Post-Game Talk: No Cup for Winnipeg this Year | 4-1 Leafs Win

[egd27]

What we have absolutely zero evidence of/nothing to suggest is that being a result of Simmonds/Clifford doing nothing on the bench.

Did the team "respond"?
Were Simmonds/Clifford on the bench?
Was Matthews quoted saying "they bring a lot of energy and intensity to our team" ?

You can call it circumstantial if you want, but circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

 

[Stephen]

There is at least 50 minutes in a game, where Simmonds and Clifford are sitting in the sidelines. Not cleaning up any scrums or crap. Though I think Simmonds adds more positives into the lineup, when his in, but I would try to build better 4th that we had last year. That toughness didn't do jack shit, when it mattered. I'm happy that we have both Simmonds and Clifford we can throw in occasionally, but it won't help us in the long run if they're 2/3 of our 4th line.

I don’t think we need them all the time, and I would be more interested in more functional toughness throughout the lineup. But arguing whether or not goons can have a positive impact on the group in a chippy game is as pointless as arguing whether snow tires are preferable to all seasons. Different situations call for different tools.

 

[Stephen]

Did the team "respond"?
Were Simmonds/Clifford on the bench?
Was Matthews quoted saying "they bring a lot of energy and intensity to our team" ?

You can call it circumstantial if you want, but circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

Simmonds himself said it’s “all for one and one for all” in the postgame. That’s as generic as a sports cliche as there ever was but if all his presence did was reinforce that concept, there’s value in that because the Leafs don’t always play that way, especially when they’re too heavy on the finesse ratio.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You’re not grasping the concept of team sports. They won the game as a team and protected each other in a nasty physical battle and Simmonds and Clifford helped create an environment of protection.

I grasp the concept of team sports perfectly. They won the game as a team and protected each other in a nasty physical battle. They did that through players that weren't Simmonds or Clifford stepping in and handling it. They didn't do it because Simmonds and Clifford cast circle of protection from the bench. The rest of the team would have done it whether it was Simmonds/Clifford there or somebody else.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

Sandin getting his legs.

Not bad only took 3-4 games and he's starting to round back into shape.

He was off a long time, since umm, let's see ... Winnipeg?

He still looks painfully slow, often out of position in transition to D and back in his own end, and he can't be blasting shots into shinpads if he's unable to get back to defend the counter. His puck skills look just as good as ever but off-puck play leaves much to be desired. Honestly it seems like Tavares did more work over the off season.

Sweet pass by Simmonds but Clifford contributed nothing and they both took a bad penalty each so I'd rather not see them suit up against more disciplined teams than the Jets.

 

[frizzer1]

All of Kerfoot, Engvall, Kampf, Simmonds, Clifford, Bunting, ZAR, NAK, Benn and Holl are UFA after this season. The only ones I possibly see coming back are Bunting and Kampf. That's something like 12M coming off the books. We could possibly see Muzzin moved saving another 5.6M.

Plus the cap is projecting to go up 4M next season.

We are going to have a number of prospects looking to replace those UFAs next year in Robertson, Knies, Hirvonen, Holmberg, Steeves, Abruzzese, Douglas and Kral on cheap contracts. I dont see the Leafs having to worry about money next season.

We could see something like:

Bunting Matthews Marner
Robertson Tavares Nylander
Knies Holmberg Steeves
UFA Kampf UFA

Rielly Liljegren
Sandin Brodie
Giordano UFA

Thanks for this answer.

Makes

All of Kerfoot, Engvall, Kampf, Simmonds, Clifford, Bunting, ZAR, NAK, Benn and Holl are UFA after this season. The only ones I possibly see coming back are Bunting and Kampf. That's something like 12M coming off the books. We could possibly see Muzzin moved saving another 5.6M.

Plus the cap is projecting to go up 4M next season.

We are going to have a number of prospects looking to replace those UFAs next year in Robertson, Knies, Hirvonen, Holmberg, Steeves, Abruzzese, Douglas and Kral on cheap contracts. I dont see the Leafs having to worry about money next season.

We could see something like:

Bunting Matthews Marner
Robertson Tavares Nylander
Knies Holmberg Steeves
UFA Kampf UFA

Rielly Liljegren
Sandin Brodie
Giordano UFA

Samsonov
Murray

Appreciate the reply.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

You’re not grasping the concept of team sports. They won the game as a team and protected each other in a nasty physical battle and Simmonds and Clifford helped create an environment of protection. Everyone can play a little harder because they know there’s someone with them. The idea of anyone assigning credit to who threw what hit and who jumped into which scrum is wrong headed.

