Tribute Kyle Dubas discussion

  • 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

Your level of satisfaction with Kyle Dubas' performance to date

  • Happy

    Votes: 213 39.2%
  • Adequate

    Votes: 161 29.7%
  • Concerned

    Votes: 169 31.1%

  • Total voters
    543
Status
Not open for further replies.
And that's totally fair. I don't think any fan is sure if it's going to work or not.

But as Dubas said, that philosophy has been doubted at every level and it's worked at every level he's done it. Now the NHL is the top league to prove it in, so we'll see how it goes. I just think everyone's overreacting. It's been around 8 games under Keefe now, so let's wait and see how it works. Players don't learn a new system just with the snap of the fingers. I've loved it so far, other than the Philly game, and can't wait for the rest of the season.

That is untrue : He has not been successful with this philosophy at any level:

The Soo - 2nd and 3rd round playoff appearances-NO OHL CHAMPIONSHIPS -

The Marlies - The GM of the Marlies does not have the impact of a normal GM in any other league - you are given players by the big club via draft and acquisitions ( by the big club ) ... You are in no way building a team as a normal GM would do - Also as mentioned many times the Marlies had an unlimited budget which was 5 x greater than there nearest competitor in the AHL . To use the Marlies as an example of how this philosophy has worked would be simply untrue.

Bottom line - This philosophy he is claiming to have been so successful everywhere he has been is a nice sound bite but simply not true.
 
This team isn't close to being ready for the Bruins even if in a playoff spot. All big teams that can cycle the puck , feast on the Leafs whenever they want too.
St Louis couldn't do it on Saturday... they're probably the closest thing to a Boston clone.

You have no way of knowing how we'll play against Boston under Keefe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stopclickbait
That is untrue : He has not been successful with this philosophy at any level:

The Soo - 2nd and 3rd round playoff appearances-NO OHL CHAMPIONSHIPS -

The Marlies - The GM of the Marlies does not have the impact of a normal GM in any other league - you are given players by the big club via draft and acquisitions ( by the big club ) ... You are in no way building a team as a normal GM would do - Also as mentioned many times the Marlies had an unlimited budget which was 5 x greater than there nearest competitor in the AHL . To use the Marlies as an example of how this philosophy has worked would be simply untrue.

Bottom line - This philosophy he is claiming to have been so successful everywhere he has been is a nice sound bite but simply not true.

He did a really nice job turning the Greyhounds around. Under his watch, they went from missing the playoffs to back-to-back 1st place finishes. They were not as successful in the playoffs, but he certainly made that team a lot better.
 
It's not that hard. Dubas acquired Tyson Barrie and Babcock played him like Roman Polak and told him he had to re-invent himself. That sort of thing kind of de-rails your plans.

It's funny and sad cuz it's true.

Dubas added a 28yr old elite offensive dman and the coach literally said he had to "re-invent himself" to play for the leafs. It's just so ridiculous.
 
The difference qa I see it (and i folllw the same.thinking as Zeke,) - dont exsctly love all contracts but fine with some being higher than ithers).

Is that you can always replace a depth forward with another player without skipping a beat. Theres nothing that replace star/elite talent. So paying a bit more for top tier assets is less of a negative than essentially losing the asset for pinching pennies

You mean losing the asset as in we'd have lost Marner had we not met his demands? That's extreme and highly unlikely. I don't think we lose Marner (our biggest mistake IMO) if we hold steady at a lower price.

I still don't see much difference. If you're overpaying by say 4 million, it doesn't matter much who you're paying it to. The situations/issues aren't exactly the same depending on who's overpaid but in both cases you have 4 million less to spend on the rest of the roster. What matters most is I'd say the term. Dumping one year of Marleau was costly enough, can you imagine if he was on the books for another 3-4 years? Our overpayments are to our stars who almost certainly will not be moved so stars or not, we'll be handicapped by those overpayments for years to come. If it's a consoling thought that we're overpaying good players at least then great, I don't find any consolation there myself as in the end the result is the same and few million more in cap space would help a lot.
 
It's funny and sad cuz it's true.

Dubas added a 28yr old elite offensive dman and the coach literally said he had to "re-invent himself" to play for the leafs. It's just so ridiculous.

Yeah that's the kind of thing that makes me shake my head and think why, why didn't they get rid of this guy in the off-season. It was such an odd place to be as a fan, I had thoughts like winning one round would be perhaps the worst possible scenario as we're still miles away from winning the cup but hey we won a round so the coach gets to stay dooming us to more failure.

