Official Tank Thread of the Toronto Maple Leafs

[Trapper]

some call it shameful, some call it actually wanting to win a championship in a couple of years.

In order to win a championship you need at least 2 out of 3 core positions.
No. 1 C, No. 1 D, No. 1 G.
And these players need to do it/prove it over multiple season.
We currently don't have anyone in the proven elite category.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Meh. If you want to win, you need to be good enough overall. I don't think there's a certain formula needed.

 

[WTFMAN99]

Meh. If you want to win, you need to be good enough overall. I don't think there's a certain formula needed.

You do need certain things though.

1C
Great goaltending
1D (exception that came to mind was Carolina)


Most cup winners you see great goaltending, strength down the middle, contributions from up and down the line up, and a solid defense (or 4 great defenseman in Chicago's case lol).

 

[Trapper]

Meh. If you want to win, you need to be good enough overall. I don't think there's a certain formula needed.

If you don't have the key core positions capable of winning (or being in the running) for Norris/Vexina/Selke/Art Ross whatever, you don't win. So meh, meh is the Leafs.

 

[Joey Hoser]

In order to win a championship you need at least 2 out of 3 core positions.
No. 1 C, No. 1 D, No. 1 G.
And these players need to do it/prove it over multiple season.
We currently don't have anyone in the proven elite category.

I'd argue there are very few in the proven elite respective #1 category who haven't already won cups. That's largely how you prove it.

 

[Gabriel426]

When you look at the past 8 Cup winners. Goalie did not play a major factor, they played a role but not Great.
They will always have a horse in the D and a Great Top line with balance scoring from their 3rd and 4th.

Honestly, in today's salary cap league. Teams are either 2 players away from being a contender or 2 injuries away from being a lottery team.

 

[Daisy Jane]

When you look at the past 8 Cup winners. Goalie did not play a major factor, they played a role but not Great.
They will always have a horse in the D and a Great Top line with balance scoring from their 3rd and 4th.

Honestly, in today's salary cap league. Teams are either 2 players away from being a contender or 2 injuries away from being a lottery team.

the goalie didn't play a major factor?
Quick won the Conn Smythe the first time LA won the cup. i'd call that being a major factor.

 

[hfdshdh]

You do need certain things though.

1C
Great goaltending
1D (exception that came to mind was Carolina)


Most cup winners you see great goaltending, strength down the middle, contributions from up and down the line up, and a solid defense (or 4 great defenseman in Chicago's case lol).

The definitions of those terms can vary pretty wildly, though.

Is Kris Letang a #1D? Are Fleury and Niemi great goaltenders? Are the Hawks really that strong down the middle beyond Toews? I can recall people saying, when the Bruins won the Cup, that they did it without a 'true #1C' because neither Bergeron nor Krejci were PPG scorers.

I'm inclined to agree with Nithoniniel. There doesn't really seem to be any particular formula for being a Cup contender other than being good, winning a lot of games and sheer luck (avoiding major injuries, bounces, refereeing, etc.).

You could argue that the Rangers don't have a #1C or a #1D, and they've been a pretty legit Cup contender for at least a couple of years now.

 

[Menzinger]

In order to win a championship you need at least 2 out of 3 core positions.
No. 1 C, No. 1 D, No. 1 G.
And these players need to do it/prove it over multiple season.
We currently don't have anyone in the proven elite category.

Eh, I don't think it's even like that - you need a core group of highly skilled players, regardless of position. Like look at the Hawks - their strongest position has been at wing the years they won the championship.

Highly skilled core group + good depth who can chip in when needed will get you a champion.

I'm of the mindset that there is no set formula of players needed to win a cup.

 

[Menzinger]

You do need certain things though.

1C
Great goaltending
1D (exception that came to mind was Carolina)


Most cup winners you see great goaltending, strength down the middle, contributions from up and down the line up, and a solid defense (or 4 great defenseman in Chicago's case lol).

But that's the thing though - a team with 2-3# defencemen is likely going to be better than a team with only a #1 guy.

You need players that compliment one another, regardless of position. I mean the Hawls have a pretty weak centre core outside of stores but that doesn't matter because of their top rate wingers.

 

[Canada4Gold]

The definitions of those terms can vary pretty wildly, though.

