Wow the playoffs are intense. Can we compete

[Bluelines]

See edits to post you quoted, I was thinking Kessels first year with the Pens was 2016-2017 but actually it was 2015-2016.

OK , his minutes were 3rd line but I distinctly remember them having a article about Kesel playing on the 3rd line to spread out the offence and that Gino didn't want Kessel on his line.

 

[Trapper]

See edits to post you quoted, I was thinking Kessels first year with the Pens was 2016-2017 but actually it was 2015-2016.

The 3rd line for Pittsburgh wasn’t the 3rd line typical players being thought of.

Pittsburgh was deep, back to back Cups for proof. Kessel played a good portion with center Bonino, sometimes Malkin and all the power play. With 2 hall of fame centers, Kessel could be used as the gunslinger he is.
Not the be all end all he was expected to be in Toronto.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I actually don't think Babs did anything for them that another coach couldn't do

Then I don't know what we're here talking about. Even if you were right, Babcock doesn't deserve praise for the bare minimum of his job, especially when he screwed up so much else.

I think Babcock showed them how to play on a script and not go freelance.

The problem is you keep saying stuff like this, but it's based on absolutely nothing, and you've provided no evidence.

They were bad 3on3 and just because it's the most unstructured part of the game its actually a great time to evaluate them.

No, they weren't bad, and the part of the game that doesn't work much off structure is not a great time to evaluate a coach's ability to provide structure. It's entirely different hockey with an entirely different approach.

Of note they are really really good 3on3 now, does that not count?

It "counts", but it doesn't suggest the things you are using it to suggest, or the opposite now.

It's not arbitrary when he stated the criteria of what he considered a good pro.

I mean, he didn't really, and anything he did talk about, he contradicted. There was zero consistency in his criteria and application.

I assign the growth under Babcock to Babcock because he was their coach then, no other reason.

Players are able to grow in ways and for reasons other than their coach. You can't just go around attributing stuff to people with no evidence just because they happened to exist.

They were rookies learning to be pros, hence the title rookie

They were some of the best rookies seen in a long time in a professional hockey league, hence the title "pros". Matthews was literally in a professional league before even being drafted.

The team being bad defensively has many factors

So you attribute all of the natural growth of players to Babcock, based on nothing, but the thing Babcock is actually in charge of isn't his fault because "many factors"?

primarily the defensive system was questionable

Which is on Babcock...

coupled with the personal who were to employ the system.

The personnel was good enough to do better than what they did. In 2019-2020, the results were night and day between Babcock and Keefe, and it was the same personnel. Actually, Keefe had worse personnel due to injuries.

I'm not talking about defensive only

The things you identified were backchecking and responsible puck management. Sounds like mostly defense.

As I've said the player structure I'm talking about is playing within a system and yes they've played in systems their whole lives, but mostly the system was built around them and as I said above, they could, at will, go off on their own accord because they were dominant at the Jr level.

These players know how to play within a system by the time they make the NHL. You seem to think systems in lesser leagues work a lot differently than they do. We're not talking about peewee hockey here.

Players can roam as opposed to following a well defined role on the ice, that's what I call a lone wolf and that's what they were doing as rookies

They weren't "roaming" on the ice. Not sure where you get this stuff.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I wouldn't really characterize the Leafs experience under Babcock as having that many problems.

Whether or not you want to admit it, there were numerous significant problems, that extended far beyond his hindering of individual successes (which again, negatively impacted the team, so cannot be disregarded as simple fan desires). We were good despite him, because of the quality of our players.

 

[saltming]

Then I don't know what we're here talking about. Even if you were right, Babcock doesn't deserve praise for the bare minimum of his job, especially when he screwed up so much else.

The problem is you keep saying stuff like this, but it's based on absolutely nothing, and you've provided no evidence.

No, they weren't bad, and the part of the game that doesn't work much off structure is not a great time to evaluate a coach's ability to provide structure. It's entirely different hockey with an entirely different approach.

It "counts", but it doesn't suggest the things you are using it to suggest, or the opposite now.

I mean, he didn't really, and anything he did talk about, he contradicted. There was zero consistency in his criteria and application.

Players are able to grow in ways and for reasons other than their coach. You can't just go around attributing stuff to people with no evidence just because they happened to exist.

They were some of the best rookies seen in a long time in a professional hockey league, hence the title "pros". Matthews was literally in a professional league before even being drafted.

So you attribute all of the natural growth of players to Babcock, based on nothing, but the thing Babcock is actually in charge of isn't his fault because "many factors"?

Which is on Babcock...

