Why will this team not go all in?

[Dekes For Days]

1-4 - struggled
5-7 - cleaned up and survived..

1-7 - Struggled

The third line wasnt some two way strength to expect consistent depth offense from but rather a safe nutralizing line that focused on their end of the ice
the 4th line i did not expect any offense from and expected them to essentially eat minutes complete their shifts without a goal against while the big guys rested

Depth players are still expected to have a positive impact, including some offense.

Again with tampa.. it is like they are good or something.

Both Tampa and Toronto were among the best teams in the league.

What i suggested with my own words was our construction not tampas or anyone else.

There's nothing about our construction that justifies anybody on our team being useless.

 

[andora]

1-7 - Struggled

5-7 better

Depth players are still expected to have a positive impact, including some offense.

Sometimes yes

Both Tampa and Toronto were among the best teams in the league.

Yep

There's nothing about our construction that justifies anybody on our team being useless.

You added a word again - useless
Being able to complete your shift, not take a penalty and not get scored on is useful

No results from a 4th line in the critical last 3 games of a series was very useful

 

[Dekes For Days]

5-7 better

5-7 - Still struggled, and we can't just arbitrarily ignore more than half the series.

Sometimes yes

Always.

Being able to complete your shift, not take a penalty and not get scored on is useful

Getting outplayed and providing zero positives is not useful, and nothing about our construction absolves them of responsibility for that result. They were capable of better.

 

[andora]

5-7 - Still struggled, and we can't just arbitrarily ignore more than half the series.

Hehe, i didnt. I said 1-4 bad then 5-7 better. I acknowledged first 4 games

Always.

This team or all teams?
My sometimes was specific to offense, i should have clarified that.

Getting outplayed and providing zero positives is not useful, and nothing about our construction absolves them of responsibility for that result.

But what i said was a positive for the last three games.. so they provided atleast 1

 

[notDatsyuk]

No, that would be what you're doing. I'm believing the obvious and undeniable truth that there's video evidence of. There's nothing "fun" about disgraceful officiating. It's bad for the sport.

If you can look at the obvious and undeniable truth of the video evidence and still claim that it was not a penalty, there's clearly nothing else to say.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Hehe, i didnt.

You are, because every time I try to discuss the entire series (which is the question you asked me), you arbitrarily switch to a portion within the series, where they still weren't very good.

This team or all teams? My sometimes was specific to offense, i should have clarified that.

On all teams, depth players are still expected to have a positive impact, including some offense.

But what i said was a positive for the last three games..

No it wasn't. Not providing as many negatives as they did in the first 4 games does not make what they provided in the final 3 games a positive.

If you can look at the obvious and undeniable truth of the video evidence and still claim that it was not a penalty, there's clearly nothing else to say.

Yeah, there's nothing else to say, because it was very obviously not a penalty, and was undeniably a horrible, series-defining call.

 

[ACC1224]

If you can look at the obvious and undeniable truth of the video evidence and still claim that it was not a penalty, there's clearly nothing else to say.

Was definitely a penalty, no one would deny that if they're being honest.
Could they have let it go? Would have been nice.

 

[andora]

You are, because every time I try to discuss the entire series (which is the question you asked me), you arbitrarily switch to a portion within the series, where they still weren't very good.

Ok.. so the whole series

Can you narrow it down to say, 3 stats (that would be acceptable) to show how disappointing they were

On all teams, depth players are still expected to have a positive impact, including some offense.

All teams.. all depth players.

i think it is reasonable to believe some depth players and lines have expectation of low event/gaa hockey and to play safe minutes and any offense is considered a bonus

No it wasn't. Not providing as many negatives as they did in the first 4 games does not make what they provided in the final 3 games a positive.

