Wow the playoffs are intense. Can we compete

[Gallagbi]

I'd say it was definitely a part - insecure/ego coaches always kind of impose under the limelight here and just double down in stubbornNess under the criticism. Happened to Carlyle and Wilson too.

Babcock did some good things to start, and definitely said the right things....but the systems seemed to just get worse and worse and more contrary to the strengths of the roster as time went on.

It was almost like he got stuck on wanting to "fix" the team instead of adapting and encouraging to let them grow.

Which is really bizarre because he could have rolled out a similar system to what he used in his Detroit prime days and had great results. They were possession focused, attentive and really worked as a fluid unit of 5.

Here it seemed to be the exact opposite and disjointed.

 

[zeke]

Well one of them was a Top 50 scorer that season, so yea, that must of been it.

All 3 were in the top-35...stud 1st line production....even though their coach didn't give them topline minutes.

 

[zeke]

It was almost like he got stuck on wanting to "fix" the team instead of adapting and encouraging to let them grow.

Which is really bizarre because he could have rolled out a similar system to what he used in his Detroit prime days and had great results. They were possession focused, attentive and really worked as a fluid unit of 5.

Here it seemed to be the exact opposite and disjointed.

It was bizarre....but tbh I gave up trying to make excuses for him pretty early on. It became clear pretty quickly that he was more concerned with showing he was boss than helping the team succeed.

And honestly that's the best thing about Keefe - obviously he knows systems well but so do many coaches.....but it's Keefe's total lack of shtick or ego/insecurity that I think has him set up for the long haul here.

 

[Gallagbi]

All 3 were in the top-35...stud 1st line production....even though their coach didn't give them topline minutes.

Add in Brown and Hyman and they swapped in over half their top 9 as rookies that year

 

[zeke]

Add in Brown and Hyman and they swapped in over half their top 9 as rookies that year

...and JVR back from injury.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Nah, it's pretty targetted to a pass leading a player into a huge hit.

What he's talking about is soft plays at the blueline. There may be a cuter name for it, but I have never heard it referred to as a suicide pass because everyone knows exactly what a suey is

Yes I believe you're right, it's guess it's been a while since I heard the term used so I didn't recognize it at first.

You're wasting your time.

According to zekes for days we had a team that went from last to the playoffs with:

• a garbage coach
• a garbage goalie
• a garbage GM
• garbage Marleau
• garbage Zaitsev
• garbage Connor Brown

It's the greatest mystery in sports.

LOL.

It really seems to be a waste of time but really that's why I'm here to pass some time hahahaha

+1

No I don't care to retract it.

Like you said - borderline top-10 at his best.

Average starting goalie.

Glad you've finally come around.

Come around to what? I figured you probably wouldn't retract your ridiculous statement - you've never ever conceded a point no matter how small so there's no reason to think you ever will. I thought I'd give you a chance to back out gracefully though, don't know what I was thinking.

Andersen was excellent here for his first few years, was even 4th in Vezina voting one year. The entire hockey world is pretty much in agreement on this. Except for you of course, according to you, he was mediocre.

 

[zeke]

Yes I believe you're right, it's guess it's been a while since I heard the term used so I didn't recognize it at first.



LOL.



+1



Come around to what? I figured you probably wouldn't retract your ridiculous statement - you've never ever conceded a point no matter how small so there's no reason to think you ever will. I thought I'd give you a chance to back out gracefully though, don't know what I was thinking.

Andersen was excellent here for his first few years, was even 4th in Vezina voting one year. The entire hockey world is pretty much in agreement on this. Except for you of course, according to you, he was mediocre.

This adorably desperate attempt by you to turn this around on me won't work btw.

The one unable to admit they were wrong about Fred here is you, not me.

You could decide to be an adult and admit you were wrong, or keep playing games, either way I'm here for you.

 

[keonsbitterness]

Nah, it's pretty targetted to a pass leading a player into a huge hit.

Same term is used in football. Led to some nasty hits in the era when concussion concerns barely existed.

 

[meefer]

sounds good, have you watched the Caps/B's series so far?

Nope. Hard to get up early when the Leafs aren't playing, but just saw Gourde bury the dagger.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Don't really understand your question. Both successes and failures should be considered. Unfortunately, this forum for Leaf fans is littered with exaggerations of other team's successes and strengths, and even bigger exaggerations of Leaf's failures and weaknesses. That's the premise that this entire thread is built around. So a reality check to counter that - outlining what playoff lows really look like, the weaknesses and failures that supposedly "intense" teams have experienced along the way, and our level of competitiveness in our own past series - is valuable context and perspective.

That seemed to be the view of some posters: that people shouldn't compare other teams' success with our struggles, but at the same time think it's ok to compare our limited success with their struggles.

I just think we should look at our own team, without having to try to justify our record by belittling anyone else's.

I think we are actually agreeing, but just expressing it differently.

 

[Gary Nylund]

For example, I was hated on here for pointing out that Frederik Andersen was a mediocre goalie (and is now a bad one), and that Babcock was an awful coach - with pretty much the entire board against me for being so critical of these flaws in the leafs.

Babcock was and is a bad coach.

Andersen was a mediocre goalie and is now a bad one.

The turnaround was thanks to matthews/marner/Nylander, not Babcock and Andersen.

It's really bad form for so many posters to be unable to admit how epically wrong they were, even while they attack other posters for being biased despite the fact that they were right.

This adorably desperate attempt by you to turn this around on me won't work btw.

The one unable to admit they were wrong about Fred here is you, not me.

You could decide to be an adult and admit you were wrong, or keep playing games, either way I'm here for you.

You called the guy who was 4th in Vezina voting mediocre. You were wrong.

Maybe it's time for you to be an adult and for the first time in over 57 thousand posts that you were wrong about something. Or perhaps you just don't understand the meaning of the word mediocre? Perhaps this will help: Definition of mediocre | Dictionary.com
adjective

of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate:The car gets only mediocre mileage, but it's fun to drive.
not satisfactory; poor; inferior:Mediocre construction makes that building dangerous.

 

[The Beyonder]

So it seems after emotional game 1, the second games have been less intense. I remember that game 2 against boston below...


[i'm surprised Krug didn't hurt his back at 1:30, he got WRECKED]

... I remember the games after that was far more tame.

Emotions are high at the beginning and then simmer a bit more as the series go on. I think we're more physically this year, I'm less worried if anything. Thing I worry about is mental toughness, being able to keep a lead, having a killer instinct an or not have the moment rattle them.

 

[zeke]

You called the guy who was 4th in Vezina voting mediocre. You were wrong.

Maybe it's time for you to be an adult and for the first time in over 57 thousand posts that you were wrong about something. Or perhaps you just don't understand the meaning of the word mediocre? Perhaps this will help: Definition of mediocre | Dictionary.com
adjective

of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate:The car gets only mediocre mileage, but it's fun to drive.
not satisfactory; poor; inferior:Mediocre construction makes that building dangerous.

Yes Gary, my track record on Andersen is very clear. As is yours.

And just in this thread, you finally backed off from your years of calling him elite to now calling him "borderline top-10" back at his best - a mediocre goalie in your own words.

Now you are going to try and win a semantics argument by pure force of will despite everyone knowing exactly what our positions have been for years now, all because you are too childish to own up to being very, very wrong.

Like I said - you can own up to it or keep playing games, but either way I'll still be here for you.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Yes Gary, my track record on Andersen is very clear. As is yours.

And just in this thread, you finally backed off from your years of calling him elite to now calling him "borderline top-10" back at his best - a mediocre goalie in your own words.

Now you are going to try and win a semantics argument by pure force of will despite everyone knowing exactly what our positions have been for years now, all because you are too childish to own up to being very, very wrong.

Like I said - you can own up to it or keep playing games, but either way I'll still be here for you.

Changing the subject and personal attacks aren't an answer.

You said multiple times that Andersen who was 4th in Vezina voting was mediocre. If you can't admit you're wrong than explain - how did you arrive at that conclusion. If you plan to never answer then how about you say so and I'll stop asking.

One straight answer without changing the subject or personal attacks. Is that too much to ask for?

 

[Dekes For Days]

As for suicide passes in zone entries, the first year there were several per game.

That's not true at all. They actually had much fewer of those than your average rookie.

I guess you slipped the 3 on 3 because they were abysmal then.

Not sure what you're even talking about. They were 6-7 in OT in 2016-2017.

There are many players that become better as they get older but their game does not mature, that's what I'm talking about, Babcock forced it in them. Would they have progressed that way without Babcock? We will never know, but we do know he was their coach and he was working on this with them.

Everybody's game "matures" as they get older and more experienced; you seem to be talking in very vague terms on purpose, as it prevents you from having to pinpoint what "maturing" means in this context, or explaining anything Babcock actually did. You're attributing their growth to Babcock, when there is no evidence of him having any significant positive impacts. We have evidence of him misusing them, and we have evidence of him mistreating them. It seems like you're ignoring all that, in order to praise him for (potentially) doing the literal bare minimum that every NHL coach does.

These were some of the best young players in the entire cap era. Neither played like juniors when in the NHL. Matthews played professional hockey before he was even in the NHL, and scored 4 goals in his debut. Babcock didn't push them; he held them back, and if anything, instilled bad habits and strained relationships. We're lucky his influence was removed fairly quickly, and we've seen the growth in them and the team since, in pretty much every facet of their play.

 

[Dekes For Days]

That seemed to be the view of some posters: that people shouldn't compare other teams' success with our struggles, but at the same time think it's ok to compare our limited success with their struggles.

I haven't seen that. This discussion started by comparing struggles to struggles.

I just think we should look at our own team, without having to try to justify our record by belittling anyone else's.

This is a multi-team competitive league. Other teams and what they go through is important to understand, to put our own experiences into context. Many people lack proper perspective, which leads to emotional and exaggerated positions and opinions that aren't supported by anything. Which is how we get threads like this.

 

[notDatsyuk]

I haven't seen that. This discussion started by comparing struggles to struggles.

This is a multi-team competitive league. Other teams and what they go through is important to understand, to put our own experiences into context. Many people lack proper perspective, which leads to emotional and exaggerated positions and opinions that aren't supported by anything. Which is how we get threads like this.

The first post that I responded to was comparing our moderate success with other teams' failings, without the context that the others had just had more success.

And again, we are agreeing. Proper perspective, comparing like to like, is often missing, leading to the exaggerated positions we are both trying to counter.

 

[X66]

So it seems after emotional game 1, the second games have been less intense. I remember that game 2 against boston below...


[i'm surprised Krug didn't hurt his back at 1:30, he got WRECKED]

... I remember the games after that was far more tame.

Emotions are high at the beginning and then simmer a bit more as the series go on. I think we're more physically this year, I'm less worried if anything. Thing I worry about is mental toughness, being able to keep a lead, having a killer instinct an or not have the moment rattle them.

If I recall correctly, he didn't even leave the game for concussion spotting, another league fail lol.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The first post that I responded to was comparing our moderate success with other teams' failings

No it wasn't. It was comparing series losses to series losses. It showed the type of playoff lows that other teams (even great ones) have experienced, to put our own losses into perspective. It showed that we have been competitive, even as young and lesser versions of our team against some of the best opponents in the league, and thus, questioning our intensity and ability to compete in the playoffs this year based on that is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Spargon]

Leafs aren't some China dolls that will shatter from a few checks. Leafs lack of physicality comes from playing puck possession. Hits come from chasing the puck trying to get it back.

Just cause we don't have 50 hits a night doesn't mean the players are all marshmallows.

 

[Notsince67]

Show of hands...who's cranky there's no Leafs playoff hockey too many nights in a row?

 

[Dreakmur]

I'd say it was definitely a part - insecure/ego coaches always kind of impose under the limelight here and just double down in stubbornNess under the criticism. Happened to Carlyle and Wilson too.

Babcock did some good things to start, and definitely said the right things....but the systems seemed to just get worse and worse and more contrary to the strengths of the roster as time went on.

It all went sideways when he started to resent Dubas.

Babcock’s system was fine, but his player usage never evolved from a teaching style to a winning style. I’m not even sure he was wrong in staying in development mode... but both his boss and the fans seemed to think we should be playing more to win.

 

[ACC1224]

Leafs aren't some China dolls that will shatter from a few checks. Leafs lack of physicality comes from playing puck possession. Hits come from chasing the puck trying to get it back.

Just cause we don't have 50 hits a night doesn't mean the players are all marshmallows.

No not all of them. Playing tough isn’t necessarily total hits.

 

[zeke]

Changing the subject and personal attacks aren't an answer.

You said multiple times that Andersen who was 4th in Vezina voting was mediocre. If you can't admit you're wrong than explain - how did you arrive at that conclusion. If you plan to never answer then how about you say so and I'll stop asking.

One straight answer without changing the subject or personal attacks. Is that too much to ask for?

You literally just called him "borderline top-10" during his good years, which is exactly what I was arguing back then.

So you're finally agreeing with what I said all along.

Good on you, Gary.

 

[zeke]

It all went sideways when he started to resent Dubas.

Babcock’s system was fine, but his player usage never evolved from a teaching style to a winning style. I’m not even sure he was wrong in staying in development mode... but both his boss and the fans seemed to think we should be playing more to win.

Yeah he literally sabotaged himself just to spite dubas. It was very weird.