The personnel was good enough to do better than what they did. In 2019-2020, the results were night and day between Babcock and Keefe, and it was the same personnel. Actually, Keefe had worse personnel due to injuries.

The things you identified were backchecking and responsible puck management. Sounds like mostly defense.

These players know how to play within a system by the time they make the NHL. You seem to think systems in lesser leagues work a lot differently than they do. We're not talking about peewee hockey here.

They weren't "roaming" on the ice. Not sure where you get this stuff.

1+1=2
Usually the simplest answer is the truth. All players go through pains adjusting to the NHL, its the best league in the world for a reason. Our stars, though incredibly gifted had to adjust to it too. Their natural gifts allowed for that transition in record time while playing in the toughest league which is very difficult (except Nylander who when AHL first)

You dislike for Babcock is blocking any objective conversation on this matter. Your post won't even accept a basic fact that rookies have to learn the NHL game and that's done through coaching just because it's Mike Babcock that was the coach. I'm very happy to agree to disagree here as this conversation is circling around

 

[Dekes For Days]

Usually the simplest answer is the truth.

Randomly attributing all of the good stuff and natural growth that happened during a set period of time to Babcock, and attributing all of the bad stuff that Babcock was actually in charge of or causing to "many factors", is not the simplest answer.

You dislike for Babcock is blocking any objective conversation on this matter.

I don't have a dislike for Babcock. He's irrelevant to me now. I have a dislike for revisionist history causing credit to be taken away from deserving parties and given to a bad coach based on nothing but the mere fact of his physical existence.

 

[Gallagbi]

Kessel was 3rd line in the playoffs.

Dobber Hockey is great site if you're ever unsure of lines. It tracks combinations by year and situation. The top 3 ES combinations for Phil that playoffs were:

26.51% w. Malkin - Kunitz
23.85% w. Malkin - Scott
20.74% w. Malkin - Rust

He did start off on a good 3rd line with Bonino and Hagelin (4.47% of the playoffs for context), but moved up with Malkin pretty quickly and spent ~80% of his playoffs there

 

[francis246]

Yes we can compete and we will rise to the level of play needed to win this round

 

[Stephen]

Whether or not you want to admit it, there were numerous significant problems, that extended far beyond his hindering of individual successes (which again, negatively impacted the team, so cannot be disregarded as simple fan desires). We were good despite him, because of the quality of our players.

I already outlined what those issues were, and against the back drop of 95-105 point finishes and 3x first round exits prior to his terrible start in 2019-20 I would say the problems were more philosophical and personal.

The crux of the problem in terms of utilization is I don’t many Leafs fans would accept Matthews and Marner being turned into a Pavel Datsyuk or Henrik Zetterberg whose numbers were probably deflated quite substantially in their primes.

 

[saltming]

Randomly attributing all of the good stuff and natural growth that happened during a set period of time to Babcock, and attributing all of the bad stuff that Babcock was actually in charge of or causing to "many factors", is not the simplest answer.

I don't have a dislike for Babcock. He's irrelevant to me now. I have a dislike for revisionist history causing credit to be taken away from deserving parties and given to a bad coach based on nothing but the mere fact of his physical existence.

Many factors is the truth and Babcock and his system was part of that list, which I've already said.

You have not gotten over Babcock as that is all you have fixated on this entire conversation.

Again you have your opinion I have mine. No need to keep this carousel of a debate going

 

[zeke]

I already outlined what those issues were, and against the back drop of 95-105 point finishes and 3x first round exits prior to his terrible start in 2019-20 I would say the problems were more philosophical and personal.

The crux of the problem in terms of utilization is I don’t many Leafs fans would accept Matthews and Marner being turned into a Pavel Datsyuk or Henrik Zetterberg whose numbers were probably deflated quite substantially in their primes.

Babcock had Datsyuk and Zetterberg 10 years and won only one cup with them (when they still had Lidstrom, Chelios, Rafalski, . During that cup run Dats and Zetts both played 22 minutes per game. He inherited them at ages 27 and 25 and had nothing to do with their development.

Why would leafs fans accept him playing matthews and marner 17 minutes a night?

 

[zeke]

Many factors is the truth and Babcock and his system was part of that list, which I've already said.

You have not gotten over Babcock as that is all you have fixated on this entire conversation.

Again you have your opinion I have mine. No need to keep this carousel of a debate going

I'm not sure there's ever been a more hilariously clear case of a coach's incompetence than we've seen here with the dramatic turnaround in all the weakest areas of the team the instant Babcock was canned.