So happy to have this new era finally ushered in!!
 
People forget that we were on a 100+ pace before the 6gm losing streak and are at a 100+ pace since.

So what. A 6 game losing streak is enormous. Take away 6 losses and most of the league is probably on a 100 point pace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACC1224
You mean losing the asset as in we'd have lost Marner had we not met his demands? That's extreme and highly unlikely. I don't think we lose Marner (our biggest mistake IMO) if we hold steady at a lower price.

I still don't see much difference. If you're overpaying by say 4 million, it doesn't matter much who you're paying it to. The situations/issues aren't exactly the same depending on who's overpaid but in both cases you have 4 million less to spend on the rest of the roster. What matters most is I'd say the term. Dumping one year of Marleau was costly enough, can you imagine if he was on the books for another 3-4 years? Our overpayments are to our stars who almost certainly will not be moved so stars or not, we'll be handicapped by those overpayments for years to come. If it's a consoling thought that we're overpaying good players at least then great, I don't find any consolation there myself as in the end the result is the same and few million more in cap space would help a lot.

The result isn't the same, though.

In one case, you're forced to try and fill in your 4th line spots on the cheap.

In the other, you're forced to try and fill in your 1st line spots on the cheap.

One of those is much easier than the other.
 
The result isn't the same, though.

In one case, you're forced to try and fill in your 4th line spots on the cheap.

In the other, you're forced to try and fill in your 1st line spots on the cheap.

One of those is much easier than the other.

Not true. Last year, our big over-payment was to Marleau. Did that mean we were forced to fill in our 1st line spots on the cheap? No it did not.
 
6gms is also, as you have pointed out, a very small sample.

6 losses is a huge losing streak, it's so long that without looking it up, I'd guess most teams don't even have that over the course of an entire season. And you just want to ignore it like it never happened to show that we're a 100+ point team? What happens if we remove our best 6 game stretch, can you give us the numbers on that? It's after all, just "a small sample" right?

You're not fooling me one bit. And wasn't it just yesterday you were saying that you didn't like looking at these "partial seasons" or whatever it was when I pointed out that our record over the last 11 months sucked? Now you suddenly want to look at these "parts", and remove the worst 6 game losing streak part? Come one man I know you're a huge homer and that's fine but let's try to be a bit more consistent/realistic here in our appraisal of this team shall we?
 
6 losses is a huge losing streak, it's so long that without looking it up, I'd guess most teams don't even have that over the course of an entire season. And you just want to ignore it like it never happened to show that we're a 100+ point team? What happens if we remove our best 6 game stretch, can you give us the numbers on that? It's after all, just "a small sample" right?

You're not fooling me one bit. And wasn't it just yesterday you were saying that you didn't like looking at these "partial seasons" or whatever it was when I pointed out that our record over the last 11 months sucked? Now you suddenly want to look at these "parts", and remove the worst 6 game losing streak part? Come one man I know you're a huge homer and that's fine but let's try to be a bit more consistent/realistic here in our appraisal of this team shall we?

Nobody said to ignore anything.

What we are looking at is how reasonable it is to hope for the team to play at a 100+pt pace the rest of the season. And I'd say it's not far fetched all.

You are right to look at Keefe's impressive 8gm sample as potentially a blip. But that's not the only small sample that is potentially just a blip.
 
I like the car analogy, but I think it's more like Dubas purposely built a Ferrari for Babcock to drive in the Dakar Rally. And now with Keefe on board they have to get back onto a good road to make this work.

Babcock was clearly not the right man for the job, but at the same time I have my concerns that Dubas' Leafs are designed and built properly.
Babcock's teams were the least physical teams in Leafs history though. They were not rugged at all they were all offence and his players put up mountains off offensive statistics. He left his only rugged players off his playoff roster, and his last real decision here as a coach was to cut all the rugged players Dubas traded for off his regular season roster.
 
Last edited:
Sure it did.

Matthews and Marner were on ELCs.

LOL. Nobody "forced" us to play those guys on our top lines, we were thrilled to do it. What Marleau "forced" us to do was to give up a valuable asset to get rid of him.

Nobody said to ignore anything.

You were the one who said look at our pace before and after that streak. That's inoring it.

