Joffrey Lupul

[Kin]

I've noticed that the decades when the Maple Leafs were at their most suuessful in the playoffs, and as a team, they had captains and players with personalities that we embraced by both the fans and the team -- (1940's) Teeder Kennedy/Connaoher/Primeau/etc; (1950's ) Barillko/etc;  (1960's) Armstrong/Bower/Mahovlich/eto; (1970's) Sittler/McDonald/SaIming/etc; (1990's)Gilmour/Clark/etc;  (2000's)Sundin/Joseph/etc.

So you've noticed that when the team has been successful, the leaders on the team have been better liked by the fans and team?

 

[Leaflifer]

If identifying that type of player wasn't hard at all from the bench or locker room then why would it be hard to find one? Why would the team have thought that Clarkson was one?

That one is a mystery to me. Whatever the quality was that he was supposed to bring, didn't seem to arrive.

Why would they give Phaneuf the captaincy if he wasn't?

My guess is that they felt he had the raw materials to be one. It's possible they felt they could develop a young group together.

This is why I think most people look at your argument as being one where rather than identifying actual attributes that are valuable you're just ascribing a mystical nature to role players on winning teams.

It's not that mysterious. Leadership and mental toughness aren't terms that I have coined personally.

If Fedotenko was so key to transforming an otherwise ordinary bunch into cup champions, why did he then have some years where he wasn't very good in the playoffs? Did he just turn on and off this "Soldier who cannot accept losing" mentality? Or was he a soldier who was ok with losing some years, in which case how is this a valuable quality to look for in players if sometimes it just disappears?

Not every great Leader can win a cup for his team every season. I think Toews has that quality but he wont win everything every time. Also there has to be chemistry between these players and the younger skilled players.

Fedotenko was in the playoffs four different times for the Lightning. In their cup winning year he played really well, scoring 12 goals in their 22 games. In the three other years he had 0 goals and only 1 assist in 20 games and the Lightning were a non-factor. If Fedotenko was this awesome sparkplug whose gritty attitude inspired the Lightning to such heights, where did it go?

That's a good point, but it's a combination of the right players, along with some luck.

We really don't. JFJ, Burke...those guys had spent their entire lives "assessing hockey" and they made all sorts of bad decisions. More to the point though...Shanahan hasn't spent his entire life assessing hockey. He's not someone with a track record of front office experience, let alone front office success. Playing hockey is one thing but the list of good players who weren't good executives is as long as my arm.

Point taken, "Entire lives" is exaggerating, but Shanny's experience on cup winning NHL teams trumps my experience as a recording engineer. I didn't trust Burke at all, and I trusted JFJ (for a brief period). What do I know?

These guys aren't flawless, and there are other teams with varying levels of skill and experience they are up against, but they're still more qualified than myself, and likely most of us here.

 

[Kin]

It's not that mysterious. Leadership and mental toughness aren't terms that I have coined personally.

I didn't say mysterious. My comment there was about you working backwards. You're identifying guys who were on winning teams and ascribing them these totemic values rather than identifying guys with those attributes and pointing out how they significantly changed the fortunes of the teams they went to. It's pretty clear that the qualities you're saying they had weren't actually permanent attributes.

Not every great Leader can win a cup for his team every season. I think Toews has that quality but he wont win everything every time. Also there has to be chemistry between these players and the younger skilled players.

It's not just about "winning the cup". The guys you're identifying as gritty, never-say-die leaders didn't even manifest into playing well individually from year to year in the playoffs. If leadership and mental toughness were as ingrained into individual players as you claim, why aren't they at least personally consistent from year to year? Toews tends to be but Toews is a great hockey player independent of whatever intangible attributes people want to assign him.

Point taken, "Entire lives" is exaggerating, but Shanny's experience on cup winning NHL teams trumps my experience as a recording engineer. I didn't trust Burke at all, and I trusted JFJ (for a brief period). What do I know?

Right...so we don't have to intrinsically trust that hockey executives know what they're talking about.

 

[Leaflifer]

Sorry for the late reply. Holidays.

