Sheldon Keefe Discussion

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Seems you're equating "talent" only to "puckskills", which is a bit off. Brodie is more talented in all other facets of the game, including skating, transition, and defense. Barrie's greatest asset was on the PP, where that talent was actually just redundant and cannibalized Rielly's contributions.





Wat.



I wouldn't lock Simmonds in for anything. Nor Spezza.

Of all the guys after Kerfoot, the best bet to be a legit contributor is Big Joe.

But I expect a fierce battle for all of those last 5 slots all year from all 9 of Thornton, Spezza, Vesey, Simmonds, Engvall, Boyd, Robertson, Barabanov, Anderson.

Simmonds is a lock, you don't pay a guy 1.5 million not to play.

Unless he is injured he's 100% in the lineup

 

[zeke]

Simmonds is a lock, you don't pay a guy 1.5 million not to play.

Unless he is injured he's 100% in the lineup

Eh. $1.5/1yr deal does not scream "lock" to me. Especially when you follow it up by signing Thornton and Vesey.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Eh. $1.5/1yr deal does not scream "lock" to me. Especially when you follow it up by signing Thornton and Vesey.

Thornton doesn't impact Simmonds they are different positions

 

[Auston Escobar]

Neither Simmonds nor Thornton are particularly talented. Simmonds made his whole career out of hard work and toughness. Joe Thornton was never one of the elite talents, even at his best. He dominated with size (not talent), vision (not talent), creativity (not talent), and puck protection (not talent)...

This is one of the dumbest lines I've ever seen on this board. Rarely post here, but I couldn't help myself here. If vision and creativity aren't hockey "talents" then Wayne f***ing Gretzky isn't talented by your definition.

 

[Dreakmur]

Seems you're equating "talent" only to "puckskills", which is a bit off. Brodie is more talented in all other facets of the game, including skating, transition, and defense. Barrie's greatest asset was on the PP, where that talent was actually just redundant and cannibalized Rielly's contributions.

I would say I use talent and skill similarly. All facets of skating, shooting, passing, and puck-handling would be things I include when I say talent.

Brodie and Barrie are similar skaters. Barrie is far superior in all puck skills.

Brodie is a far better hockey player, because intangibles matter.

Wat.

I include skating and shooting as talent. Two things Thornton was never particularly good at.

I wouldn't lock Simmonds in for anything. Nor Spezza.

Of all the guys after Kerfoot, the best bet to be a legit contributor is Big Joe.

But I expect a fierce battle for all of those last 5 slots all year from all 9 of Thornton, Spezza, Vesey, Simmonds, Engvall, Boyd, Robertson, Barabanov, Anderson.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say we need to bring different aspects to the lineup. Joe Thronton, at this point, is a PP specialist... and we don't have room for him on the top PP. Sure, we can split out PP into two units, or he can run the second unit, but his biggest on-ice contribution is at best a secondary need.

Simmonds brings something unique. He's on my roster, even if it's on the 4th line. I'm not an Engvall fan, but he might land in my lineup just because we don't have many PKers.

 

[Dreakmur]

This is one of the dumbest lines I've ever seen on this board. Rarely post here, but I couldn't help myself here. If vision and creativity aren't hockey "talents" then Wayne f***ing Gretzky isn't talented by your definition.

So, we have slightly different ideas on what the word "talent" means. Not sure why you find that so offensive.

I don't even disagree that vision and creativity are talents. I just didn't include the in the context of this conversation.

Gretzky is a top-3 player to ever play. Does it really matter that I count his vision in creativity as a separate category than talent?

 

[zeke]

I would say I use talent and skill similarly. All facets of skating, shooting, passing, and puck-handling would be things I include when I say talent.

Brodie and Barrie are similar skaters. Barrie is far superior in all puck skills.

Brodie is a far better hockey player, because intangibles matter.

well this is where we disagree significantly - imo Barrie's most dissappointing weakness was his skating. Not so much his decent top speed, but his first step, acceleration, turns.....just not very good imo - once he got beat he had one helluva time recovering. Brodie imo is a significantly better skater, not so much in top end speed, but in his beautiful effortless fundamentals which allow him to just plain cover more of the ice - and make up for his just ok puck skills that sometimes leads him to making some ugly turnovers.

I include skating and shooting as talent. Two things Thornton was never particularly good at.

I mean, he's one of the all time great passers in league history.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say we need to bring different aspects to the lineup. Joe Thronton, at this point, is a PP specialist... and we don't have room for him on the top PP. Sure, we can split out PP into two units, or he can run the second unit, but his biggest on-ice contribution is at best a secondary need.