Maybe so, but that sounds pretty specious reasoning. Just because Simmonds and Clifford were there doesn't mean the increase in physical play from other players was due to them. They certainly weren't leaders in that department. It could just be because the Leafs were upset with themselves for not showing more pushback against Dallas, or they have a personal dislike for winnipeg. I think everyone can agree that we want to see the team stick up for one another, but I don't think Clifford/Simmonds are needed for that to happen.

What I would like to see is adding some useful top 9 forwards who can play hard, but also contribute a lot more than Clifford at the hockey side

 

[Stephen]

I grasp the concept of team sports perfectly. They won the game as a team and protected each other in a nasty physical battle. They did that through players that weren't Simmonds or Clifford stepping in and handling it. They didn't do it because Simmonds and Clifford cast circle of protection from the bench. The rest of the team would have done it whether it was Simmonds/Clifford there or somebody else.

Where was that response in the Dallas game when they were met with similar physical challenges but there wasn’t the same level of pushback?

You’re basically saying the presence of 2 physical players in a physical game had zero impact despite the fact that the physicality of the Leafs improved. This is especially weird since it goes against the design of the GM, the tactical adjustment of the coach and positive comments from a bunch of teammates.

 

[ACC1224]

I think it's equally plausible that the whole team say how bad it looked and the Dallas game was a wake up call for them as Simmons and Clifford in the line up.

Personally I think having those guys in the lineup helped but I think they team as a whole also said enough is enough.

Could be. I don’t put much stock in coincidence

 

[Dekes For Days]

Did the team "respond"?
Were Simmonds/Clifford on the bench?
Was Matthews quoted saying "they bring a lot of energy and intensity to our team" ?

You can call it circumstantial if you want, but circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

The team did respond. Just like they did the last time we faced them. Because we were facing a dirty team that we had previous bad blood with that injured our player the last time and attempted to injure more multiple times this game.
Simmonds/Clifford were on the bench. They were not involved in the majority of the response. Our regulars showed yet again that they can handle things on their own when necessary.
Matthews responded to the media attempting to create a narrative with a normal, mundane response about the 4th line bringing energy. And once again, people in Toronto attempted to twist it to their narrative.

You're calling it causation based on nothing, when it's really just incredibly weak correlation.

 

[Madap]

What happened/what we have evidence of was a bunch of our players that people incorrectly label as soft responding to a dirty team that we had previous bad blood with after they attempted to injure our players multiple times. What we have absolutely zero evidence of/nothing to suggest is that being a result of Simmonds/Clifford doing nothing on the bench. That's nothing but a fan fantasy built to support a narrative. It's not unusual for wildly different situations in the Dallas/Winnipeg games to result in different responses.

Simmonds himself had a decent game, and likely earned another one, but that's because of his hockey play, not because of magical fantasies about him causing other people to do things by his mere existence.

Ehh how can you say there’s no evidence? It happened. Whether you attribute it to playing Winnipeg, or simmonds and Clifford is personal preference at this point. No way to pick one or the other, since it’s only been one game this season.

The fact is that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The team was definitely going to bring it against Winnipeg, but they brought it with a little more confidence having those two on the bench.

So as a stats guy, I’m surprised you you think one is more likely than the other based on a one game sample size.

 

[al secord]

We need to hire Craig Burube to intimidate the other team from the bench. At least he won't take up a roster spot.

 

[Stephen]

Maybe so, but that sounds pretty specious reasoning. Just because Simmonds and Clifford were there doesn't mean the increase in physical play from other players was due to them. They certainly weren't leaders in that department. It could just be because the Leafs were upset with themselves for not showing more pushback against Dallas, or they have a personal dislike for winnipeg. I think everyone can agree that we want to see the team stick up for one another, but I don't think Clifford/Simmonds are needed for that to happen.

What I would like to see is adding some useful top 9 forwards who can play hard, but also contribute a lot more than Clifford at the hockey side

The presence of goons and enforcers has always improved the overall physicality of a hockey team. But I agree that I would rather have more functional toughness than have 2 guys come in and cameo once in a while.

 

[PROUD PAPA]

Sammy needs to learn to handle the puck.