So to be clear, you don't feel this group would benefit from some leadership?

 

[freer]

Sorry for the late reply. Holidays.

So to be clear, you don't feel this group would benefit from some leadership?

I think that all younger teams need a strong leadership presence. Mr Lupul, and Dion need to step up.

 

[Kin]

Sorry for the late reply. Holidays.

So to be clear, you don't feel this group would benefit from some leadership?

The thing is, I don't look at leadership as some sort of bankable quality that some players have and some don't. I think every player who is introduced into a team affects the group dynamic. Regardless of what position they're with or whether they're assigned an official leadership role, any player who plays a significant role makes an impact in that regard. I don't doubt that some players add more than others in that regard but I also don't think it's as straight forward as thinking that someone who made a positive contribution in one dressing room will necessarily make one in another. Some groups go in for the rah-rah stuff, some don't. Phil Kessel doesn't seem like the sort of guy who would get worked up over his shoes being on fire, let alone a speech from a guy wearing a C.

Identifying who will or won't have a positive impact is part of wht Nonis has to evaluate when signing players sure, but even before we get back to the fact that hockey executives make bad hockey decisions all the time, the reality is that trying to figure out how various personalities fit together isn't anything resembling a hard science in any field.

 

[Leaflifer]

Sorry for the late reply. Holidays.

So to be clear, you don't feel this group would benefit from some leadership?

The thing is, I don't look at leadership as some sort of bankable quality that some players have and some don't. I think every player who is introduced into a team affects the group dynamic. Regardless of what position they're with or whether they're assigned an official leadership role, any player who plays a significant role makes an impact in that regard. I don't doubt that some players add more than others in that regard but I also don't think it's as straight forward as thinking that someone who made a positive contribution in one dressing room will necessarily make one in another. Some groups go in for the rah-rah stuff, some don't. Phil Kessel doesn't seem like the sort of guy who would get worked up over his shoes being on fire, let alone a speech from a guy wearing a C.

Identifying who will or won't have a positive impact is part of wht Nonis has to evaluate when signing players sure, but even before we get back to the fact that hockey executives make bad hockey decisions all the time, the reality is that trying to figure out how various personalities fit together isn't anything resembling a hard science in any field.

I don't disagree with any of this. Although to some extent, some personalities are more able to inspire than others. We both identify Toews as a guy who can inspire, but in the wrong group of people it just might not work. The 94 leafs loaded up with vets and the planets didn't line up. I do think the current young core is pretty decent and the right guy or two for the job will give them a leg up. It's the right balance with the right people, but I still believe some have "it" more than others.

Even a Kirk Muller type would be a step in the right direction. These aren't found looking at stat sheets, but the players and coaches know who they are.

Thinking about this made me curious about maybe doing a poll with the fine folks here. Maybe something along the lines of.  "What is the #1 problem holding the leafs back"

It would be interesting to see if coaching/systems is as big a concern as it was 5 months ago. I would guess most would consider it a combination of things, but hey, it's just speculation anyway.

Possession numbers was all the talk then, but isn't that just a symptom of bigger problems? Once you identify that as a symptom of another issue, we get right back into subjectiveness, or voodoo. Does coaching/systems HAVE to be the only possible cause of that particular problem? I would say no.

BTW- I am not insinuating that is your position, just putting it out there.

 

[hockeyfan1]

I've noticed that the decades when the Maple Leafs were at their most suuessful in the playoffs, and as a team, they had captains and players with personalities that we embraced by both the fans and the team -- (1940's) Teeder Kennedy/Connaoher/Primeau/etc; (1950's ) Barillko/etc;  (1960's) Armstrong/Bower/Mahovlich/eto; (1970's) Sittler/McDonald/SaIming/etc; (1990's)Gilmour/Clark/etc;  (2000's)Sundin/Joseph/etc.

So you've noticed that when the team has been successful, the leaders on the team have been better liked by the fans and team?

