Player Discussion: Liljegren Is Back

[Ianturnedbull]

Yeah, Craig Button pointed out our defence as a weakness. We don't have a Makar or a Hedman so we need to make up for it with overall depth.

Muzzin, Brodie and Giordano are all aging rapidly, and Liljegren and Sandin are debatable in terms of their long-term top-4 potential. We have an ongoing deficit of size and physicality (which all successful playoff teams have) which is only getting worse, and no defensive prospects on the horizon in that regard (Braeden Schneider would have been a dream here).

I'm actually a little scared about our defensive core.

Even if Sandin's contract gets resolved it still presents challenges. Mainly that there are 3 capable defensemen ahead of him.

If Liljegren was healthy we are still looking at him playing the number 6 RD position. Holl is a number 6 too. Benn and Mete likely 7/8 guys right now.

 

[zeke]

My point exactly. They played well in playoffs,

...and for their entire careers.

Muzzin, Brodie and Giordano are all aging rapidly,

by "aging rapidly" you mean were playing fantastic hockey against a fantastic team last time we saw them.

 

[123offtheglass]

It's top 5 in the league. We have four guys who have been top-pair quality dmen their entire careers, and 2 more kids with top pair upside. And then a 7th who's been a solid #4 dman for a top team for a few years now.

A couple of these guys are getting older though.

I'd consider Rielly a pretty average #1, Brodie a #2, Muzz a good #3 who hopefully bounces back to a #2, Gio an aging #2/3, Holl a solid #4, & then Liljegren & Sandin very solid bottom pair guys, maybe even #4's with upside.

Clearly above league average but I wouldn't consider their top 4 to be top 5 in the league, their top 7 very well could be though.

 

[zeke]

A couple of these guys are getting older though.

I'd consider Rielly a pretty average #1, Brodie a #2, Muzz a good #3 who hopefully bounces back to a #2, Gio an aging #2/3, Holl a solid #4, & then Liljegren & Sandin very solid bottom pair guys, maybe even #4's with upside.

Clearly above league average but I wouldn't consider their top 4 to be top 5 in the league, their top 7 very well could be though.

Go around the league and see how many dcorps you think you can describe having a top-4 of four guys you just described as a #1, #2, #2-3, and #3.

 

[Ianturnedbull]

I think I agree with Craig Button's sentiment about our D. In no way am I saying Gio,Muzzin, Rielly, etc. are bad. I think they are average. Average is ok though

 

[kb]

I think I agree with Craig Button's sentiment about our D. In no way am I saying Gio,Muzzin, Rielly, etc. are bad. I think they are average. Average is ok though

 

[zeke]

For fun I looked at an objective all-around measure to compare dcorps coming into the year. I looked at the last available GSVA rating from theathletic.com, and then I totalled up the top 6 dmen on each team for the team total. GSVA isn't perfect - I.e. despite adjusting for qoc it still probably ends up underrating tough usage dmen like brodie and muzz and overrating soft usage guys like Sandin and Lilly, but in an exercise like this that largely balances out.

And note that the Leafs don't get credit here for having that 7th very good dman ,z the total at the bottom is just the total for the top 6.

So here's the top 10 by last year's gsva:

 

[The Management]

Who do we think slides in to replace him? Benn?

Edit. Just realized this is being discussed in another thread, disregard.

 

[Darcy Tucker]

It's all making sense to me. New goaltending , uncertain defense pairings, jobs at risk , no chemistry upfront but one line. This may be the bizzaro formula that makes the Leafs become dominant. Time to press the bets.

 

[Fogelhund]

How you rate our D-Core, is going to be completely dependent on what you want to see from a D core.

If you want a defensive focus, with punishing, net clearing guys, this is not the D core for you. You'll call this an average, or below average D core.

If you want a puck moving, move the puck up the ice, zone exit type D, this is arguably near the tops in the league.

The Leafs D at the current time, doesn't necessarily look like a traditional D, that many fans would expect, which would contain more of the physical D. We can argue all day about the validity of the traditional D, vs. what the Leafs are trying to do... but my main point is... you'll judge this D, based on your personal expectations as to what a D should look like.

You look at Colorado, and ask... how physical was their D?

Their top 4 D, put up the following hits/60... and sure there is more to physicality than to raw hit numbers, but it's a start.

Makar 3.1 Toews 3.7 Byram 6.97 Manson 8.72 This is in order of ice time, and restricted to the playoffs

Mo 6.07 Brodie 4.89 Muzzin 9.65 Holl 12.11 (Lilj 6.16, Gio 2.55)

I do think we lack enough of a physical presence on our team, but it's hard to make an argument, that our guys who get the most minutes, are any less physical than the Stanley Cup Champs top four was....

 

[JadedLeaf]

Young players getting injured in off-season lol.
Wtf man. Wonder what it is..

Im 30 and I hurt myself trying to poop to fast last week. Shit happens

 

[Its not your fault]

There you go. Players who miss training are always a step behind the whole year.

Or great when fatigue sets down the stretch.

 

[IPS]

How you rate our D-Core, is going to be completely dependent on what you want to see from a D core.

If you want a defensive focus, with punishing, net clearing guys, this is not the D core for you. You'll call this an average, or below average D core.

If you want a puck moving, move the puck up the ice, zone exit type D, this is arguably near the tops in the league.

The Leafs D at the current time, doesn't necessarily look like a traditional D, that many fans would expect, which would contain more of the physical D. We can argue all day about the validity of the traditional D, vs. what the Leafs are trying to do... but my main point is... you'll judge this D, based on your personal expectations as to what a D should look like.

You look at Colorado, and ask... how physical was their D?

Their top 4 D, put up the following hits/60... and sure there is more to physicality than to raw hit numbers, but it's a start.