Thornton, along with the whole sharks team, had a bad year last year no doubt. But even then he wasn't as bad as Simmonds at even strength. And just the year before that, Thornton was a legit good even strength player in solid 2nd line usage. There's a chance he might be toast, in which case he won't play much, but there's also a chance that he's still better than what he and his team did last year.

Simmonds brings something unique. He's on my roster, even if it's on the 4th line. I'm not an Engvall fan, but he might land in my lineup just because we don't have many PKers.

Simmonds' toughness may or may not be useful. I am hoping that there was a legit injury issue that has legit been fixed, though, because otherwise he's been a flat out liability on the ice in all situations, for at least the last 2 years and maybe more. I have him in the mix like all the rest - if he earns it.

To be dead honest, I wouldn't be surprised if all the younger guys ended up being the best options this year in the bottom 6. I could easily see something like this as our legit best lineup:

Hyman - Matthews - Marner
Mikheyev - Tavares - Nylander
Robertson - Kerfoot - Vesey
Anderson - Engvall - Barabanov

That would give us all sorts of speed, sice, grit, 2-way play and even a good amount of offense in the bottom 6.

But then again, maybe not, and not all the younger guys are ready to compete and some of the old guys still have enough juice left to legit earn themselves a spot.

 

[Dekes For Days]

They went for grit, that was their intention.

They had "grit" previously. They replaced that with more talented "grit". The biggest change was not the presence of physicality. It was what else came with it from those players, and their best players actually playing like it.

Just because you can't identify intangibles doesn't mean nobody else can.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge it doesn't change your inability to effectively evaluate the impacts of "intangibles".

LA won two cups as one of the least offensively talented teams in the league.

There is more to "talent" than offense.

We downgraded out talent.

We did not downgrade our overall talent. We upgraded it.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Joe Thornton was never one of the elite talents, even at his best. He dominated with size (not talent), vision (not talent), creativity (not talent), and puck protection (not talent)...

Wow, you seem to have a really... different... idea about what talent means. I can't even believe that I read what I just read.

 

[HockeyVirus]

I still don't think the Leafs are tough enough. Habs, Sens, and all teams out west are all tougher. Simmonds, Anderson, and Bogo are great, but they are 4th liners / extra D. Johnsson had grease to him, he's gone. Kappy was turning into a tough player, he's gone. Thornton had some grease but is ancient.

We have Hyman in the top 9 with any sort of backbone. That won't due in this division. Defense is better having Muzzin and Holl, with Bogo likely as the 7th D and Sandin having an edge (although he is small). But up front, man. We need at least 2 top 9 forwards with some bite still. And this oversight will hurt us long term. Dubas will realize this and need to make a deal, except no Canadian team will trade with us. So that means a 14 day layover for our guys to come to Canada from a team in the states.

None of this is Keefe's fault. I am not sold on his "hang onto the puck at all times" system.. And I think we saw it exploited by an aggressive forecheck against the Jackets. But he is smart and I hope will find the "balance" to preach.

What all this means is Dubas has full faith in his team and players. If they fail him, it's on Dubas, not Keefe. Keefe is a Dubas hire. If he is wrong for the job, he'll be given at least 1 more season. I see it going like this.

Miss the playoffs = Dubas fired.

Make playoffs but lost in 1st round = IDK. Depends on how it all goes down.

Go further than first round = safe.

I just hope Dubas keeps learning how important toughness is to win.

 

[Dreakmur]

well this is where we disagree significantly - imo Barrie's most dissappointing weakness was his skating. Not so much his decent top speed, but his first step, acceleration, turns.....just not very good imo - once he got beat he had one helluva time recovering. Brodie imo is a significantly better skater, not so much in top end speed, but in his beautiful effortless fundamentals which allow him to just plain cover more of the ice - and make up for his just ok puck skills that sometimes leads him to making some ugly turnovers.

Fair enough, and I would probably agree that Brodie is much better in his footwork.

When I use the term talent, I mean skating speed, agility, passing and receiving, puck handling, and shooting power, accuracy, and release.

I mean, he's one of the all time great passers in league history.

Yes he is. I didn't say he was bad. I said he wasn't particularly talented, and you misunderstood what I meant.

Thornton, along with the whole sharks team, had a bad year last year no doubt. But even then he wasn't as bad as Simmonds at even strength. And just the year before that, Thornton was a legit good even strength player in solid 2nd line usage. There's a chance he might be toast, in which case he won't play much, but there's also a chance that he's still better than what he and his team did last year.