Exactly. It's so beneficial having a goalie that can handle the puck well. Instead of encouraging him to not handle the puck, teach him how to do so effectively.

 

[Racer88]

Include them or don't include them, I don't care. Fact is, they didn't end up being a significant part of the response. Which leads to the real question and issue - why Simmonds and Clifford are being credited for and singled out as the reason for our response, despite not actually doing anything, instead of the people who actually responded.

Sometimes the sheriff doesn’t have to pull his gun, sometimes him just being there is enough to keep the “bad boys” in line

 

[Dekes For Days]

Where was that response in the Dallas game when they were met with similar physical challenges but there wasn’t the same level of pushback?

The Dallas game and the Winnipeg game were not remotely similar situations.

We have no rivalry with Dallas. In contrast, the last game against Winnipeg was intense and resulted in multiple fights, Sandin getting injured, and a suspension. They are a dirty team that continued with multiple attempts to injure in this game.
There was one incident in the Dallas game, that wasn't even noticeable in the moment. The Winnipeg game meanwhile had multiple blatant and dangerous plays. The first big incident in the Winnipeg game (the Marner hit) didn't draw a massive response either.

It would be pretty expected for the response in the Winnipeg game after everything that happened to be significantly greater than the response in the Dallas game, Simmonds/Clifford or not.

Sometimes the sheriff doesn’t have to pull his gun, sometimes him just being there is enough to keep the “bad boys” in line

Nobody was "kept in line". Winnipeg made multiple attempts to injure and played incredibly dirty, and it was responded to by players that weren't Simmonds/Clifford.

 

[ACC1224]

You’re not grasping the concept of team sports. They won the game as a team and protected each other in a nasty physical battle and Simmonds and Clifford helped create an environment of protection. Everyone can play a little harder because they know there’s someone with them. The idea of anyone assigning credit to who threw what hit and who jumped into which scrum is wrong headed.

Stephen gets it.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

The presence of goons and enforcers has always improved the overall physicality of a hockey team. But I agree that I would rather have more functional toughness than have 2 guys come in and cameo once in a while.

I'd agree historically, but hockey is a lot softer and a lot more skill based than it used to be. The worst you'd realistically get from Winnipeg is someone like Dubois throwing a cheap shot, but a player like Clifford doesn't really help address that. You want a guy with enough skill to keep up with Dubois hockeywise, but who also isn't afraid to go after him or a Jets star with a cheap shot of his own if he starts acting stupid. Dubois can easily just turtle if challenged to a fight, so that doesn't dissuade him

 

[egd27]

The team did respond. Just like they did the last time we faced them. Because we were facing a dirty team that we had previous bad blood with that injured our player the last time and attempted to injure more multiple times this game.
Simmonds/Clifford were on the bench. They were not involved in the majority of the response. Our regulars showed yet again that they can handle things on their own when necessary.
Matthews responded to the media attempting to create a narrative with a normal, mundane response about the 4th line bringing energy. And once again, people in Toronto attempted to twist it to their narrative.

You're calling it causation based on nothing, when it's really just incredibly weak correlation.

So with Clifford / Simmonds in the lineup, the team responded to a team that attempted to injure multiple times this game in a manner different from their game two nights ago. And post game, the reigning MVP of the league says that having them in the line up brings energy and intensity to the team.

Enough for me to believe they made a difference.

 

[Dekes For Days]

So with Clifford / Simmonds in the lineup, the team responded to a team that attempted to injure more multiple times this game in a manner different from their game two nights ago.

The team responded to a different situation from two nights ago differently. Nothing unusual about that. You attempt to credit the players who weren't involved in the response for no justifiable reason, while the rest of us credit the players who actually responded.

And post game, the reigning MVP of the league says that having them in the line up brings energy and intensity to the team.

Matthews, when questioned about the 4th line, said the 4th line brings energy. The same normal, mundane answer he and everybody says about their 4th lines no matter who is on it.

 

[Stephen]

I'd agree historically, but hockey is a lot softer and a lot more skill based than it used to be. The worst you'd realistically get from Winnipeg is someone like Dubois throwing a cheap shot, but a player like Clifford doesn't really help address that. You want a guy with enough skill to keep up with Dubois hockeywise, but who also isn't afraid to go after him or a Jets star with a cheap shot of his own if he starts acting stupid. Dubois can easily just turtle if challenged to a fight, so that doesn't dissuade him

Here’s the thing. I’m not a massive grit grinder dinosaur and prefer the skill game and puck possession to that DPE garbage. But the idea that the modern game is softer should only reinforce the Leafs commitment to more physicality.