Makar 3.1 Toews 3.7 Byram 6.97 Manson 8.72 This is in order of ice time, and restricted to the playoffs

Mo 6.07 Brodie 4.89 Muzzin 9.65 Holl 12.11 (Lilj 6.16, Gio 2.55)

I do think we lack enough of a physical presence on our team, but it's hard to make an argument, that our guys who get the most minutes, are any less physical than the Stanley Cup Champs top four was....

Your 2nd criteria of the "move the puck, zone exit type D" - we are definitely not as good as Colorado in this aspect. And they also have Cale Makar, who's a top-5 (possibly top-3) player on the planet right now.

For fun I looked at an objective all-around measure to compare dcorps coming into the year. I looked at the last available GSVA rating from theathletic.com, and then I totalled up the top 6 dmen on each team for the team total. GSVA isn't perfect - I.e. despite adjusting for qoc it still probably ends up underrating tough usage dmen like brodie and muzz and overrating soft usage guys like Sandin and Lilly, but in an exercise like this that largely balances out.

And note that the Leafs don't get credit here for having that 7th very good dman ,z the total at the bottom is just the total for the top 6.

So here's the top 10 by last year's gsva:

View attachment 586919

You sure spent a lot of time with a stat that doesn't appear to tell anything useful at all.

 

[zeke]

You sure spent a lot of time with a stat that doesn't appear to tell anything useful at all.

OK.

If you want a defensive focus, with punishing, net clearing guys, this is not the D core for you. You'll call this an average, or below average D core.

Brodie, Muzzin, Giordano are all excellent defensive dmen.

 

[Fogelhund]

OK.



Brodie, Muzzin, Giordano are all excellent defensive dmen.

Are Brodie and Gio punishing net clearing guys?

 

[zeke]

Are Brodie and Gio punishing net clearing guys?

You said defensive focus.

 

[AllDay28]

Jesus par for the f***ing course

Arguably the most important young player this year, that sucks

Auston Matthews?

 

[Fogelhund]

You said defensive focus.

You said defensive focus.

I know you are a good poster, who can read more than half a sentence, but this time, it looks like you read half the sentence. You literally quoted the full sentence.

Here it is.

If you want a defensive focus, with punishing, net clearing guys, this is not the D core for you

 

[Maplebeasts]

Yeah, Craig Button pointed out our defence as a weakness. We don't have a Makar or a Hedman so we need to make up for it with overall depth.

Muzzin, Brodie and Giordano are all aging rapidly, and Liljegren and Sandin are debatable in terms of their long-term top-4 potential. We have an ongoing deficit of size and physicality (which all successful playoff teams have) which is only getting worse, and no defensive prospects on the horizon in that regard (Braeden Schneider would have been a dream here).

I'm actually a little scared about our defensive core.

Braden Schneider as of now is not very good. Physicality is meaningless if you get dominated in terms of chances and goals for and against on the ice.

 

[Felix the Cat Potvin]

Braden Schneider as of now is not very good. Physicality is meaningless if you get dominated in terms of chances and goals for and against on the ice.

I don't want to get too far into this because the Amirov situation, but Schneider is a 21-year old RH defenceman with size and nastiness who would bring dimensions to our defence that it doesn't have and would sure look good beside Rielly or Muzzin.

 

[Fogelhund]

Braden Schneider as of now is not very good. Physicality is meaningless if you get dominated in terms of chances and goals for and against on the ice.

If he were a Leafs prospect, he'd likely still be working on his game as a Marlie. I think he becomes at least a good bottom pairing D man, maybe middle pairing at his peak. A stretch at his draft position, but the type of prospect that would be a good diversifier of the type of prospects that we do have. If it were him, instead of Lundkvist being traded for a second round pick, that I would love to see us do.

I don't want to get too far into this because the Amirov situation, but Schneider is a 21-year old RH defenceman with size and nastiness who would bring dimensions to our defence that it doesn't have and would sure look good beside Rielly or Muzzin.

I don't see him ever becoming good enough to be a Rielly partner, and maybe a complimentary guy for Muzzin is a peak. But, I do agree it would bring a dimension to our D, that we currently lack.

 

[zeke]

I know you are a good poster, who can read more than half a sentence, but this time, it looks like you read half the sentence. You literally quoted the full sentence.

Here it is.

If you want a defensive focus, with punishing, net clearing guys, this is not the D core for you

Well you put the word "defense" only on the punishing option, not the mobile option, so I felt I should reiterate that at least half the dmen are legit excellent defensively.

 

[andora]

Auston Matthews?

Without a solidified ironclad no take back roster spots?

 

[Fogelhund]

Well you put the word "defense" only on the punishing option, not the mobile option, so I felt I should reiterate that at least half the dmen are legit excellent defensively.

I think you are working too hard, to find something there.

It should be pretty clear, that someone with a defensive FOCUS, who is your traditional, stay at home, bruising type, net clearer is.

It should be pretty clear, that your mobile, puck moving guys, don't have a defensive focus. That isn't their focus, it doesn't mean that they aren't good defensively.

You've focused on one word, completely taken the point out of context, and then tried to argue on it... wasn't the point, never was.

 

[zeke]

I think you are working too hard, to find something there.

It should be pretty clear, that someone with a defensive FOCUS, who is your traditional, stay at home, bruising type, net clearer is.

It should be pretty clear, that your mobile, puck moving guys, don't have a defensive focus. That isn't their focus, it doesn't mean that they aren't good defensively.

You've focused on one word, completely taken the point out of context, and then tried to argue on it... wasn't the point, never was.

OK so then I reiterate - Brodie, Muzzin, Giordano have a defensive focus and are excellent defensively.