Is Kris Letang a #1D? Are Fleury and Niemi great goaltenders? Are the Hawks really that strong down the middle beyond Toews? I can recall people saying, when the Bruins won the Cup, that they did it without a 'true #1C' because neither Bergeron nor Krejci were PPG scorers.

I'm inclined to agree with Nithoniniel. There doesn't really seem to be any particular formula for being a Cup contender other than being good, winning a lot of games and sheer luck (avoiding major injuries, bounces, refereeing, etc.).

You could argue that the Rangers don't have a #1C or a #1D, and they've been a pretty legit Cup contender for at least a couple of years now.

I'd call McDonagh a #1D

 

[Menzinger]

the goalie didn't play a major factor?
Quick won the Conn Smythe the first time LA won the cup. i'd call that being a major factor.

His numbers during their 2nd cup win aren't anything spectacular.

 

[Trapper]

The definitions of those terms can vary pretty wildly, though.

Is Kris Letang a #1D? Are Fleury and Niemi great goaltenders? Are the Hawks really that strong down the middle beyond Toews? I can recall people saying, when the Bruins won the Cup, that they did it without a 'true #1C' because neither Bergeron nor Krejci were PPG scorers.

I'm inclined to agree with Nithoniniel. There doesn't really seem to be any particular formula for being a Cup contender other than being good, winning a lot of games and sheer luck (avoiding major injuries, bounces, refereeing, etc.).

You could argue that the Rangers don't have a #1C or a #1D, and they've been a pretty legit Cup contender for at least a couple of years now.

The Blues are legit Cup contenders as well. 16 teams make the playoffs so there are many contenders.
Who do all these teams keep losing to? Yes you need depth, your core gets you to the playoffs, your depth wins the Cup. But you still need those core pieces.
We don't have this. We can get there, we just need to stick to the plan.

 

[Ovate]

"What you need to win" is skewed, because two teams make up 5 of the last 6 cups. The game has changed significantly over that time, so I'll just look at those 6 years.

Great goaltending. Yes, having a great goalie can win you a cup. Look at Quick on the 2012 Kings, .94 SV% in the playoffs. Without him, they wouldn't have won that cup. BUT, no one was predicting he'd have that kind of performance. Goaltending is a high variance position. Having a great goaltender sometimes falls apart in the playoffs and having an ok goaltender sometimes works out. You can't plan for it. The best you can do is build like the Hawks so that even if your goaltending is just decent, the team is still good enough to win.

Centers. Blackhawks and Kings both had clear #1Cs. Bruins had a 1A/1B scenario. Blackhawks haven't had great center depth. Conclusion: good centers help your team win, get as many as possible. No secrets here.

Defense. Kings and Bruins had crazy defensive depth. Hawks have poor depth but Keith, who can play as much as two lesser defensemen. Have a very good defenseman or many good defensemen helps win

Gamebreakers: Hawks had Kane, Bruins and Kings played a consistent "Team First" game. Either works.

Overall conclusion: Get as many good players together as you can, play a good system, don't have any major areas of weakness, and don't depend on your goaltending.

 

[Menzinger]

What management needs to do is bring in a group of highly skilled guys - get the team to "contender" status and hope they get some great puck luck in the playoffs, or super hot goaltending. I really don't think there is all that much separating most of the League's current contenders - things just need to go the right way in the playoffs for them to win.

 

[hfdshdh]

The Blues are legit Cup contenders as well. 16 teams make the playoffs so there are many contenders.
Who do all these teams keep losing to? Yes you need depth, your core gets you to the playoffs, your depth wins the Cup. But you still need those core pieces.
We don't have this. We can get there, we just need to stick to the plan.

Yeah, the Blues have basically just been victims of being in such a tough division. Put them in the East and they'd probably have had a couple of trips to the Conference Final already, if not the SCF. And that's arguably without a #1C or a #1G.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Meh. If you want to win, you need to be good enough overall. I don't think there's a certain formula needed.

Sure, it's possible... it's possible... to get a whole bunch of elite players from trades and free agency.
But it's FAR more likely to get elite players through the draft.

There is no sure method to build a contender, but there certainly is a much more likely and proven method... and it's called rebuilding through the draft.
(Note, we are all WELL aware that there examples of teams failing to rebuild properly through the draft. But they are exceptions, not rules, so don't bother bringing them up.)

 

[WTFMAN99]

The definitions of those terms can vary pretty wildly, though.