If you can't admit that babcock was a bad coach for these leafs, you'll never admit to anything.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I already outlined what those issues were

You outlined some issues, but basically brushed them all off as irrelevant and secondary, and didn't seem to understand how misusing our best players hurt the team, not just individual numbers. Representing it as just fan desires for shiny numbers is completely missing the point.

against the back drop of 95-105 point finishes

We had those finishes because of our players, not because of Babcock. Which should be quite obvious, considering we finished last with Babcock, and then improved significantly when great players were added.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You have not gotten over Babcock as that is all you have fixated on this entire conversation.

...Babcock is literally the entire topic of the discussion, brought up by you, through unsubstantiated claims you have been unable to support...

 

[Gary Nylund]

Yes we can compete and we will rise to the level of play needed to win this round

Cliff notes: We can and we will.

I'm not sure there's ever been a more hilariously clear case of a coach's incompetence than we've seen here with the dramatic turnaround in all the weakest areas of the team the instant Babcock was canned.

If you can't admit that babcock was a bad coach for these leafs, you'll never admit to anything.

He really sucked near the end but was OK the first couple of years.

 

[saltming]

I'm not sure there's ever been a more hilariously clear case of a coach's incompetence than we've seen here with the dramatic turnaround in all the weakest areas of the team the instant Babcock was canned.

If you can't admit that babcock was a bad coach for these leafs, you'll never admit to anything.

I did say that several posts ago.
Stop projecting

Edit
Funny zeke the post you quoted even said that I though Babcock was part of the defensive issues.
Buddy! Do better

 

[saltming]

...Babcock is literally the entire topic of the discussion, brought up by you, through unsubstantiated claims you have been unable to support...

This conversation had several moving parts. The crux was the development of our players. You were unable to admit that players need to develop a pro style of hockey because Babcock was a bad coach, paraphrasing here, I went on to say it's natural that rookies need to transition to a pro game, you countered with something about how bad Babcock was and how I was making excuses for him.
You fixated, this means unable to move forward from a point, as I tried to move on.
As I said before your post are not objective and I am glad you have your point of view.
We are finished with this topic

 

[Mess]

I already outlined what those issues were, and against the back drop of 95-105 point finishes and 3x first round exits prior to his terrible start in 2019-20 I would say the problems were more philosophical and personal.

The crux of the problem in terms of utilization is I don’t many Leafs fans would accept Matthews and Marner being turned into a Pavel Datsyuk or Henrik Zetterberg whose numbers were probably deflated quite substantially in their primes.

I think you mean player personnel more so than personal.

Babcock kept asking for players that could play a heavier "playoff style" game like Hyman types, and with some grit, asked for better defensive capable depth on D, and a reliable back up goalie and he was feed Nic Patan and Denis Malgin types at the TD and asked to play Garret Sparks and Kasimir Kaskisuo.

There was only a philosophical difference between GM and former Coach, until he could find an excuse to replace him, with Keefe, and now his new coach is getting everything his old coach wanted and more .. Foligno, Simmonds, Brodie, Bogosian, Campbell and Rittich etc etc.

Greenhorn GM Dubas wanted to play a figure skating game built on speed and skill, thinking that was the way to playoff success, thinking he was smarter than all these long-time seasoned and experienced NHL management personnel, and after last years embarrassing preliminary round exit to CBJ, now suddenly last off-season and this TD he has mercifully abandoned that silly notion, and finally brought on players that Babcock could only dream of having at his disposal.

There was a management personal problem, but it came down to a philosophical difference on player personnel and what types of players it took to win. IMO

Leaf Nation fans and Vegas Oddsmakers are not excited about Leafs ability to compete this year in the playoffs, because of their coach Keefe, but rather because of their roster which has mainly been "playoff style" constructed around the same core this past year, after failing to qualify for the playoffs and an early exit last year.

In fact Leafs weakest link right now might be their coach, because the Leafs are heavy favourites in round #1 & 2 because of player personnel, but if Keefe gets outcoached like he did last year, and can't get things like his brutal PP figured out soon, or the goaltending rotation correct, or the proper matchups on the ice, because if the Leafs go down then all eyes will be on him. IMO

 

[Dekes For Days]

You were unable to admit that players need to develop a pro style of hockey because Babcock was a bad coach, paraphrasing here, I went on to say it's natural that rookies need to transition to a pro game, you countered with something about how bad Babcock was and how I was making excuses for him.

That is incorrect. Of course players grow and learn as they get more experience in the league; the issue is that you made false claims about how some of the best young players in the entire cap era played in their earlier years, with no substantiation, and then attributed their growth to Babcock, based on nothing. You're acting like Babcock did something special to improve our players, when he was really just a bad coach with bad systems who hindered the development and impact of our top players more than most coaches would have.

