General Leafs Talk v2.0

[GhostofPotvin29]

I still maintain my original position -- what team in the league won't be scrambling to find centers if their top 3 are out?  Sure you can bring up guys from the minors, but they're in the minors for a reason.  Everyone talks about Colborne this, Colborne that...he was brutal in preseason and lost his job.  Could the Leafs have kept him up as a winger/center, sure, but he didn't deserve the spot.  The Leafs couldn't send him down without him clearing waivers and he's gone, simple as that. 

For what it's worth, the mighty Colborne has 4 points in 19 games with Calgary.

Isn't that post Carlton linked to suggesting that most teams would be in a better position with 2 or 3 C's out than the Leafs are?

None is calling him the mighty Colborne or suggesting he would be lighting it up.  I've said numerous times that I think it's silly to hand a guy a spot or take a spot away based solely on the pre-season if it's a guy you've had the chance to see for a lot longer.  There are tons and tons of examples of players who lit it up in pre-season and fizzled into nothing once the real games began.  It's just as true the other way, guys can not light it up in pre-season but be okay once the season begins.  I think it was Carlton who re-watched the playoff games Colborne played in last season and acquitted himself well.

I can't accept the argument he didn't earn a spot over Orr/McLaren, even if Carlyle will never make that change.  He's a better player - full stop.  He deserved a spot over them, even if it was 4th line wing.  He's a better option than what we've been going with to fill-in with these injuries.

I'm perfectly fine with Holland over Colborne at this point, but it doesn't make the lack of preparation for C

 

[Zee]

I still maintain my original position -- what team in the league won't be scrambling to find centers if their top 3 are out?  Sure you can bring up guys from the minors, but they're in the minors for a reason.  Everyone talks about Colborne this, Colborne that...he was brutal in preseason and lost his job.  Could the Leafs have kept him up as a winger/center, sure, but he didn't deserve the spot.  The Leafs couldn't send him down without him clearing waivers and he's gone, simple as that. 

For what it's worth, the mighty Colborne has 4 points in 19 games with Calgary.

Isn't that post Carlton linked to suggesting that most teams would be in a better position with 2 or 3 C's out than the Leafs are?

None is calling him the mighty Colborne or suggesting he would be lighting it up.  I've said numerous times that I think it's silly to hand a guy a spot or take a spot away based solely on the pre-season if it's a guy you've had the chance to see for a lot longer.  There are tons and tons of examples of players who lit it up in pre-season and fizzled into nothing once the real games began.  It's just as true the other way, guys can not light it up in pre-season but be okay once the season begins.  I think it was Carlton who re-watched the playoff games Colborne played in last season and acquitted himself well.

I can't accept the argument he didn't earn a spot over Orr/McLaren, even if Carlyle will never make that change.  He's a better player - full stop.  He deserved a spot over them, even if it was 4th line wing.  He's a better option than what we've been going with to fill-in with these injuries.

I'm perfectly fine with Holland over Colborne at this point, but it doesn't make the lack of preparation for C

You can't have NHL quality depth at every single position, there's just not enough room on any team's roster.  The Leafs have good depth at winger, defense and goaltending.  If the Leafs lost 2-3 wingers they could get by, if they lost 2-3 defensemen they could get by and if they lost 1 of the 2 goalies, there would be no problem running with the other guy long term.  Thin at center but thick at other positions.  It's just bad luck that all the centers are out at the moment.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I still maintain my original position -- what team in the league won't be scrambling to find centers if their top 3 are out?  Sure you can bring up guys from the minors, but they're in the minors for a reason.  Everyone talks about Colborne this, Colborne that...he was brutal in preseason and lost his job.  Could the Leafs have kept him up as a winger/center, sure, but he didn't deserve the spot.  The Leafs couldn't send him down without him clearing waivers and he's gone, simple as that. 

For what it's worth, the mighty Colborne has 4 points in 19 games with Calgary.

Isn't that post Carlton linked to suggesting that most teams would be in a better position with 2 or 3 C's out than the Leafs are?

None is calling him the mighty Colborne or suggesting he would be lighting it up.  I've said numerous times that I think it's silly to hand a guy a spot or take a spot away based solely on the pre-season if it's a guy you've had the chance to see for a lot longer.  There are tons and tons of examples of players who lit it up in pre-season and fizzled into nothing once the real games began.  It's just as true the other way, guys can not light it up in pre-season but be okay once the season begins.  I think it was Carlton who re-watched the playoff games Colborne played in last season and acquitted himself well.

I can't accept the argument he didn't earn a spot over Orr/McLaren, even if Carlyle will never make that change.  He's a better player - full stop.  He deserved a spot over them, even if it was 4th line wing.  He's a better option than what we've been going with to fill-in with these injuries.