What we are looking at is how reasonable it is to hope for the team to play at a 100+pt pace the rest of the season. And I'd say it's not far fetched all.

You get no argument from me there.
 
So Dubas has control?

There is no Shanaplan? It’s a Dubaplan?

If so, what the hell does Shanahan do here?
Dubas is a result of the shanaplan and they see eye to eye 100%.
Dubas controls the next step of the plan which is the coaching hire.

It's all a tier management system
 
Sure, but I find it extremely unlikely that Hutchinson is this bad for the rest of the season. I doubt the team in front of him will be as bad as well now that we have Keefe as a head coach.

We could also squeeze in a couple extra games out of Andersen if it comes down to the wire.

In Hutch's 6 starts, the team gave him a 3 goal lead against the Habs, 2 goal leads against the Caps and Sabres, and were 2-2 going into the 3rd against the Bruins. They came away with 1 point.

Using my previous math, if Andersen stays at a similar points pace, we will need around 15 points in 13 games from our BUG for a low playoff seed. (assuming 62 gms for Freddie).

Glad you are so optimistic, but I do not share your confidence in Hutchinson.
 
LOL. Nobody "forced" us to play those guys on our top lines, we were thrilled to do it. What Marleau "forced" us to do was to give up a valuable asset to get rid of him.

Paying Marleau $6m left us less money to pay first liners. The only reason we were able to make it work was because we happened to have elite players on ELCs. But having elite players on ELCs is not a longterm strategy. But having depth players on ELCs/cheapo contracts is.





You were the one who said look at our pace before and after that streak. That's inoring it.

No more than you were telling us to ignore Keefe's 8gm sample.
 
Sure, but I find it extremely unlikely that Hutchinson is this bad for the rest of the season. I doubt the team in front of him will be as bad as well now that we have Keefe as a head coach.

We could also squeeze in a couple extra games out of Andersen if it comes down to the wire.

I think so too. Hutch has been bad but the team in front of him has been perhaps just as bad. One of the most annoying things about this season for me (besides almost everything Babcock did) is how Hutch has been singled out for blame after every game as if it was all his fault.
 
Paying Marleau $6m left us less money to pay first liners. The only reason we were able to make it work was because we happened to have elite players on ELCs. But having elite players on ELCs is not a longterm strategy. But having depth players on ELCs/cheapo contracts is.

LOL no, we already had the first liners. Marleau's contract meant we had to lose assets elsewhere to get rid of him, either in ditching players like Johnsson/Kapanen or whoever, or giving up a 1st round pick like we ended up doing.

No more than you were telling us to ignore Keefe's 8gm sample.

Is that so? Please do show me when I said that because I sure as hell don't remember saying anything of the sort. I'd hate to think you were just making stuff up.
 
LOL no, we already had the first liners. Marleau's contract meant we had to lose assets elsewhere, either in ditching players like Johnsson/Kapanen or whoever, or giving up a 1st round pick like we ended up doing.

Good luck continually finding elite 1st liners for less than $1m.


Is that so? Please do show me when I said that because I sure as hell don't remember saying anything of the sort. I'd hate to think you were just making stuff up.

Likewise, I'd like to see where I said to ignore anything.
 
It's not that hard. Dubas acquired Tyson Barrie and Babcock played him like Roman Polak and told him he had to re-invent himself. That sort of thing kind of de-rails your plans.
I think Barrie sucked because of Barrie. How did Morgan Reilly manage to put up 71 points with Babcock anyway? And Gardiner has his best seasons with him too. Or Marner with 94 or Tavares with 47 goals or Matthews on pace for like a million.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GoonieFace
Good luck continually finding elite 1st liners for less than $1m.

What are you going on about? We have plenty of first liners. It's other things that we're lacking (backup goalie being the most pressing issue) and the reason it's hard to see how we're going to fix that is because we're overpaying our first liners and thus have no cap space to patch our holes.

Likewise, I'd like to see where I said to ignore anything.

But you already admitted that you did so. When I said you were ignoring, this was your response:

No more than you were telling us to ignore Keefe's 8gm sample.

That was your response - that you weren't ignoring any more then I was. Except I wasn't.

So back to you Zeke. You said I wanted to ignore Keefe's 8 game sample when I have done no such thing. I'll accept your apology anytime you're man enough to offer me one.
 
Dubas will be judged like the rest.
Team success.

Players can be judged on individual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad