), isn't that bad. He had only slightly lower 5v5 points/60 than guys like Horvat, Forsberg, and Jamie Benn.
He has positive defensive impact and is decent in transition. Plus he has the best forecheck pressure and dump-in recovery numbers on the Leafs. Those are nice value-adds in the bottom-six. He has tools that help control play.
And even his scoring (another criticism), isn't that bad. He had only slightly lower 5v5 points/60 than guys like Horvat, Forsberg, and Jamie Benn.
zeke
The Dube Abides
- Mar 14, 2005
- 66,937
- 36,957
People would like Engvall a lot more if he was 5'11", even though it would make him a much lesser player.
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 83,109
- 62,027
I don't know about that, not a lot of people like Kerfoot either and he does way more than Engvall.
ShaneFalco
Registered User
Not sure why people are so sour on him
He has done everything you want him to so far. He just finished a full season playing just under 90 games
At very level he has played he has been a goal scorer. He has 27 points in 90 games without playing with any of our top 6 and getting PP
He can really carry the puck and has an NHL shot. He just needs to get settle in
A big guy who can skate and has decent hands and just played one full season
Yeah let's trade that guy.
He has done everything you want him to so far. He just finished a full season playing just under 90 games
At very level he has played he has been a goal scorer. He has 27 points in 90 games without playing with any of our top 6 and getting PP
He can really carry the puck and has an NHL shot. He just needs to get settle in
A big guy who can skate and has decent hands and just played one full season
Yeah let's trade that guy.
Eye of Ra
Grandmaster General of the International boards
i think he is too unphysical for a bottom 6 role and not good enough for a top 6 role. he is not a bad player, but he dont just fit in.
imagine if he had this guys grit
imagine if he had this guys grit
We have Spezza, Brooks, Semyonov. This does not include any trade deadline assets.. Engvall is redundant.
He's Peter Holland 2.0 - big guy with a bit of skill and no grit. You need grit to play in the bottom 6
zeke
The Dube Abides
- Mar 14, 2005
- 66,937
- 36,957
Peter holland had no speed and no defense, both of which are engvall's strengths.
spezza take faceoffs and switches to the wing. at this point is his career he cant be a center.
i love brooks as much as the next guy but he needs insane sheltering when in the lineup , hes line will always get outshot and out chanced.
Semyonov, you want to hitch you C depth on this guy ?
engvall right now is the better option over all these guys.
While I agree that's not the 3rd line, and wouldn't be a good one, you're out to lunch if you think that'd only be an average 4th line.
Thissiteisgarbage
Registered User
- Oct 14, 2014
- 2,035
- 1,701
Holland could have been so much better had he had any jam to his game whatsoever. Loads of potential but not the right personality for pro sports.
BertCorbeau
F*ck cancer - RIP Fugu and Buffaloed
With his size you'd hope he'd be more physical but that's not his style of game. When he does engage and compete, he's very effective as he has some nice skill and excellent speed. Consistency is his issue, which isn't out of the norm for a guy with 90 games of NHL experience. He'll look really good for 2-3 games and then disappear for 6 or 7, so sticking in the lineup has been tough.
What is interesting is that he has 29 hits in 48 games in year one, and 43 hits in 42 games in year two. So perhaps he's getting more comfortable and learning to throw his body around a bit more.
That being said he's pace 14 goals and 24 points over 82 games in his first two NHL seasons, which is pretty good production for a guy getting fourth line minutes (11-12 ATOI).
With his skillset, size, and speed, he's certainly a solid depth option in the line up. And given the Leafs' have picked up the likes of Ritchie, Bunting, and re-upped Simmonds, there is physicality/grit elsewhere in the line up.
What is interesting is that he has 29 hits in 48 games in year one, and 43 hits in 42 games in year two. So perhaps he's getting more comfortable and learning to throw his body around a bit more.
That being said he's pace 14 goals and 24 points over 82 games in his first two NHL seasons, which is pretty good production for a guy getting fourth line minutes (11-12 ATOI).
With his skillset, size, and speed, he's certainly a solid depth option in the line up. And given the Leafs' have picked up the likes of Ritchie, Bunting, and re-upped Simmonds, there is physicality/grit elsewhere in the line up.
My issues isn't exactly with Engvall himself, though I think he's average at best defensively and offers little else.
My issue is for 500k less we could replace him and quite likely get more for our money. He hasn't earned a spot, and he costs too much relative to what he contributes
Engvall makes 500K more than both centre's on a cap restricted team.
Face-Off for 2020-21
Engvall - 43%
Spezza - 57% - took 500 draws last year. He is the guy/Engvall does not play RW
Brooks - 41%
Kampf - 52%
Kerfoot - 40%
Semyonov
"Over the regular season this year, Semyonov had a 60% win percentage on face offs, 30 blocked shots, and 33 hits, playing an average of 17:35 minutes a night. His ice time dropped in the playoffs to 16:45, but his hitting and shot blocking frequency went up as he had 24 hits and 17 blocked shots in the 23 playoff games. At 6’1 and 180 lbs, Kirill isn’t going to be an imposing hitter, but he doesn’t seem to be afraid to do it"
What we know about the Leafs latest KHL signing, Kirill Semyonov
The difference is Engvall is crap on the draw - he's a winger not a centre. Brooks is equally not a viable centre option with the FO(%). He's an option on a very crowded LW in the bottom 6. There would be more value in signing Bozak to 1.25M contract than keeping Engvall to do his bambi on ice routine (given 4C talk)
Lazy argument. No one is saying that. You can have a valid discussion as to whether someone deserves to be on the team without them being the scapegoat for all the teams problems.
ULF_55
Moderator
He just has to play a touch more physical, not an outrageous ask.
When he's out there you see teams back off because he's burned so many with his speed.
Not sure he'll ever put up points, but has he ever been put on a line to poach points?
Dreakmur
Registered User
He’s perfectly fine as a 4th line winger, and I think he’s one of the 4 guys I’d be comfortable in a PK role.
Bunting-Matthews-Nylander
Ritchie-Tavares-Marner
Kerfoot-Kampf-Mikheyev
Simmonds-Spezza-Kase
Who does he knock out of the lineup? Kase if he can’t overcome the injuries. Simmonds is probably the worst forward, but we need some toughness. Maybe Spezza falls off this year.
I still have Brooks ahead of Engvall as an overall player, but he can’t Pk.
TheScandal89
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2016
- 1,684
- 1,431
He's decent depth but imo you ideally dont want him playing in the playoffs if you have a healthy roster. However, he is versatile and big so I think they keep him around since Centre depth is fairly poor.
In the playoffs I feel he's the kinda guy you will get practically no production out of but isn't a complete liability out there. The line of him, Simmonds and Mikheyev should be banished forever though.
In the playoffs I feel he's the kinda guy you will get practically no production out of but isn't a complete liability out there. The line of him, Simmonds and Mikheyev should be banished forever though.
Sure but thst doesn't have to come from him. Brian Boyle was a very effective player being vanilla and mostly without having much grit
There were a lot of players in NHL who are bottom 6er and very effective
To say he's Peter Holland just a lazy comparison. You could also argue that he could be next Freddy Modin
We tried those out of box cheaper options. Vesey, barabnov, petan , Nash and Boyd. Except for Boyd they all sucked
He's very good defensively, very good skater, has decent touch and 6'5 reach
What you should have a chat with our wonder coach to why Simmonds who has been sucking for last 5 years gets more PP time especially a PP thats been atrocious instead of maybe trying Engvall front of the net