Yes.  To a certain extent.  As I stated in my post, the Leafs past playoff successes included the leaders of the team being well-liked, well-respected, not always outspoken but leading by example -- inspiring & motivating the team even in the face of an unliked coach (in this case, the '60's Cup winning Leaf teams, with their captain, "gentleman" George  Armstrong.  The players did it for the "Chief" Armstrong not for Imlach, who, by the way, disliked some key Leafs such as Mahovlich, a leader on the offence.  Imlach used to mispronounce the Big M's name every time by referring to him as "Mahalvich" instead of Mahovlich.).

The '60's were a different era, so were the '70's where Sittler was outspoken with Ballard, and still managed to lead by example as the Leafs under coach Red Kelly were improving every year, hampered by the fact that they were always meeting the Philly Flyers in the quarter-finals and the goaltender of the time, Gord McCrae couldn't stop a basketball never mind a hockey puck.  Eventually, Red Kelly was fired, and it  was rumoured that Sittler may have had a hand in that.  Not long afterwards, came Roger Nielsen, who's defensive system in part helped the Leafs defeat the surging New York Islanders in that memorable '78 quarter-final on Lanny McDonald's OT series-winning goal.  Leafs had leadership here not just from Sittler, but from McDonald, Salming,
Williams, Palmateer, et al.  A good core group.)

Even under Pat Burns, Gilmour and Clark were the leaders on the forward lines while on the defence the Leafs had a stable of names such as Ellet, Macoun, Lefebvre, etc., & once again, a good goaltender in Potvin).

In all of the eras where the Leafs had had their greater playoff successes -- most notably in the '60's, '90's, and part of the early 2000's, including the their steady improvement in the mid-to-late '70's -- they had players who not only led as captains, scorers, or what have you, but were liked, respected by both the team they played for and the fans as well. 

It's not easy to define leadership.  It comprises many factors which can include team cohesion, chemistry, good coach & system, a galvanizing & understanding of what is required and effort expended to achieve the level of said goal, team identity and etcetera.

Joel Otto.  Remember him?  As a veteran member of the Calgary Flames back in the late '80's, used to mentor the younger players on the Flames team.  His quiet leadership and experience led him to teach the younger players to ignore then coach Terry Crisp's outbursts, to let him (Crisp) have his day, not to let it bother and once it was over, it was over.  Not to pay attention to his demeanor for the moment.  Otto's approach worked to the extent that players were not riddled with tension or nervousness.  They understood the meaning behind Crisp's behavious and didn't let it get to them on a personal or professional level.

Speaking of MLSE, circa to today, isn't leadership & team identity what they are seeking for this current Leafs team?  Is it any wonder why they were eager to get Komarov back. 

 

[Leaflifer]

All Im really saying is I think they have accumulated some very good players who have some good years left in the tank, but there is another type of player
missing from the equation, and its hard to quantify that type of player from the
couch, but not hard at all if in the dressing room or on the bench.

Maybe Clarkson was supposed to be that type of player? I really don't know.
Maybe.

This opinion is based on the pattern of effort we have seen for 2 seasons. Play some good hockey, coast for a while, etc...and it seems the good hockey comes when the other team lets off the gas for a bit, but the Leafs can score 3
goals when the opponent is in a brief lull. When the opponent applies some
pressure back, the Leafs just seem to pack up and go home.

I don't necessarily think a player needs to have rings to be "that" kind of guy.
Fedotenko never won a championship before playing for Tampa, but he
-exuded that quality in that playoff. I don't think Andreychuk won any
championships either before that. Fedotenko went on to win another as a
hired gun with Pitt. I am of the opinion that those guys were instrumental in
guiding younger skilled players to play beyond their abilities. Fedotenko was
only 25 or 26 I believe, but Toews is a kid too, but he has the Stevie Y ice in his
blood.

Not to say any vet can do the job. The chemistry has to be there too. It's more of a personality type the Leafs seem to be missing. I know nothing of the new
guys brought in. I don't think any of us know if these guys have "it" or not. So I
wont comment on that or take any heed in anybody's else's assessment of
those moves until I see if there is a change of overall team play.