With some time to rest, I would assume Thronton does come back a little rejuvenated. I just don't think he was a piece we needed to add. That doesn't mean I don't like the signing, because I think we really needed to add his presence in the dressing room, but I'm not sure he makes much of an impact on the ice.

The law of diminishing returns and all that.

Simmonds' toughness may or may not be useful. I am hoping that there was a legit injury issue that has legit been fixed, though, because otherwise he's been a flat out liability on the ice in all situations, for at least the last 2 years and maybe more. I have him in the mix like all the rest - if he earns it.

Obviously, he shouldn't play if he sucks. That should apply to Auston Matthews.

It's not just his toughness that will be useful. He's the kind of guy who adds energy to the whole lineup. Maybe I'm just being naively optimistic, but I think Simmonds can bring something similar to what Hyman does.

To be dead honest, I wouldn't be surprised if all the younger guys ended up being the best options this year in the bottom 6. I could easily see something like this as our legit best lineup:

Hyman - Matthews - Marner
Mikheyev - Tavares - Nylander
Robertson - Kerfoot - Vesey
Anderson - Engvall - Barabanov

That would give us all sorts of speed, sice, grit, 2-way play and even a good amount of offense in the bottom 6.

But then again, maybe not, and not all the younger guys are ready to compete and some of the old guys still have enough juice left to legit earn themselves a spot.

I don't mind that lineup. Barabanov, Robertson, and Anderson could both provide speed and skill, combined with a youthful energy and enthusiasm.

 

[Dreakmur]

Wow, you seem to have a really... different... idea about what talent means. I can't even believe that I read what I just read.

Probably just comes from how I evaluate a hockey player. I use 4 basic groups:
Talent - skating, puck skills, etc
Smarts - vision, creativity, instincts, defensive reads, etc
Attitude - work ethic, team play, unselfish, maturity, etc
Toughness - strength on puck, winning battles, physical play, mental toughness/resilience, etc

 

[Dreakmur]

Your unwillingness to acknowledge it doesn't change your inability to effectively evaluate the impacts of "intangibles".

In 22 years of coaching, I have learned many things. One is that intangibles are very important.

There is more to "talent" than offense.

We did not downgrade our overall talent. We upgraded it.

I think we're getting a bit into the weeds on this debate about what talent means. If it makes you feel better, replace "talent" with "skill" and we can ride off into the sunset together.

 

[Dekes For Days]

In 22 years of coaching, I have learned many things.

That doesn't mean what you've learned is correct, or applicable to the NHL.

I think we're getting a bit into the weeds on this debate about what talent means.

You're the one that is attempting to change what talent and intangibles means, and create these arbitrary groupings that has apparently led you to the conclusion that Thornton in his prime wasn't an elite talent...

Honestly, I'm not even sure what your argument is anymore, because you seem to have a different definition of everything than everybody else.

 

[Dreakmur]

That doesn't mean what you've learned is correct, or applicable to the NHL.

True enough, but I'll take years of experience as something valuable.

You're the one that is attempting to change what talent and intangibles means, and create these arbitrary groupings that has apparently led you to the conclusion that Thornton in his prime wasn't an elite talent...

It's really not that complicated. When I say talent, it basically means your definition of skill.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what your argument is anymore, because you seem to have a different definition of everything than everybody else.

My argument is that it takes more than just talent (skill) to win hockey games.

You need guys to win battles, you need guys to play well defensively. You need guys to play niche roles.

 

[Dekes For Days]

When I say talent, it basically means your definition of skill.

But things like defense, and creativity/instincts, etc. are hockey skills, and you have them under entirely different groupings...

My argument is that it takes more than just talent (skill) to win hockey games.

Well, if your argument is that it takes more than exclusively skating and puck skills to win, then yeah, of course there's more to hockey than that, but no team is exclusively skating and puck skills.

 

[Menzinger]

That's not what Tampa fans think. They think those were absolutely crucial adds that gave them the much needed physicality to further adapt their team to the postseason.

Its a debate that has no clear answer. Either Tampa kept tinkering until they found the winning mix of core and depth players vs the stars finally aligned for their existing core to push the team to win (ie give that talented group of players enough chances at a cup, they'd eventually win).

The answer likely falls (boringly) somewhere in the middle of those two positions

 

[Menzinger]

Tyson Barrie is way more talented than anything we've added. TJ Brodie is a better hockey player, for sure, but there's no way to spin that as adding talent.



