Speculation: Does Engvall deserve to be on the Leafs?

[ShaneFalco]

He just needs to be more consistent & not shy away from being aggressive or hard on the puck/body.

Just like most of our players

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

He’s proved me wrong this season. Glad to have him on the team, and it’s clear we miss him when he’s out and we have to replace him with Ritchie or Clifford.

 

[Leaf Rocket]

scoring be damned the man hit chara twice he wins for me.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

He's playing better but If for example he is part of a deal to bring in a guy like Rakell you make that deal.

Engvall is replaceable

 

[Gabriel426]

I think he is a solid bottom 6 player, and nothing more.
He is not going to be physical or a player to be under opposing skin or a pest.
But he does have good speed, protects the puck well and good at taking the puck from our dzone to the opposing zone.
Also got good reach for PK.

 

[ULF_55]

He's playing better but If for example he is part of a deal to bring in a guy like Rakell you make that deal.

Engvall is replaceable

Everyone on the team is.

Whatever makes the team better.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Everyone on the team is.

Whatever makes the team better.

No not everybody, Matthews for example is not

 

[ULF_55]

No not everybody, Matthews for example is not

you wouldn't do McDavid?

 

[A1LeafNation]

Bunting Matthews Marner
Kerfoot Tavares Nylander
Mikheyev Kampf Kase
Engvall Spezza ________

Rielly Brodie
_______ _______
Muzzin Liljegren
Dermott Holl

Campbell
Mrazek
Woll

3 spots up for grabs right now...

 

[Stephen]

you wouldn't do McDavid?

I don't think Matthews for McDavid is an automatic for me either.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have McDavid here, and Edmonton is so bad yada yada. But sometimes I wonder if he isn't a little bit like Bure in Florida. He's so spectacular but doesn't really do a lot of the little things very well.

 

[meefer]

View attachment 501061

Thank you.

 

[Puckstuff]

All of our bottom 6 players have been effective at the same time I always have it in my mind that I want a Greenway or Coleman type player that just adds a different element we don’t have. The problem is our only physical players suck.

 

[Teeder Keon]

NO!!!!!!

 

[Teeder Keon]

So how do you like it so far?

I think it is a legit 3rd. line, especially since Mikheyev recovered from his injury.

I actually think Engvall has both the tools and a toolbox.

Engvall's problem is he doesn't always know the right time to use each tool.

Problem is that this is his toolbox and it’s empty
But he can skate beautifully….

 

[LeafalCrusader]

Been solid so far.

 

[The Iceman]

scoring be damned the man hit chara twice he wins for me.

Engvall has 10 points his last 13 games.
Great bottom 6 production.

 

[fahad203]

Problem is that this is his toolbox and it’s empty
But he can skate beautifully….
View attachment 501265

He's on a 30 point pace season without any PP and he kills penalties

That's far from someone who is not using their tool box.

Brian Boyle made a nice career with similar production and playing style

Not every 6'5 player is going to be the next Lindros. Thank your lucky star he's not GOAT

 

[zeke]

Engvall has 10 points his last 13 games.
Great bottom 6 production.

Whoa really? I love him and didn't even realize that.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

you wouldn't do McDavid?

He's not available

 

[makbeer]

you wouldn't do McDavid?

Not too sure I would.

We add in a C who doesn't really play in his own end and seems like he could be kind of a grump to play with...possibly the most talented player ever but there is no evidence he leads to winning more than Matthews does.

5v5, he gets far less G/60 than Auston and their P/60 is very close.

5v5, Auston's on-ice expected GF% is 61 and Connor's is 56.

Connor is obviously the more talented player but I think he can't be excused from how bad Edmonton has been and tbh if you switch players I am not entirely convinced we get more Ws as a result.

I really appreciate the growth on the defensive side of the puck from Matthews and think he is closer to McDavid (when you consider 200ft game) than people give him credit for.

If you asked a year ago i would have swapped matthews for mcdavid in a heartbeat...maybe i am nuts, but now I would have to think pretty hard about it.

 

[makbeer]

Engvall is a really good bottom 6 player. He's not that consistent but that is like most guys in the bottom 6 and that's why they are there.

He brings size, speed, he's kind of annoying and he has a pretty decent shot and he can play up on line 2/3 when needed.

 

[Teeder Keon]

Whoa really? I love him and didn't even realize that.

Your on pace to loving him

 

[Ashdown2]

hes is easily a top 12 forward on this team ... .....
basically he's 100x better than clifford , that should answer your initial question

 

[Warden of the North]

I mean, I'd rather have Miky over Giraffe, but that boat has likely sailed at this point.

 

[ULF_55]

Not too sure I would.

We add in a C who doesn't really play in his own end and seems like he could be kind of a grump to play with...possibly the most talented player ever but there is no evidence he leads to winning more than Matthews does.

5v5, he gets far less G/60 than Auston and their P/60 is very close.

5v5, Auston's on-ice expected GF% is 61 and Connor's is 56.

Connor is obviously the more talented player but I think he can't be excused from how bad Edmonton has been and tbh if you switch players I am not entirely convinced we get more Ws as a result.

I really appreciate the growth on the defensive side of the puck from Matthews and think he is closer to McDavid (when you consider 200ft game) than people give him credit for.

If you asked a year ago i would have swapped matthews for mcdavid in a heartbeat...maybe i am nuts, but now I would have to think pretty hard about it.

You realize Matthews is UFA in 2024 years, McDavid in 2026?

I'd add a couple of 1st. in the deal to move the on topic player for McDavid. ;-)