 

[saltming]

That is incorrect. Of course players grow and learn as they get more experience in the league; the issue is that you made false claims about how some of the best young players in the entire cap era played in their earlier years, with no substantiation, and then attributed their growth to Babcock, based on nothing. You're acting like Babcock did something special to improve our players, when he was really just a bad coach who hindered the development and impact of our top players more than most coaches would have.

Look at the way they played in game one then 2 years later.
The change was obvious. Yes natural growth but with guidance from the coach, which is normal, on how to play the NHL game. Simple.
If you read my posts you would have noted I said, in a reply you were quoted in, that I feel any other coach could have done this with them, but your dislike and fixation on Babcock is clouding your perspective

 

[Dekes For Days]

Greenhorn GM Dubas wanted to play a figure skating game built on speed and skill, thinking that was the way to playoff success, thinking he was smarter than all these long-time seasoned and experienced NHL management personnel, and after last years embarrassing preliminary round exit to CBJ, now suddenly last off-season and this TD he has mercifully abandoned that silly notion, and finally brought on players that Babcock could only dream of having at his disposal.

This is a wildly inaccurate and misleading description of what happened.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Look at the way they played in game one then 2 years later. The change was obvious.

Players grow over the years, especially relative to their teenage years, but your description of them and the things they did in their earlier years was incorrect, and there is no evidence to support attributing the growth we did see to Babcock.

If you read my posts you would have noted I said, in a reply you were quoted in, that I feel any other coach could have done this with them, but your dislike and fixation on Babcock is clouding your perspective

I don't have a fixation on Babcock. You brought up Babcock. You are the one trying to prop Babcock up. What you don't seem to realize is that if any other coach could have done what you claim was done, Babcock himself was irrelevant to the equation. What he personally brought to the equation was not very good.

 

[34]

Simmonds, Foligno, Thornton…Bogosian all say hi. The Leafs won’t get pushed around this postseason as they have in previous.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

Babs was an egocentric high energy hard working coach who always got his way .. he made wrong call on Paddy which really hurt him with Shanny especially after his 2nd year camp when all da players knew he was done but he BSed/stonewalled da media .. then he could not adapt properly when he got personnel he did not like - Barrie .. but worst of all he killed himself in room with all Toronto guys when he benched Spezz for game 1 last year .. i mean most people do not know this but all G guys were there, his family and friends etc a very large group .. he lost JT on that day when JT was made captain .. it was his kiss of death

 

[saltming]

Players grow over the years, especially relative to their teenage years, but your description of them and the things they did in their earlier years was incorrect, and there is no evidence to support attributing the growth we did see to Babcock.

I don't have a fixation on Babcock. You brought up Babcock. You are the one trying to prop Babcock up. What you don't seem to realize is that if any other coach could have done what you claim was done, Babcock himself was irrelevant to the equation. What he personally brought to the equation was not very good.

Irrelevant except he was the coach. That's just a fact.

Feel free to think I'm incorrect as you have your idea of what I was saying firmly in your head and that's what you have to work with.

Maybe this will help parlay what I'm talking about, playing unstructured vs structured hockey

Measuring the Importance of Structure on the Power Play

The importance of structure in a team’s power play is something that’s really easy to see. We’ve all watched a power play executing at the top of its game: the puck flies from player to player, leaving defenders pivoting in place to try to keep up. Each shot looks exactly like it was diagramed by the coach, with attackers working to set up a specific shot from a specific player in a specific location.
A solid structure doesn’t just look good; it actually produces better results. Arik Parnass has written extensively on the importance of structure to power play success, showing that teams who get set up in a dangerous formation score more goals than those who don’t.
Perhaps the best example of the importance of structure is the Columbus Blue Jackets. In late December, hockey graphs alum and Visualisation Visionary Micah Blake McCurdy tweeted out these images showing the year-to-year change in shot locations for the Jackets power play:
On the left we see a power play which appears to have few well-defined roles; one where Jack Johnson roamed the entire right side of the ice and David Savard seemed to hang out at both the left point and far right corner. That group was the first unit of a power play that finished 19th in goals for per 60 last year.
On the right, however, we see a much more structured group, one where each player appears to have a specific location they’re aiming to shoot from. It shouldn’t be surprising to see that this improved structure has helped Columbus, as they currently sit first in the league with 8.8 goals for per 60 on the power play, despite being one of the lowest ranking teams in terms of shot attempt generation.