Is Kris Letang a #1D? Are Fleury and Niemi great goaltenders? Are the Hawks really that strong down the middle beyond Toews? I can recall people saying, when the Bruins won the Cup, that they did it without a 'true #1C' because neither Bergeron nor Krejci were PPG scorers.

I'm inclined to agree with Nithoniniel. There doesn't really seem to be any particular formula for being a Cup contender other than being good, winning a lot of games and sheer luck (avoiding major injuries, bounces, refereeing, etc.).

You could argue that the Rangers don't have a #1C or a #1D, and they've been a pretty legit Cup contender for at least a couple of years now.

Fleury was actually really good in Pittsburghs 2 cup final appearances.

I'd say the Hawks had a crappy 2nd line centre when they had Handzus at the 2C slot. In terms of the Bruins - Krejci was the leading scorer in the playoffs when they won the cup, and he was pretty high up there when they were in the finals too. Also had Chara and Thomas (franchise #1D in their prime, and a goalie putting up out of this world stats)

Rangers definitely don't have a 1C (but they lost to a team with one in the Finals), and McDonagh is probabably a "top pairing" defenseman but again, the Kings with Drew Doughty outclassed the Rangers. Better players in key positions.

But that's the thing though - a team with 2-3# defencemen is likely going to be better than a team with only a #1 guy.

You need players that compliment one another, regardless of position. I mean the Hawls have a pretty weak centre core outside of stores but that doesn't matter because of their top rate wingers.

I'd need to see an example of a team who won a cup recently who had a bunch of #2-3 guys against a team who had a #1D and nothing else. I've never seen that to my recollection.

Toews-Sharp(rotated in and out of centre)-Bolland-Madden
Toews-Handzus-Kruger-Bolland
Toews-Richards-Vermette-Kruger

1st time the Hawks won it, they had a revolving door of people playing the 2nd line C position. Sharp was there a lot, but didn't like playing centre.

2nd time they won it - Handzus was pretty craptacular

3rd time they won it - Richards was a pretty good 2nd line centre option.

 

[champs*]

Someone has to make babcock aware of this thread!! he is going to mess up our plans

 

[Menzinger]

Fleury was actually really good in Pittsburghs 2 cup final appearances.

I'd say the Hawks had a crappy 2nd line centre when they had Handzus at the 2C slot. In terms of the Bruins - Krejci was the leading scorer in the playoffs when they won the cup, and he was pretty high up there when they were in the finals too. Also had Chara and Thomas (franchise #1D in their prime, and a goalie putting up out of this world stats)

Rangers definitely don't have a 1C (but they lost to a team with one in the Finals), and McDonagh is probabably a "top pairing" defenseman but again, the Kings with Drew Doughty outclassed the Rangers. Better players in key positions.



I'd need to see an example of a team who won a cup recently who had a bunch of #2-3 guys against a team who had a #1D and nothing else. I've never seen that to my recollection. I

Toews-Sharp(rotated in and out of centre)-Bolland-Madden
Toews-Handzus-Kruger-Bolland
Toews-Richards-Vermette-Kruger

1st time the Hawks won it, they had a revolving door of people playing the 2nd line C position. Sharp was there a lot, but didn't like playing centre.

2nd time they won it - Handzus was pretty craptacular

3rd time they won it - Richards was a pretty good 2nd line centre option.

Richards was fine, but the guy's pretty washed up at this point. Overall he a hawks' centre depth is pretty lacklustre. Most of their key forwards are clearly wingers.

The point I was getting at was you need skilled depth at the defensive position. Just having a number one guy isn't enough - you need to have a bottom pairing that can be competitive against other teams top four's. I find people fixate too much on team's number 1's and don't give nearly enough credit to the guys playing beside and behind them in the lineup. The Kings defensive depth was fantastic when they won their cups.

 

[Swayze*]

Canes lost

Sabres lost

Clb losing

Edm will lose later

 

[dballislife2]

cant believe we're only at the 10th pick right now...if we go through a year like this and pick around 8-13, imma pissed

 

[champs*]

if we pick 4 or higher, I am going to rant!!

 

[dballislife2]

if only we could hire babcock next year and add matthews or chychrun...without babs we're almost lock to be worst in league

matthews is just a tad below mcdavid/eichel as a prospect imo, and chychrun really looks like a elite D...how good would a rebuild look starting with 1 of these

 

[Leafs at Knight]

It's been 5 games.........................................................