Compete level!

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't doubt that there are legitimately times where players aren't giving their 100% or fully 'competing' as they should, but I think it's far too easy a narrative to fall back on and far too difficult to really accurately assess overall.

Kind of like like "They played with no heart".

When most likely they were simply just outplayed or outclassed.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I don't doubt that there are legitimately times where players aren't giving their 100% or fully 'competing' as they should, but I think it's far too easy a narrative to fall back on and far too difficult to really accurately assess overall.

Obviously, individual effort and energy levels are going to vary from game to game. That's natural. It's the idea that groups of players or entire teams don't compete hard enough that I think is largely garbage. "Poor compete level" really usually boils down to poor strategy, poor execution or simply being outmatched in terms of skill/ability/strategy/etc.

Interesting reading on Twitter and I think it's true how Carlyle seems to get a pass from most (not all) of the media for basically saying he doesn't know what's wrong in scrums but imagine the media reaction had Wilson said that in scrums?  Media used to relish piling on him but I find Carlyle gets the opposite treatment - a long, long leash.

Do you feel it's how Carlyle treats the media? I'm unsure as I haven't really watched a media scrum with Carlyle in ages but I do remember Wilson having a very defensive 'FU' attitude when dealing with the media.

 

[bustaheims]

Interesting reading on Twitter and I think it's true how Carlyle seems to get a pass from most (not all) of the media for basically saying he doesn't know what's wrong in scrums but imagine the media reaction had Wilson said that in scrums?  Media used to relish piling on him but I find Carlyle gets the opposite treatment - a long, long leash.

Mirtle seems to be the only guy that called Carlyle out for that. It's crazy. The coach should never publicly admit something like that. Wilson would have been roasted over a comment like that - and rightfully so.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

It's almost always his answer too, I've been furious about the media soft balling him since last years train wreck, it actually is disgusting.

Unfortunately quality journalism has gone the way of the dodo bird and not just in sports.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't doubt that there are legitimately times where players aren't giving their 100% or fully 'competing' as they should, but I think it's far too easy a narrative to fall back on and far too difficult to really accurately assess overall.

Obviously, individual effort and energy levels are going to vary from game to game. That's natural. It's the idea that groups of players or entire teams don't compete hard enough that I think is largely garbage. "Poor compete level" really usually boils down to poor strategy, poor execution or simply being outmatched in terms of skill/ability/strategy/etc.

Interesting reading on Twitter and I think it's true how Carlyle seems to get a pass from most (not all) of the media for basically saying he doesn't know what's wrong in scrums but imagine the media reaction had Wilson said that in scrums?  Media used to relish piling on him but I find Carlyle gets the opposite treatment - a long, long leash.

Do you feel it's how Carlyle treats the media? I'm unsure as I haven't really watched a media scrum with Carlyle in ages but I do remember Wilson having a very defensive 'FU' attitude when dealing with the media.

Yeah for sure.  I actually find watching Babcock speak to the media that he kind of reminds me of Wilson - but obviously Babcock's results with the Red Wings kind of preclude much in the way of criticism of him.  I'd be curious to see media reaction to him in this market.  I think Wilson would have been treated better with better team results, but I've been over many times how I think his teams performed better than their records necessarily always indicated.

 

[freer]

I don't doubt that there are legitimately times where players aren't giving their 100% or fully 'competing' as they should, but I think it's far too easy a narrative to fall back on and far too difficult to really accurately assess overall.

Obviously, individual effort and energy levels are going to vary from game to game. That's natural. It's the idea that groups of players or entire teams don't compete hard enough that I think is largely garbage. "Poor compete level" really usually boils down to poor strategy, poor execution or simply being outmatched in terms of skill/ability/strategy/etc.

Interesting reading on Twitter and I think it's true how Carlyle seems to get a pass from most (not all) of the media for basically saying he doesn't know what's wrong in scrums but imagine the media reaction had Wilson said that in scrums?  Media used to relish piling on him but I find Carlyle gets the opposite treatment - a long, long leash.

Ron Wilson was a dick to the press, I would call it fair play. Your dick to me, I am going to be one back at ya. Randy is a better communicator when it comes to the press. He has not giving them a reason to bash him with is sarcastic comments.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't know if this is the right thread for it, but I've been generally impressed by Polak this season.  He's being relied on to play really hard minutes buried in the Leafs end and been doing relatively well in them.

 

[Highlander]

I think he is a complete upgrade over Gunnerson for sure.  I really think Gunner was playing with a bad hip the last two years and unfortunately usually when the hip needs surgery the playing days are limited.  And Polak brings a lot more offence. yes I feel more secure when his is out there than the Pylon.

 

[TML fan]

I thought he had a really bad game yesterday but overall he's been good.

 

[herman]

The Leafs and the coaching staff appear to have turned the corner. No longer will 'compete level' be the excuse du jour.

From Jonas Siegel: Unpredictable Leafs striving to 'play the right way'

?Play the right way.?

It?s a phrase and mindset that Maple Leaf players and coaches co-opted after a pair of particularly humiliating losses last week and one that helped sparked back-to-back wins in response. But head coach, Randy Carlyle, doesn't want to say too much about it.
?We?re going to just keep that one close to our vest,? said Carlyle of the phrase's meaning, always guarded when it comes to matters in-house. ?They know what it means and we as a coaching staff know what it means, so we?re just going to keep that between ourselves at this point.?

What?s clear is the Leafs needed to change something after they were kicked twice in a matter of days by the Sabres and Predators. But instead of pinning it down to wins and losses they decided to cut the big picture into very small pieces, aiming for little changes to affect big picture results.

It started with conversations between coaches and management and filtered down from there.
??we felt we had to reset and focus on the process,? Carlyle said. ?And the process for us, instead of looking at wins and losses, was to pick something within it and say ?Hey, if we can accomplish this our chances of having success are going to go up? and that?s really the way that it was presented.?

Changes were easily evident in back-to-wins over the Lightning and Red Wings. The Leafs played a cleaner, more structured and sound game against a pair of division rivals, resulting in fewer turnovers, fewer dangerous chances to contend with and, thus, fewer shots to handle for their typically busy goaltender.

?I think it?s like anything,? said Stephane Robidas, sounding a lot like a coach himself, ?whenever you set long-term goals, it?s far, it?s far ahead, and it?s tougher to see the big picture. Whenever you put short-term goals, like little things you can control, it kind of makes it easier. It?s little things. It?s details.?

The team came up with ?process goals? before last Thursday?s game against Tampa, objectives they could focus on during the course of a game. One such goal was holding opponents to 25 shots or under, a particular challenge for one of the worst shot suppression teams in the league in recent years.

And while they weren't able to hold Tampa and Detroit at or under 25 shots, they did keep both to a very respectable 28 shots apiece. Few of those shots and subsequent opportunities came off the rush ? because of wiser puck play and increased engagement from forwards defensively ? a particular point of peril in those one-sided losses to Buffalo and Nashville.
All of which made life for Jonathan Bernier quite a bit easier than the norm of his Toronto tenure.

Fewer run-and-gun opportunities for the opposition means far more predictability for the goaltender, less danger to manage in just a matter of seconds, and more shots from those areas of the ice that aren't quite as menacing.

?Rush shots are the hardest to stop,? said Bernier, appearing relaxed after back-to-back games of fewer than 30 shots against, a harkening back to his days with the Kings. ?[But] when it comes [from] the outside, you only have one shooter, you don?t have to worry about the back-side [shooter], you can challenge a little bit more and, obviously, [your] percentage to stop that puck is pretty high and most of the shots will go in your belly.?
To tame the shot totals of their opponents, the Leafs have a connected ?process goal? of improving back-side pressure ? making certain that the high forward in the offensive zone is in proper position if the puck is turned over and play goes the other way.

That not only helps the group on defence ? which will be without the injured Roman Polak, likely for the next month ? hold the opposition up at the blue line, but it puts Bernier in a better position to succeed. His approach changes dramatically when contending with a 3-on-2 rush as opposed to a 3-on-3 ? he can play deeper in his net, for example.

?When you have that back-pressure, it?s either going to be a dump or a wide shot,? said Bernier. ?There?s not many options out there because, if the D and the back-pressure do a good job, then they shouldn't get anything out of it.?

That?s just another one of the minor adjustments the Leafs have made and hope to continue to stick with as the road moves forward. They started addressing such matters at a video session in the hours after last Tuesday?s 9-2 pounding from Nashville. It came down to improvements as small as increased urgency on the forecheck.

?If you think about it,? said Robidas, ?if you get a real good forecheck, what?s going to happen? You?re going to get the puck and you?re going to be in their end -  if you?re in their end, they can?t shoot the puck on net. That?s a pretty good start.?

?We talk about Detroit for years, how good they were with the puck,? the 37-year-old continued. ?Yeah, they?re really good with the puck, but they didn't have to defend that much because they had the puck the whole game. Whenever they lose it, they track it back and they get it back.?
But unlike those Red Wing teams of the past couple decades, the Leafs were an awful possession club last year, worst in the league with a 42.3 per cent Fenwick rating in 5-on-5 situations. That number has improved to 47.7 per cent this year, still not great at 23rd overall, but an improvement nonetheless.

More possession of the puck means less time in the defensive zone and fewer shots against, all part of the thread toward ?playing the right way." Toronto is still fourth from last in yielding 33 shots per game at the quarter mark of the season, but that number will edge lower if they can somehow maintain their current form or something close to it.

?That?s the way we tried to beg, borrow, steal, whatever you can do to convince your players that there is a certain way that we have to play,? said Carlyle. ?We?re going to focus on trying to block shots, trying to create less defensive [and] more offensive zone time, be stronger in structure - all those things -and then, usually, the shot clock will go down if you?re doing those things effectively.?

Whether or not it continues is the question. The Leafs are an unpredictable bunch and as ripe as any to veer off course when the script changes for the worse, if even a little. But after skidding so violently off the rails, Carlyle ? whose job veered into questions general manager Dave Nonis had to quiet ? has managed to get his group back on track (albeit, in only two games) with a simple edict and message.

?You start by doing little things and, by the end, it gets tougher,? Robidas observed, ?but now you've proved to yourself that you can do it. You've broken it down and you know what you need to do to keep going.?

And that presumably is playing the right way.

Hockey analytics in action, guys. They're finally starting to operationalize small ways to achieve larger goals correctly. It remains to be seen if the group can maturely stay the course, especially amidst adversity, and continue 'playing the right way' even if they lose those close one-goal games. We have the game breaking talent to take full advantage of the chances generated by a strong support system.