Vesey is about equal to Kappy/Johnsson in the talent department. I'm not sure he's as good a hockey player as they are.

Neither Simmonds nor Thornton are particularly talented. Simmonds made his whole career out of hard work and toughness. Joe Thornton was never one
Thornton of the elite talents, even at his best. He dominated with size (not talent), vision (not talent), creativity (not talent), and puck protection (not talent)... and now he's way past his prime.



How many forwards are we dressing?

Matthews, Tavares, Marner, Nylander, Hyman, Mikheyev, Kerfoot, Simmonds, and Spezza are all locks for me. That leaves Thornton, Vesey, and Engvall competing with those guys for roster slots.

Thornton is definitely way past his prime, but I couldn't disagree more here. The guy was one of the best playmaker in thr league. Thats all from his vision, puck skills and hockey IQ not his size...

 

[diehardleafsfan9878]

I include skating and shooting as talent. Two things Thornton was never particularly good at.

If your comparing Thornton's skating to players skating ability today, then no he's not good at it. But when he was drafted, he was more than an average skater.

As for his shot, he has a laser for one. Just because he chooses not to use it, doesn't mean he can't.

 

[Dreakmur]

But things like defense, and creativity/instincts, etc. are hockey skills, and you have them under entirely different groupings...

Well, if your argument is that it takes more than exclusively skating and puck skills to win, then yeah, of course there's more to hockey than that, but no team is exclusively skating and puck skills.

glad we’re on the same page... just speaking different languages is all

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Probably just comes from how I evaluate a hockey player. I use 4 basic groups:
Talent - skating, puck skills, etc
Smarts - vision, creativity, instincts, defensive reads, etc
Attitude - work ethic, team play, unselfish, maturity, etc
Toughness - strength on puck, winning battles, physical play, mental toughness/resilience, etc

Nice breakdown. When they all bind together a tier of player is born from the talent. Everything else is paramount. Talent is fluid to the multiple tools also even if they aren’t your top scorer. Consistency/ dependability is another 2 key for our team

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Probably just comes from how I evaluate a hockey player. I use 4 basic groups:
Talent - skating, puck skills, etc
Smarts - vision, creativity, instincts, defensive reads, etc
Attitude - work ethic, team play, unselfish, maturity, etc
Toughness - strength on puck, winning battles, physical play, mental toughness/resilience, etc

I'm sort of jumping in the middle of a conversation here, but I don't disagree with your four categories. I have also coached for years. I have released several players with Talent/skill only for players with Smarts, Attitude and Toughness. Those players that offer the bottom 3 groups generally, in my experience, end up being the leaders on your team. They are the play drivers.

 

[Pookie]

They had "grit" previously. They replaced that with more talented "grit". The biggest change was not the presence of physicality. It was what else came with it from those players, and their best players actually playing like it.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge it doesn't change your inability to effectively evaluate the impacts of "intangibles".

There is more to "talent" than offense.

We did not downgrade our overall talent. We upgraded it.

Of course Deksie.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Of course Deksie.

I wasn't even replying to you. Not sure why you're responding to me to add nothing. Also, my name is not "Deksie".

 

[Pookie]

Tyson Barrie is way more talented than anything we've added. TJ Brodie is a better hockey player, for sure, but there's no way to spin that as adding talent.



Vesey is about equal to Kappy/Johnsson in the talent department. I'm not sure he's as good a hockey player as they are.

Neither Simmonds nor Thornton are particularly talented. Simmonds made his whole career out of hard work and toughness. Joe Thornton was never one of the elite talents, even at his best. He dominated with size (not talent), vision (not talent), creativity (not talent), and puck protection (not talent)... and now he's way past his prime.



How many forwards are we dressing?

Matthews, Tavares, Marner, Nylander, Hyman, Mikheyev, Kerfoot, Simmonds, and Spezza are all locks for me. That leaves Thornton, Vesey, and Engvall competing with those guys for roster slots.

Agree with most except for the size and vision comment.

I don't see tinkering with the bottom group as being anything significant this offseason. I like that they added Simmonds but they also subtracted Clifford... who left for less money.

I'm not convinced that Keefe will play him. Keefe seemed to have a weird use for Clifford... playing him as low as 3 mins and as high as 11. Most games were well under 10 mins of ice time.

And I don't think one dude is going to encourage the Quitter Core to show up and play with grit. I'm hoping Thornton is that influence that can change those attitudes.