I'm perfectly fine with Holland over Colborne at this point, but it doesn't make the lack of preparation for C

You can't have NHL quality depth at every single position, there's just not enough room on any team's roster.  The Leafs have good depth at winger, defense and goaltending.  If the Leafs lost 2-3 wingers they could get by, if they lost 2-3 defensemen they could get by and if they lost 1 of the 2 goalies, there would be no problem running with the other guy long term.  Thin at center but thick at other positions.  It's just bad luck that all the centers are out at the moment.

I don't mean depth to the point of having equal quality guys fill in, but the top 3 C were gone without a C with any sort of offensive skill to fill in.  Colborne isn't lighting the world on fire, but he has offensive skill, just like Holland seems to have.  Having guys like this elsewhere on the roster I think would have gone a long way to helping stabilize the roster - you wouldn't have guys like JVR, McClement, Smithson playing as much in situations they shouldn't be playing in.  That, in turn, would have hopefully helped their issues at even-strength which have been magnified the past handful of games.  I do think the majority of the teams listed in that link have better options, but it is of course arguable.

Again, I give credit for picking up Holland.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

the leafs have been week up the middle for years...and this spate of injuries/suspensions (looking at you kadri)  has just exposed the hell out of that ..but really weren't we already aware of this?  i'm assuming the organization keeps trying to get a first line C  but those doesn't seem easy to come by...

i think most teams are probably missing depth in one key position or another..and that removing their top three from their depth chart would be ugly..whether it be on D ...Wing...Center or Goal. 

anyway one more game until we get kadri back ..and then hopefully only a few more until bozak

 

[OldTimeHockey]

the leafs have been week up the middle for years...and this spate of injuries/suspensions (looking at you kadri)  has just exposed the hell out of that ..but really weren't we already aware of this?  i'm assuming the organization keeps trying to get a first line C  but those doesn't seem easy to come by...

i think most teams are probably missing depth in one key position or another..and that removing their top three from their depth chart would be ugly..whether it be on D ...Wing...Center or Goal. 

anyway one more game until we get kadri back ..and then hopefully only a few more until bozak

Come on man, now your just making sense. That's not right. Who can we blame everything on if not Carlyle and Nonis?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I looked at your link, the centers listed after each teams top 3 don't exactly scream high quality.

And the centers listed after our top 4 don't scream at all because they aren't/weren't existent. But the fact is you asked which NHL teams carry more than 4 centers on their NHL roster like the Leafs weren't alone in this problem. I answered your question: 29 of 30 NHL teams had more than 4 centres on their roster. That's a problem, especially since it's not really like the Leafs went with quality over quantity in terms of our centres either.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Come on man, now your just making sense. That's not right. Who can we blame everything on if not Carlyle and Nonis?

Well we can blame Burke too for not drafting a single NHL-calibre centre except for Kadri in his time as GM. That Biggs pick is looking particularly bad because a) it looked dumb even at the time and b) there's about half a dozen centres picked after him that could have stepped in right now.

 

[Zee]

I looked at your link, the centers listed after each teams top 3 don't exactly scream high quality.

And the centers listed after our top 4 don't scream at all because they aren't/weren't existent. But the fact is you asked which NHL teams carry more than 4 centers on their NHL roster like the Leafs weren't alone in this problem. I answered your question: 29 of 30 NHL teams had more than 4 centres on their roster. That's a problem, especially since it's not really like the Leafs went with quality over quantity in terms of our centres either.

Having more than 4 centers on your roster doesn't immediately mean you can survive the absence of your top 3 centers.  Looking at your link, I''ll take Pittsburgh as an example, a great club by anyone's estimation.  Your site listed:

Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Brandon Sutter, Jussi Jokinen, Joe Vitale and Craig Adams (Andrew Ebbett in the AHL).

In reality, they have Jokinen and Adams playing on the wing.  So take out Crosby, Malkin and Sutter and you move the other 2 up to center and Vitale as your 3rd centerman---who takes their place on the wing that Jokinen and Adams are currently playing?

So far this year Pittsburgh has used 7 centermen according to NHL.com
Crosby
Malkin
Sutter
Vitale
Megna
Jeffrey
Sill

If you tell me that
Vitale
Megna
Jeffrey
Sill

are great options with the top 3 out, I don't know what to tell you. 

This is just one team example, I'm sure other teams have similar issues.  Sure you can move wingers to center like Jokinen and Adams, but someone else then has to take their roles on the wing.  There's no perfect solution of how much depth to carry on a roster.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Come on man, now your just making sense. That's not right. Who can we blame everything on if not Carlyle and Nonis?

Well we can blame Burke too for not drafting a single NHL-calibre centre except for Kadri in his time as GM. That Biggs pick is looking particularly bad because a) it looked dumb even at the time and b) there's about half a dozen centres picked after him that could have stepped in right now.

You should send your crystal ball to Burke in Calgary. Clearly it works better than the system he used in Toronto.

 

[Jalili]

The St. Louis Blues are another example of a team that would be able to handle losing their centers as well.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

You should send your crystal ball to Burke in Calgary. Clearly it works better than the system he used in Toronto.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to know picking someone in the 1st round with the offensive upside of a 3rd liner isn't a smart idea. This isn't a hindsight is 20/20 type of situation. Plenty of people said that Biggs didn't have top-6 potential.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

You should send your crystal ball to Burke in Calgary. Clearly it works better than the system he used in Toronto.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to know picking someone in the 1st round with the offensive upside of a 3rd liner isn't a smart idea. This isn't a hindsight is 20/20 type of situation. Plenty of people said that Biggs didn't have top-6 potential.

I've never been big on Biggs either. I was just stating that it seems to be a theme around here lately to look back 2 or 3 years and say..."Yeah, I wouldn't of done that, I would of done this."

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't see what's wrong with reflecting back on past failures as well as past successes to see how and where things went right or wrong.

Very few moves are ever met with 100% agreement, so there's going to be a sizeable group who were for/against every move at the time.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I don't see what's wrong with reflecting back on past failures as well as past successes to see how and where things went right or wrong.

Very few moves are ever met with 100% agreement, so there's going to be a sizeable group who were for/against every move at the time.

You are 100% correct and there is nothing wrong with reflecting back. Unfortunately reflecting back is nothing but speculation on how it could effect today's product and how doing A would result in C instead of B.

 

[mr grieves]

I don't see what's wrong with reflecting back on past failures as well as past successes to see how and where things went right or wrong.

Very few moves are ever met with 100% agreement, so there's going to be a sizeable group who were for/against every move at the time.

And it's not like people are changing their views on these things. Most of those who say Biggs shouldn't've been a first round pick said so at the time. Most of those who say the Leafs boned themselves at center said so during the summer. Folks are just reminding other folks when time proves them right -- and that's more or less why the internet exists.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Folks are just reminding other folks when time proves them right -- and that's more or less why the internet exists.

I strongly disagree with this!!! I can think of a few other things of why the internet exists!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't see what's wrong with reflecting back on past failures as well as past successes to see how and where things went right or wrong.

Very few moves are ever met with 100% agreement, so there's going to be a sizeable group who were for/against every move at the time.

You are 100% correct and there is nothing wrong with reflecting back. Unfortunately reflecting back is nothing but speculation on how it could effect today's product and how doing A would result in C instead of B.

Well yes, but I think a great deal of the enjoyment of this place is debating those sorts of things.  It's enjoyable to me to read a well argued point like that, even if in reality I can't prove it 100% right or wrong.  I don't think it's unrealistic to speak of past players or moves and say whether in the present they seem to have helped or hurt the team.  I think player moves are constantly being re-evaluated in light of the present (to a degree, I mean you can't go back forever).

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I don't see what's wrong with reflecting back on past failures as well as past successes to see how and where things went right or wrong.

Very few moves are ever met with 100% agreement, so there's going to be a sizeable group who were for/against every move at the time.

You are 100% correct and there is nothing wrong with reflecting back. Unfortunately reflecting back is nothing but speculation on how it could effect today's product and how doing A would result in C instead of B.

Well yes, but I think a great deal of the enjoyment of this place is debating those sorts of things.  It's enjoyable to me to read a well argued point like that, even if in reality I can't prove it 100% right or wrong.  I don't think it's unrealistic to speak of past players or moves and say whether in the present they seem to have helped or hurt the team.  I think player moves are constantly being re-evaluated in light of the present (to a degree, I mean you can't go back forever).

Hey, I'm all for it. I have no issues with the Grabovski conversations despite my leaning towards agreeing with the buy out when it happened. I wish we had his scoring on the team. But I'm not sure with the coaches 'system' whether or not he'd score the same way in Toronto  ;D

 

[Kin]

It doesn't take a crystal ball to know picking someone in the 1st round with the offensive upside of a 3rd liner isn't a smart idea. This isn't a hindsight is 20/20 type of situation. Plenty of people said that Biggs didn't have top-6 potential.

But how many people do you think were drafted after Biggs that had legitimate top 6 potential? Or at least to the degree that they were a safer pick to get there? I agree with the general premise that the team should be aiming higher with a first round pick, it's a point people made this off-season as well after Gauthier was picked, but I'd bet if you went back and looked at scouting reports from that draft there was nobody picked in that range that looked like a safe bet to be what the team needs now.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I've never been big on Biggs either. I was just stating that it seems to be a theme around here lately to look back 2 or 3 years and say..."Yeah, I wouldn't of done that, I would of done this."

Fair enough, I understand how that can be annoying. But everything that I said about was things I was saying when he was drafted.