Why? Because already have more skill than most everyone else in the league at the top of the roster. So if we added more functional toughness like you said, or even just brought the right amount at the bottom of the roster, we’d have a skilled and physically imposing team that could beat an opponent in 2 ways. That’s a lot more compelling to me than the idea of overwhelming the opposition with finesse flash.

 

[saltming]

What? No. Who in the hell ever said that?

I want our star players to fight. Not every game. But when someone is taking liberties with them. I want them to be like Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Kucherov, MacKinnon etc. I want them, every once in a while to f*** someone unsuspecting up.

With Simmonds and Clifford in the lineup you can see our little balls grow. Guys start to think they're tougher than they are and they talk about how having them in, allows them to that.

Just like what Auston said less then 24 hours ago.

I agree with what you're saying about the stars fighting back but I don't see how having his there to protect you facilitates that. Either you're willing to drop the gloves or not.
If you're on the ice and Simmons is on the ice, I get that you will play different because you know he will stand up and protect you. Coaches used to sub a 'goon' to chase a star player on the opposite team as retribution, but Keefe doesn't, so again I don't see the rational that icing those guys are the reason the team fought back.
I admit I like having tough guys on the team. Sending out a line that can intimidate is old time hockey and that's what I grew up with, but there is a difference between say Gretzky and Gilmour or even Gilmour and Clarke. The great one has protection on the ice with him, the others didn't. There were goons on the teams but they didn't need them.

All this to say, if Keefe put Clifford on line 1 and Simmons on line 2 I would get that there were the reason they played tougher.
Maybeis they had enough. Maybe enough of being called soft. Maybe coaching values changed. but unless a tough guy is in the ice with you, they aren't protecting you.

 

[Stephen]

The Dallas game and the Winnipeg game were not remotely similar situations.

We have no rivalry with Dallas. In contrast, the last game against Winnipeg was intense and resulted in multiple fights, Sandin getting injured, and a suspension. They are a dirty team that continued with multiple attempts to injure in this game.
There was one incident in the Dallas game, that wasn't even noticeable in the moment. The Winnipeg game meanwhile had multiple blatant and dangerous plays. The first big incident in the Winnipeg game (the Marner hit) didn't draw a massive response either.

It would be pretty expected for the response in the Winnipeg game after everything that happened to be significantly greater than the response in the Dallas game, Simmonds/Clifford or not.

Nobody was "kept in line". Winnipeg made multiple attempts to injure and played incredibly dirty, and it was responded to by players that weren't Simmonds/Clifford.

If we’re keeping score of physical contribution - and we shouldn’t because it’s a team game - Simmonds took an unsportsmanlike run at Mark Scheifele after a whistle. Which is a direct escalation of taking the physical play to their best players as a cease and desist.

The translation for people who don’t understand that dynamic is if you touch Matthews, Nylander, Marner, Tavares, Robertson etc. someone is going to mug your best player at the time of our choosing.

 

[Dekes For Days]

If we’re keeping score of physical contribution - and we shouldn’t because it’s a team game - Simmonds took an unsportsmanlike run at Mark Scheifele after a whistle. Which is a direct escalation of taking the physical play to their best players as a cease and desist.

More accurately, Simmonds lightly bumped Scheifele post-whistle after the ruckus had already died down, and took a bad penalty. Nobody was dissuaded from anything because of that.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Here’s the thing. I’m not a massive grit grinder dinosaur and prefer the skill game and puck possession to that DPE garbage. But the idea that the modern game is softer should only reinforce the Leafs commitment to more physicality.

Why? Because already have more skill than most everyone else in the league at the top of the roster. So if we added more functional toughness like you said, or even just brought the right amount at the bottom of the roster, we’d have a skilled and physically imposing team that could beat an opponent in 2 ways. That’s a lot more compelling to me than the idea of overwhelming the opposition with finesse flash.

Yeah I think that's a fair take. The softer the league gets, the more value you get from imposing players who can play. Hopefully Knies can be that type of player, and I'd love to add more. Unfortunately they're pretty rare. Dubas has tried a lot of different bottom 6 players with vastly different skillsets, but I don't think he's found the right mix yet