I'm not alone in feeling retaining RC was a mistake. But those who have spent their entire lives assessing hockey seem to think the problem lies elsewhere.
Being an armchair GM is fun, but really we have to have some trust in these
guys. I've been dead wrong before, and I probably will again...this in me talking
from my gut (as usual). When I hear them talk about the importance of vets
(the Lupul quote), leadership (Shanny and Nonis have talked about this), and
"compete" level, it sounds to me there is a certain quality they feel are missing,
and I agree with that assessment.

You are right. Something was/is  "missing".  Some blame it on Carlyle's system, others believe that he (Carlyle) doesn't have the right players for his system, or vice versa.  Whatever.

The fact remains that system or no system, the Leafs are far from being a Stanley Cup contender, and no one knows this better than Shanahan himself.  No one in the organization is trying to create miracles, but by adding the likes of Komarov & Robidas in particular, the Leafs a veteran presence and experience in both positions.  Komarov brings a certain type of 'leadership' on the forward line and for the team in general.  His style of play  connotates that.

We have Lupul, Phaneuf, Clarkson, and the list goes on.  Many do not like Phaneuf as captain, Lupul is too injury-prone, Clarkson has been thus far a galloping disappointment, et al.  The Leafs are not devoid of players who can provide leadership, but it's not the kind of leadership where a personality shines a la Sundin, or it takes  responsibility and sets an example for all to follow a la a Darryl Sitter or Gilmour-type captain, get the idea.

I've noticed that the decades when the Maple Leafs were at their most suuessful in the playoffs, and as a team, they had captains and players with personalities that we embraced by both the fans and the team -- (1940's) Teeder Kennedy/Connaoher/Primeau/etc; (1950's ) Barillko/etc;  (1960's) Armstrong/Bower/Mahovlich/eto; (1970's) Sittler/McDonald/SaIming/etc; (1990's)Gilmour/Clark/etc;  (2000's)Sundin/Joseph/etc.

Many of these Leaf teams had a small core group that were at the forefront of leadership aided by a strong and skilled supporting cast.  With all but the exception of Punch Imlaoh in the '60's, all of the coaches were well-liked, respected, with solid systems in place.

[/quote]

I think for me, the definitive moment was the game 7 collapse against Boston when no one stepped up to rally the troops. Lucic was talking to all the Bruins when they were behind, letting them know who was going to win that game. The Leafs (even while still tied) sat expressionless on the bench, staring at the clock.

It's almost as if there was no point for RC to call a time out because no one had anything to say anyway.

 

[Kin]

I don't disagree with any of this. Although to some extent, some personalities are more able to inspire than others. We both identify Toews as a guy who can inspire, but in the wrong group of people it just might not work.

No, I've identified Toews as a player who's consistently very good which, yeah, can inspire. Do I think the Leafs could use some more of that leadership? Sure because, first and foremost, they need good players. That's the difference here. I tend to think that most of that group dynamic is created out of how good the team is whereas you think that winning comes from that dynamic. The point of the stuff about Fedotenko was that if there were players who could just inspire winning based on "leadership" and not on the quality of their play then it would be reflected in their team's records and it just isn't.

If the Leafs add good players, it will help the team on the ice and in the dressing room. The stuff you're looking for is the stuff I'm saying that is too complicated for hockey people to figure out.

 

[Kin]

In all of the eras where the Leafs had had their greater playoff successes -- most notably in the '60's, '90's, and part of the early 2000's, including the their steady improvement in the mid-to-late '70's -- they had players who not only led as captains, scorers, or what have you, but were liked, respected by both the team they played for and the fans as well. 

Did you ever give a second to consider the possibility that those teams, and their leaders, were liked because the team had success?

 

[hockeyfan1]

In all of the eras where the Leafs had had their greater playoff successes -- most notably in the '60's, '90's, and part of the early 2000's, including the their steady improvement in the
mid-to-late '70's -- they had players who not only led as
captains, scorers, or what have you, but were liked, respected
by both the team they played for and the fans as well. 

Did you ever give a second to consider the possibility that those teams, and their leaders, were liked because the team had success?

Yes.  And vice versa.