Why not .. it trended up. If the leafs had won it could have continued to trend up and the line could have gained momentum and continued to get better

 

[Dekes For Days]

Ok.. so the whole series
Can you narrow it down to say, 3 stats (that would be acceptable) to show how disappointing they were

They got outplayed, as seen in the negatives in shot attempts, shots, expected goals, scoring chances, etc...
They got outscored, as seen in the low goal/point totals and negative goal differentials...
They took bad penalties, as seen in their penalty minutes and videos of the infractions...

i think it is reasonable to believe some depth players and lines have expectation of low event/gaa hockey and to play safe minutes and any offense is considered a bonus

Depth players may specialize in something other than offense, but nobody is employed in the NHL and expected to provide zero offense. And everybody is expected to provide a positive impact to the team.

Why not .. it trended up. If the leafs had won it could have continued to trend up and the line could have gained momentum and continued to get better

Trending up from a negative still doesn't make a positive. We did move away from Clifford/Simmonds, and maybe the others would have gelled and been better in a future series (those players were definitely capable of doing better), but we're not talking about a theoretical future series. We're talking about the Tampa series, and they were a notable weakness.

 

[666]

Was definitely a penalty, no one would deny that if they're being honest.
Could they have let it go? Would have been nice.

Yeah Dekes has blown a gasket, again. Here it is in an indisputable form:

 

[Dekes For Days]

Here it is in an indisputable form:

I'm not sure a 1,000 view video that sounds like a middle schooler failing a school report they forgot to do research for is really the "indisputable" evidence you think it is.

 

[666]

I'm not sure a 1,000 view video that sounds like a middle schooler failing a school report they forgot to do research for is really the "indisputable" evidence you think it is.

What an absurd thing to say. If the video had 1 billion views would it change things? The indisputable evidence is the actual game video from multiple angles. Think man.

 

[andora]

Lol he slow stops even altering his direction to cirelli..

He should have just stopped hard and shoulders up to get out of the way forcing cirelli to skate the extra 2 strides around him

Dumb dumb

 

[Golden_Jet]

I'm not sure a 1,000 view video that sounds like a middle schooler failing a school report they forgot to do research for is really the "indisputable" evidence you think it is.

Even your fellow leaf fans disagree with you,
your showing your biases, if you actually believe there was not a pick play. It was actually text book.
You’re Making anything you post now hard to believe.

 

[andora]

They got outplayed, as seen in the negatives in shot attempts, shots, expected goals, scoring chances, etc...
They got outscored, as seen in the low goal/point totals and negative goal differentials...
They took bad penalties, as seen in their penalty minutes and videos of the infractions...

benefit from working from home i can spend time on this type of stuff

so an overview - the 4th line i think we can agree consisted of clifford for 30 seconds (yes yes, big penalty), simmonds for 2 games, then predominantly Kase, Spezza, Blackwell.

so these 4 (i am excluding clifford) at 5on5 had the 4 lowest expected goals number for the playoffs, very expected. their job now becomes when you're not scoring, is to have neutral shifts, hold defensively, and not create situations that are detrimental, say goals against, penalties etc..

for the series, these 4 combined for 4 minor penalties - and only 2 minor penalties after game 2 - and 0 penalties in the last three games of the series. for the series - Spezza was 1st for forwards at 66% (2/1) goals for/goals against, Kase was 9th at 50% (3/3), Blackwell was 12th at 42% (1/3), and Simmonds was 13th at 0% (0/1). These goals against all came in the first 4 games - they took a beating in games 3 and 4. the last three games they did not give up a goal against.

for the series - for scoring chances for/against% first 4 games combined, Spezza was 4th 43% 6/8, Kase was 8th 40.5% 15/22, Simmonds was 12th 36% 5/9 and Blackwell was 13th 33% 15/31. over the last 3 games, Spezza was 4th, 60% 12/8, Blackwell was 6th 53% 9/8, Kase was 8th 50% 8/8

for the series, for expected goals - first 4 games Kase was 8th 1.41, Blackwell was 10th 0.96, Spezza 11th 0.78, and Simmonds 13th 0.25. over the last three games, they were 10th/11th/12th at 0.66/0.54/0.51. almost like they tightened up and focused on their defensive zone first rather than trying to make something happen.

