Why were the 1990-91 Maple Leafs so damn bad?

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,435
16,175
Tokyo, Japan
(Maybe this has been hashed-out before; I can't recall.)

The context:

1989-90: The Leafs have their first non-losing season in ages, with a .500 record. They appear to be a team on the rise, despite atrocious team defence. Captained by Rob Ramage, the Leafs' forwards include Leeman (50+ goals, aged 25), Damphousse (94 points, aged 22), Ed Olcyzk (88 points, aged 23), Daniel Marois (39 goals, aged 21), Wendel Clark (oft-injured), Osborne, Fergus, etc. On defence, Al Iafrate, Kurvers, Ramage, Richardson, Gill, Marsh.

1990-91: WTF?

1991-92: Early in January, the Leafs trade Leeman, Petit, Reese, Berube for Gilmour, Macoun, Manderville, Nattress (and Wamsley). Gilmour era begins.

How bad were they in 1990-91? The team started the season winless in 7, reaching an overall record of 4-21-1 by late November, at which point they'd already missed the playoffs for all intents and purposes.

My question is: How could the Leafs have been so bloody terrible in 1990-91 (esp. early) after seemingly being a talent-laden team on the rise in 1989-90?
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
13,787
8,560
NYC
www.hockeyprospect.com
The 1990 Leafs had everything they touched go in the net...they had a top 5 PP, they had a top 3 shooting percentage. The next year they were bottom three in shooting percentage and had a lower end power play.

Part of that is guys falling back down to earth, part of that is guys missing significant time...they also made a coaching change very early in the 1990-91 season going from Doug Carpenter to Tom Watt...

Also, I took a quick look at a game from 1990 vs 1991...man, that 1990 really pushed for it offensively. I haven't looked deeply at the year to year for individual players, but based on how their defense is coached in 1990, I'd imagine a big difference was how much offense they got from their defense. They got encouraged to play some fairly present-day style elements...
 
Last edited:

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,980
4,069
One reason is they were a talented run and gun team on the upswing but then two of their main guns - Leeman and Marois - suffered shoulder injuries that they never recovered offensively from.

Their defence, goaltending, and coaching was very meh so back down the team went.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gary69

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,239
984
Apparently the players quit on their coach, and apparently the GM saw that coming: Watt named head coach of lowly, divided Leafs

They were 4-21-1 early, but around that tine the eventual Campbell finalists weren't much better. Minnesota was 5-15-5, and Edmonton was 6-13-2. So I wouldn't say they were out of it just yet.

From that point on, Toronto was a respectable 19-25-10, but that was well behind the comebacks Minnesota (22-24-9) and Edmonton (31-24-4) made (only the Stars mattered as far as a playoff spot though).

Starting in November, they start trading. History of hockey trades by general manager Floyd Smith - NHL Trade Tracker

They remain crummy next season, starting 10-25-5 through the new year. After the Gilmour trade, they're a much better 20-18-2, and poised to make the leap next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Panther

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,706
3,677
images.jpg
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
54,553
87,690
Vancouver, BC
Leeman and Marois went from 171 points to 59 points.

Al Iafrate had to be traded because Leeman was hooking up with his wife.

They traded Ed Olczyk and Mark Osborne for Dave Ellett to essentially replace Iafrate.

Poof - 3rd in the NHL in scoring down to 18th.
 

Crosby2010

Registered User
Mar 4, 2023
1,168
1,003
I think it is a shock that the 1990 Leafs were as good as they were. That 1990 season was sandwiched in between two awful years of a high draft pick position and no playoffs. They did what they always did, they had horrendous goals against, even in 1990, but they just scored a lot that year (3rd overall) for some reason. Actually one of the funnest teams to watch in hockey history. Because it just always looked like the 1990 Leafs were playing shinny with no structure at all. Fun for the fans, not for the coaches/management.

So it is 1990 you have to look at and see why there is such an aberration from their goals for. On first glance they had a very good power play in 1990. Something they were well below average for in 1989 and 1991. I think a lot of it was just the stars aligning. Gary Leeman had a 51 goal and 95 point season. He was never close to that before or after. Daniel Marois had 76 points in 1990, was never close to that after. Mark Osborne had 73 points but never did anything close to that other than almost a decade earlier. They traded Olcyzk early in the 1990-'91 season and never got that offense back, so that hurt too. So that's a lot of offense from players that never did it again. Damphousse was really the only legitimate offensive star who continued that afterwards.
 

Dale53130

Registered User
Nov 10, 2019
372
571
So it is 1990 you have to look at and see why there is such an aberration from their goals for. On first glance they had a very good power play in 1990. Something they were well below average for in 1989 and 1991. I think a lot of it was just the stars aligning. Gary Leeman had a 51 goal and 95 point season. He was never close to that before or after. Daniel Marois had 76 points in 1990, was never close to that after. Mark Osborne had 73 points but never did anything close to that other than almost a decade earlier. They traded Olcyzk early in the 1990-'91 season and never got that offense back, so that hurt too. So that's a lot of offense from players that never did it again. Damphousse was really the only legitimate offensive star who continued that afterwards.
Leeman was on a similar PPG-pace in 1988-89; 75 points in 61 GP.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad