Horachek's impact on the team

[GhostofPotvin29]

April 13, 2013:

Maple Leafs: Gritty, hard-working squad the real deal: Cox
This Leafs team is a solid hockey club, a big, physical team with strong penalty killing, efficient netminding and enough youth to imagine this might be a group built for successful seasons beyond this one.

January 15, 2015:

Why Shanahan must blow up the Maple Leafs: Cox
Shanahan has a core group of players that isn?t good enough or strong enough or committed enough to take this team anywhere meaningful. As Sportsnet colleague Jeff Blair recently pointed out, that core group also isn?t particularly likeable to the public.

So opinions aren't allowed to change based on results?

Did not say that.  But it's a good argument to put Cox out to pasture if his columns can do nothing but mold his viewpoint to the current state of the team.  Make playoffs in lockout season? Solid hockey club built for future success.  Miss playoffs and struggling? Bad core.

You or I could do that for free.  Emblematic of the issue a lot of people have with these guys.

But I posted it to have a quick snicker at.

 

[pmrules]

April 13, 2013:

Maple Leafs: Gritty, hard-working squad the real deal: Cox
This Leafs team is a solid hockey club, a big, physical team with strong penalty killing, efficient netminding and enough youth to imagine this might be a group built for successful seasons beyond this one.

January 15, 2015:

Why Shanahan must blow up the Maple Leafs: Cox
Shanahan has a core group of players that isn?t good enough or strong enough or committed enough to take this team anywhere meaningful. As Sportsnet colleague Jeff Blair recently pointed out, that core group also isn?t particularly likeable to the public.

So opinions aren't allowed to change based on results?

Did not say that.  But it's a good argument to put Cox out to pasture if his columns can do nothing but mold his viewpoint to the current state of the team.  Make playoffs in lockout season? Solid hockey club built for future success.  Miss playoffs and struggling? Bad core.

You or I could do that for free.  Emblematic of the issue a lot of people have with these guys.

But I posted it to have a quick snicker at.

I agree with you in part...and i'm not a fan in particular of Damien, but I do believe he is paid to comment on the current status of the team - Which, in my mind at least, has changed significantly since April 13, 2013.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

April 13, 2013:

Maple Leafs: Gritty, hard-working squad the real deal: Cox
This Leafs team is a solid hockey club, a big, physical team with strong penalty killing, efficient netminding and enough youth to imagine this might be a group built for successful seasons beyond this one.

January 15, 2015:

Why Shanahan must blow up the Maple Leafs: Cox
Shanahan has a core group of players that isn?t good enough or strong enough or committed enough to take this team anywhere meaningful. As Sportsnet colleague Jeff Blair recently pointed out, that core group also isn?t particularly likeable to the public.

So opinions aren't allowed to change based on results?

Did not say that.  But it's a good argument to put Cox out to pasture if his columns can do nothing but mold his viewpoint to the current state of the team.  Make playoffs in lockout season? Solid hockey club built for future success.  Miss playoffs and struggling? Bad core.

You or I could do that for free.  Emblematic of the issue a lot of people have with these guys.

But I posted it to have a quick snicker at.

I agree with you in part...and i'm not a fan in particular of Damien, but I do believe he is paid to comment on the current status of the team - Which, in my mind at least, has changed significantly since April 13, 2013.

Not really - back then the team exhibited basically most of the same issues as when Carlyle was fired.  They were saved by it being a 48 game season.  So that's why it rings hollow - if your analysis extends only so far as 'playoffs = good, not playoffs = bad' well it's not very useful.  I think that's why so many of us now gravitate towards blogs (or Mirtle and a couple others) who are doing far deeper and more meaningful analysis.

Just annoying to some degree that Cox still has such a prominent position.

 

[ZBBM]

But that's the whole point: they aren't, and never will be.  Your analogy with DET is wrong.  They had two pieces in place, neither of which had the obvious flaws Kessel and Phaneuf do.  What the Leafs need to do is add and/or develop guys of the caliber of Y&L, which they can't do through trade and still retain all the salary tied up in P&K, and waiting to hopefully develop such talent would take us well past Phaneuf's prime.

And BTW, when I say dismantle the core I don't mean just P&K.  Bozak, Kadri, JVR, none of them are untouchable.

I disagree. Yzerman was frequently called out for many of the same things that Kessel gets called out for. He had many of the same so-called "obvious flaws" in his game until the team started winning. Lidstrom wasn't seen as the Lidstrom we know now until the team was successful, either. He didn't get the same level of attention that Phaneuf gets, but, he also wasn't the captain and things like salary weren't as important. There were very real questions as to whether or not the Wings could win with their core, but, they stuck with most of them, and won a bunch of Cups.

And, I know what you mean when you say dismantle the core. I still think you're targeting the wrong guys. It's guys like Bozak, Lupul and Clarkson that need to be improved upon. Not the ones you're singling out.

Sorry busta, I respect your opinions but expecting Phaneuf and Kessel to become what Y&L were is just not credible.  And that's the implication of your argument.

Anyway, the comparison with the Wings is a bit of a red herring.  I'm not aware of a single respected hockey analyst who doesn't think that P&K are not guys you build a championship team around.  The question is whether you could add the key pieces needed to reduce them to complimentary guys, and if so whether that could be done faster than blowing er up.  I think the odds are easily with the latter.

 

[bustaheims]

Sorry busta, I respect your opinions but expecting Phaneuf and Kessel to become what Y&L were is just not credible.  And that's the implication of your argument.

Anyway, the comparison with the Wings is a bit of a red herring.  I'm not aware of a single respected hockey analyst who doesn't think that P&K are not guys you build a championship team around.  The question is whether you could add the key pieces needed to reduce them to complimentary guys, and if so whether that could be done faster than blowing er up.  I think the odds are easily with the latter.

I stated quite clearly that Kessel and Phaneuf are not Yzerman and Lidstrom, so, anyone who interpreting it that way is reading things that aren't there.

Also, those very same respected hockey analysts also said the Wings couldn't win with Yzerman and Co. So, maybe their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[ZBBM]

Sorry busta, I respect your opinions but expecting Phaneuf and Kessel to become what Y&L were is just not credible.  And that's the implication of your argument.

Anyway, the comparison with the Wings is a bit of a red herring.  I'm not aware of a single respected hockey analyst who doesn't think that P&K are not guys you build a championship team around.  The question is whether you could add the key pieces needed to reduce them to complimentary guys, and if so whether that could be done faster than blowing er up.  I think the odds are easily with the latter.

I stated quite clearly that Kessel and Phaneuf are not Yzerman and Lidstrom, so, anyone who interpreting it that way is reading things that aren't there.

Also, those very same respected hockey analysts also said the Wings couldn't win with Yzerman and Co. So, maybe their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.

You can't disavow the comparison when you keep making it. 

 

[bustaheims]

You can't disavow the comparison when you keep making it.

I'm not disavowing the comparison. I'm saying you're coming to the wrong conclusion and ignoring some pretty direct statements I made about the comparison. At no point did I say it was a perfect one. In fact, I clearly stated it wasn't. The comparison I was making was more about the situations rather than the actual talents of the individual players.

 

[ZBBM]

You can't disavow the comparison when you keep making it.

I'm not disavowing the comparison. I'm saying you're coming to the wrong conclusion and ignoring some pretty direct statements I made about the comparison. At no point did I say it was a perfect one. In fact, I clearly stated it wasn't. The comparison I was making was more about the situations rather than the actual talents of the individual players.

The "situations" depend on the actual talents of the players more than anything else. 

I mean, I think it's very likely that the team's in-game performance will improve under Horachek, but that alone is not going to get this team where it needs to go.

People who want to keep these core players here should explain what they think the path to success is, and why it's a better bet than a teardown.

 

[pmrules]

But that's the whole point: they aren't, and never will be.  Your analogy with DET is wrong.  They had two pieces in place, neither of which had the obvious flaws Kessel and Phaneuf do.  What the Leafs need to do is add and/or develop guys of the caliber of Y&L, which they can't do through trade and still retain all the salary tied up in P&K, and waiting to hopefully develop such talent would take us well past Phaneuf's prime.

And BTW, when I say dismantle the core I don't mean just P&K.  Bozak, Kadri, JVR, none of them are untouchable.

I disagree. Yzerman was frequently called out for many of the same things that Kessel gets called out for. He had many of the same so-called "obvious flaws" in his game until the team started winning. Lidstrom wasn't seen as the Lidstrom we know now until the team was successful, either. He didn't get the same level of attention that Phaneuf gets, but, he also wasn't the captain and things like salary weren't as important. There were very real questions as to whether or not the Wings could win with their core, but, they stuck with most of them, and won a bunch of Cups.

And, I know what you mean when you say dismantle the core. I still think you're targeting the wrong guys. It's guys like Bozak, Lupul and Clarkson that need to be improved upon. Not the ones you're singling out.

I think you and I are of similar mind, since In my mind, some of the people you have mentioned ARE part of the core of this team (Bozak, Lupul esp).

In my mind, and people will likely disagree, the core are your top 3/4 forwards, your top 2 D and your number 1 G.  These are the guys you rely on to win games.  When I am in favour of a change in the core...i am not necessarily in favour of trading Kessel or Phaneuf solely.  It is more in line with putting them in their rightful place in the heirarchy of the core. 

Right now, Kessel is your number 1 forward, while in my opinion, he needs to be Number 2 or 3 on your listing of forwards, OR you need to significantly upgrade players 2 and 3 in that list (for me which are Lupul and Bozak over the past 3 plus years or so - Kadri and JVR are next but haven't been here as long as the other 3). 

Similarly, either Phaneuf should be the #2 on a good team OR the number 2 has to be significantly upgraded from Gunnar/Franson that we have seen the past few years.

So the question becomes, can we be continuous Cup contender or win the Cup (which is the ultimate goal) with Kessel and Phaneuf as your number 1 F and your number 1 D.  In my mind, with both players in their prime and are now beginning the exit from their prime performance years, the answer has proved to be a resounding no (3 disappointing finishes in 3 consecutive years).  Can you win with Kessel and Phaneuf as part of team - who the heck knows - but potentially yes.  But there needs to be significant upgrades to the remaining core of this team if that is the case - which is what I am a proponent of. 

 

[pmrules]

April 13, 2013:

Maple Leafs: Gritty, hard-working squad the real deal: Cox
This Leafs team is a solid hockey club, a big, physical team with strong penalty killing, efficient netminding and enough youth to imagine this might be a group built for successful seasons beyond this one.

January 15, 2015:

Why Shanahan must blow up the Maple Leafs: Cox
Shanahan has a core group of players that isn?t good enough or strong enough or committed enough to take this team anywhere meaningful. As Sportsnet colleague Jeff Blair recently pointed out, that core group also isn?t particularly likeable to the public.

So opinions aren't allowed to change based on results?

Did not say that.  But it's a good argument to put Cox out to pasture if his columns can do nothing but mold his viewpoint to the current state of the team.  Make playoffs in lockout season? Solid hockey club built for future success.  Miss playoffs and struggling? Bad core.

You or I could do that for free.  Emblematic of the issue a lot of people have with these guys.

But I posted it to have a quick snicker at.

I agree with you in part...and i'm not a fan in particular of Damien, but I do believe he is paid to comment on the current status of the team - Which, in my mind at least, has changed significantly since April 13, 2013.

Not really - back then the team exhibited basically most of the same issues as when Carlyle was fired.  They were saved by it being a 48 game season.  So that's why it rings hollow - if your analysis extends only so far as 'playoffs = good, not playoffs = bad' well it's not very useful.  I think that's why so many of us now gravitate towards blogs (or Mirtle and a couple others) who are doing far deeper and more meaningful analysis.

Just annoying to some degree that Cox still has such a prominent position.

You dont' think they were a different team in April 2013 than they are today?  They were young, they had significant speed, they hit everything, they were genuinely hard to play against, has a great PK and enough scoring, and Reimer was dependable, going into that playoffs.  They were actually fun to watch, because you knew that they had a chance to beat anybody (except for Boston).

Thats not what they are today...not by any stretch.

 

[freer]

I was putting together a post in my mind, because, my recollection was that the leafs went through the same thing when Wilson was fired and Carlyle came on board. That being that they were playing good defensive hockey, but the goals dried up. So I decided to look that up before I would post this... and on man was I wrong.

Don't think they really ever played good defensive hockey under Carlyle.

IMO they played on good defensive game. Probably the best I have seen them play in four years against DET. that was the only good defensive game under RC

 

[hockeyfan1]

From Siegel:
James van Riemsdyk described Horachek as a more of an easygoing personality behind the bench as compared to the often fiery and tightly wound Carlyle.

?More of a calmness back there,? van Riemsdyk said. ?We know what we need to do and he?s great about teaching and showing guys the right way to do things and, when we make mistakes, showing it in a way that is constructive and I think guys are responding well to that.?

Horachek has offered a different perspective than Carlyle, who guided van Riemsdyk for the first 168 games of his ongoing Toronto tenure.

?Pete?s done a good job of communicating that with us and we?ve done a good job so far of buying into that," van Riemsdyk continued.  "And we just need to do that consistently and we?ll have some success. As far as communicating and knowing what to expect and being approachable, he?s great with all that. There?s definitely a different environment and feel that we have right now in the room.?

That to me, is the biggest change so far, aside from an improvement in their possession game and improved overall zone play.

Their offence has suffered somewhat, but then again, this is a team trying to make an adjustment in their playing style.  Once the Leafs get the hang of it, everything should click into place including the goal scoring.

For a team whose style of play differed greatly from the previous coach, the attempted adjustments under Horachek are commendable.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Over 1000 words in that Damien Cox article about why the Leafs have to blow up their roster. Not a single one of them was "Nonis", the guy who committed to this unwinnable core.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Over 1000 words in that Damien Cox article about why the Leafs have to blow up their roster. Not a single one of them was "Nonis", the guy who committed to this unwinnable core.

It bothers me because on TV he seems so much more reasonable and I actually haven't minded him.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

It bothers me because on TV he seems so much more reasonable and I actually haven't minded him.

I agree that he's not as intolerable on TV, but lots of people look smarter when they have Nick Kypreos sitting next to them.

 

[freer]

It bothers me because on TV he seems so much more reasonable and I actually haven't minded him.

I agree that he's not as intolerable on TV, but lots of people look smarter when they have Nick Kypreos sitting next to them.

Blind leading the Blind

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

It bothers me because on TV he seems so much more reasonable and I actually haven't minded him.

I agree that he's not as intolerable on TV, but lots of people look smarter when they have Nick Kypreos sitting next to them.

Ha, that's a good point!

 

[applecheeks]

April 13, 2013:

Maple Leafs: Gritty, hard-working squad the real deal: Cox
This Leafs team is a solid hockey club, a big, physical team with strong penalty killing, efficient netminding and enough youth to imagine this might be a group built for successful seasons beyond this one.

January 15, 2015:

Why Shanahan must blow up the Maple Leafs: Cox
Shanahan has a core group of players that isn?t good enough or strong enough or committed enough to take this team anywhere meaningful. As Sportsnet colleague Jeff Blair recently pointed out, that core group also isn?t particularly likeable to the public.

So opinions aren't allowed to change based on results?

Did not say that.  But it's a good argument to put Cox out to pasture if his columns can do nothing but mold his viewpoint to the current state of the team.  Make playoffs in lockout season? Solid hockey club built for future success.  Miss playoffs and struggling? Bad core.

You or I could do that for free.  Emblematic of the issue a lot of people have with these guys.

But I posted it to have a quick snicker at.

I agree with you in part...and i'm not a fan in particular of Damien, but I do believe he is paid to comment on the current status of the team - Which, in my mind at least, has changed significantly since April 13, 2013.

Not really - back then the team exhibited basically most of the same issues as when Carlyle was fired.  They were saved by it being a 48 game season.  So that's why it rings hollow - if your analysis extends only so far as 'playoffs = good, not playoffs = bad' well it's not very useful.  I think that's why so many of us now gravitate towards blogs (or Mirtle and a couple others) who are doing far deeper and more meaningful analysis.

Just annoying to some degree that Cox still has such a prominent position.

Totally agree with your opinion of Cox. Bigger the screw-up, bigger the promotion. But, he seems to be softening up in his old age.
Truth, "better reading in the blogs" but leaf fans aren't too far from that nut tree, imo. I'm a huge fan.

 

[herman]

It bothers me because on TV he seems so much more reasonable and I actually haven't minded him.

I agree that he's not as intolerable on TV, but lots of people look smarter when they have Nick Kypreos sitting next to them.

Ha, that's a good point!

I used to consider Kypreos the voice of reason when the SN panel also had Bill Watters. It's all about the context.

Speaking of viewing people in context:

In my mind, and people will likely disagree, the core are your top 3/4 forwards, your top 2 D and your number 1 G.  These are the guys you rely on to win games.  When I am in favour of a change in the core...i am not necessarily in favour of trading Kessel or Phaneuf solely.  It is more in line with putting them in their rightful place in the heirarchy of the core. 

Right now, Kessel is your number 1 forward, while in my opinion, he needs to be Number 2 or 3 on your listing of forwards, OR you need to significantly upgrade players 2 and 3 in that list (for me which are Lupul and Bozak over the past 3 plus years or so - Kadri and JVR are next but haven't been here as long as the other 3). 

Similarly, either Phaneuf should be the #2 on a good team OR the number 2 has to be significantly upgraded from Gunnar/Franson that we have seen the past few years.

So the question becomes, can we be continuous Cup contender or win the Cup (which is the ultimate goal) with Kessel and Phaneuf as your number 1 F and your number 1 D.  In my mind, with both players in their prime and are now beginning the exit from their prime performance years, the answer has proved to be a resounding no (3 disappointing finishes in 3 consecutive years).  Can you win with Kessel and Phaneuf as part of team - who the heck knows - but potentially yes.  But there needs to be significant upgrades to the remaining core of this team if that is the case - which is what I am a proponent of. 

I super agree with this ^. Now, how do we do that within a salary cap structure? With no buyers for the ludicrous contracts that were doled out? I think it'll come down to player development and strong drafting. Grow better players when they're cost-controlled to eventually displace the expensive signings. Kessel can be the Mogilny to Nylander's Sundin in 5 years.

 

[Highlander]

this says it all about stupid people:  http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/1/15/7552623/back-to-the-system-that-worked-I-am-a-stupid-person