for the series - shots, first 4 games spezza was 4th, 59% 10/7, Kase was 10th, 46% 17/20, Blackwell was 12th 39% 17/27, Simmonds was 13th 25% 3/9. in the last three games Spezza was 4th 61% 11/7, Blackwell was 5th 50% 8/8, and Kase was 6th 47% 9/10

for the series and Corsi shot attempts % - these 4 for each game:
game 1: blackwell 7th 41% / simmonds 6th 42% / clifford last/0% / put Kase in there, 5th 44%
game 2: blackwell 10th 27% / kase 11th 25% / simmonds 20%
game 3: spezza 1st 67% / blackwell 3rd 50% / kase 9th 36% (marner last 24%)
game 4: kase 2nd 62.5% / spezza 8th 39% / blackwell 12th 22%

game 5: blackwell 8th 45.5% / kase 10th 40% / spezza 11th 40% (engvall last 38.9%)
game 6: spezza 1st 75% / blackwell 2nd 71.4% / kase 3rd 70% (tavares last 32.5%)
game 7: spezza 4th 69% / kase 10th 50% / blackwell 11th 50% (kampf last 47.6%)

------------------------------

unless i'm missing something - most of this points to them cleaning up and being solid the last three games which is what i was saying - but i showed the whole series so i'm not arbitrarily avoiding anything.

Depth players may specialize in something other than offense, but nobody is employed in the NHL and expected to provide zero offense. And everybody is expected to provide a positive impact to the team.

do you mean offense in what actually happens (goals and assists) or offense as in all the advanced stats and playing in the offensive zone

Trending up from a negative still doesn't make a positive. We did move away from Clifford/Simmonds, and maybe the others would have gelled and been better in a future series (those players were definitely capable of doing better), but we're not talking about a theoretical future series. We're talking about the Tampa series, and they were a notable weakness.

game 1 - 4th line has two takeaways / 0 giveaways
game 2 - they were bad
game 3 - 1 takeaway and 0 giveaways / 2 hits / 2 for 3 in faceoffs
game 4 - blackwell 3 hits / 1 blocked shot
game 5 - 1 blocked shot / spezza 2 hits
game 6 - 2 takeaways / 0 giveaways / 4 hits / kase 4 shot attempts
game 7 - blackwell 3 hits / spezza 2 hits / 5 shot attempts / blackwell blocked shot

there are some positives

 

[Dekes For Days]

If the video had 1 billion views would it change things?

I mean, it wouldn't necessarily make it accurate, but it might be a sign that it's actually professional, or that it actually has some kind of information or evidence, or that it's something more than a middle-schooler stumbling through an inaccurate description of the video.

The indisputable evidence is the actual game video from multiple angles.

Oh, I've seen the video footage from multiple angles, and it shows exactly what I said.

Even your fellow leaf fans disagree with you

Haven't seen that happen yet. Either way, wouldn't change that it was a horrendous, incorrect, series-defining call that's never made.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I mean, it wouldn't necessarily make it accurate, but it might be a sign that it's actually professional, or that it actually has some kind of information or evidence, or that it's something more than a middle-schooler stumbling through an inaccurate description of the video.

Oh, I've seen the video footage from multiple angles, and it shows exactly what I said.

Haven't seen that happen yet. Either way, wouldn't change that it was a horrendous, incorrect, series-defining call that's never made.

I didn’t even watch the video, just the multiple angles on TV, and I don’t recall anyone on the call think it was bad, or during intermission.

 

[666]

I mean, it wouldn't necessarily make it accurate, but it might be a sign that it's actually professional, or that it actually has some kind of information or evidence, or that it's something more than a middle-schooler stumbling through an inaccurate description of the video.

Oh, I've seen the video footage from multiple angles, and it shows exactly what I said.

Haven't seen that happen yet. Either way, wouldn't change that it was a horrendous, incorrect, series-defining call that's never made.

Your doing what people do when they have lost an argument. You're attacking the source in this case some kids video instead of what they are saying or the actual facts. You're not worth my time. Start thinking.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Your doing what people do when they have lost an argument. You're attacking the source in this case some kids video instead of what they are saying or the actual facts.

I would say resorting to that hilarious video as "indisputable evidence" is a much bigger sign of a losing argument. There's not really anything to address. The kid in the video doesn't even really say much of anything, and what he does say is inaccurate. The actual facts of what happened are what I posted already.

 

[andora]

I would say resorting to that hilarious video as "indisputable evidence" is a much bigger sign of a losing argument. There's not really anything to address. The kid in the video doesn't even really say much of anything, and what he does say is inaccurate. The actual facts of what happened are what I posted already.

lol, then Holl should never play for this team again because
1. he doesn't know how to stop
2. he can't stop in a straight line

 

[ACC1224]

Your doing what people do when they have lost an argument. You're attacking the source in this case some kids video instead of what they are saying or the actual facts. You're not worth my time. Start thinking.

If you understand what you’re watching you don’t need the commentary. The video shows it very clearly.

I can see arguing that it shouldn’t have been called but you can’t argue it wasn’t an infraction.

 

[notDatsyuk]

I'm not sure a 1,000 view video that sounds like a middle schooler failing a school report they forgot to do research for is really the "indisputable" evidence you think it is.

The number of views and the quality of the voice are meaningless except as a red herring.

Watch the video and listen to what he says.

I don't see how anyone who has watched that or any other video of the play can honestly dispute the call.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Was definitely a penalty, no one would deny that if they're being honest.
Could they have let it go? Would have been nice.

Agreed. The calls against the Leafs didn't really bother me (except the first high sticking call in game 6). It's what they *didn't* call that bothered me like right after the Tavares goal being called back, Killorn yanking the stick out of Muzzin's hands right in front of the ref, taking him out of the play when he was in position to stop Paul from waltzing straight to the net with the puck for the go ahead goal. Still has me angry.

 

[NewEraGM]

This is the best roster the Leafs have had in decades. We have several stars in their primes. I get the initial plan was to draft well and contend for years, but we are at a point where this plan doesn't matter anymore because people will be fired and players traded by new management. It feels like this front office is more focused on sticking to the plan than anything else.

Shanny said



However the 5 year plan has come and gone. This is an elite team who just needs to be put over the top, but management won't do it. They are happy to exchange depth pieces and hope next year is different. Why not go all in and go and get someone, ANYONE, who gives this team a real chance even if it is only for a year or two? I fear when looking back on this era what will overshadow any potential this team had will be management being happy to sit on their hands for most of it.

This is not a trade Nylander thread.
This is not a fire Dubas or Keefe thread
This is a what good is Robertson going to do for us in 2 years when Matthews, Nylander, and Marner can walk without us ever having success? Why do we move our firsts to dump capspace but will never use them to upgrade the team in a meaningful way?

View attachment 571713

According to this we have the 11th best prospect pool. While that is awesome, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CONTENDING. Why will management not move some of these guys and bring in a J.T Miller, a Chychrun, literally anything that improves the roster? We are all upset because we know the team is THIS close and they keep falling short. Isn't it managements job to give them what they need to get it done?

I don't care we have 4 forwards at 40M, what is done is done. What is clear is this team, in elimination games, needs scoring help. When will the Leafs go out and acquire someone who makes a difference, not move a first for Foligno. Instead we will continue to add depth pieces and spin our tires.

Leafs definitely don’t have the 11th best pool

 

[Leaf Fans]

Even your fellow leaf fans disagree with you,
your showing your biases, if you actually believe there was not a pick play. It was actually text book.
You’re Making anything you post now hard to believe.

Fans of this team disagree with each other all the time.

Leafs definitely don’t have the 11th best pool

That was their ranking from the athletic, but everyone has their own opinion.