Leafs @ Canucks - Dec. 10th, 10:00pm - SNO, Fan 590

[Kin]

Yeah, but to let it happen 4 times?  I mean, after the first one you'd think they'd have at least one of the D back there being non-activated, or whatever the term is.

Changing up your game plan to limit the other team's chances in the third is exactly the sort of "taking your foot off the pedal" stuff that people complain about when it doesn't work.

We've seen the Leafs have the lead before and last night was not typical for the kind of chances they give up with it. So while the Leafs are probably more prone to giving up those chances because they're not a great defensive team, giving up 4 was probably a mix of some bad luck, not great defensive play and the Canucks cheating more than usual.

 

[herman]

 

[ZBBM]

Yeah, but to let it happen 4 times?  I mean, after the first one you'd think they'd have at least one of the D back there being non-activated, or whatever the term is.

Changing up your game plan to limit the other team's chances in the third is exactly the sort of "taking your foot off the pedal" stuff that people complain about when it doesn't work.

We've seen the Leafs have the lead before and last night was not typical for the kind of chances they give up with it. So while the Leafs are probably more prone to giving up those chances because they're not a great defensive team, giving up 4 was probably a mix of some bad luck, not great defensive play and the Canucks cheating more than usual.

And it will be interesting to see how Dubas responds now that the biggest obstacle to his theories are gone.  Will he make any more moves on the backend this season?  Because if the Leafs are going to make the playoffs, let along go anywhere afterward, then they are going to have to have Andersen playing like he did last night an awful lot.  Pretty risky bet, with the defense constituted as it is now.

 

[Kin]

And it will be interesting to see how Dubas responds now that the biggest obstacle to his theories are gone.  Will he make any more moves on the backend this season?  Because if the Leafs are going to make the playoffs, let along go anywhere afterward, then they are going to have to have Andersen playing like he did last night an awful lot.  Pretty risky bet, with the defense constituted as it is now.

There's a degree of truth to that and for sure the Leafs could use some improvements on defense even though the ones available are likely to be marginal but needing consistently excellent goaltending to advance deep in the playoffs is probably true regardless.

 

[Hobbes]

...needing consistently excellent goaltending to advance deep in the playoffs is probably true regardless.

Isn't that pretty much the First Commandment of the NHL GM Bible?

 

[Highlander]

...needing consistently excellent goaltending to advance deep in the playoffs is probably true regardless.

Isn't that pretty much the First Commandment of the NHL GM Bible?

Certainly is,  Bower, Sawchuck, Dryden, Fleury, Binnington and the list goes on and on. Great Goaltending wins Stanley Cups more than any other single factor.

 

[Highlander]

Guys. I don?t think lc9 likes Nylander

I don't think Lc9 likes it when he doesn't have something to complain about

put ice on Ic9

 

[Guilt Trip]

...needing consistently excellent goaltending to advance deep in the playoffs is probably true regardless.

Isn't that pretty much the First Commandment of the NHL GM Bible?

Certainly is,  Bower, Sawchuck, Dryden, Fleury, Binnington and the list goes on and on. Great Goaltending wins Stanley Cups more than any other single factor.

Binnington? He may have been the main reason for the team turnaround with a 1.89 GAA and .927 SV% but he wasn't as good in the playoffs, 2.46 GAA, .917 SV%. He had quite a few subpar games . I remember thinking at one point the only reason the finals went to 7 games was because of him and not in a good way.

 

[Highlander]

...needing consistently excellent goaltending to advance deep in the playoffs is probably true regardless.

Isn't that pretty much the First Commandment of the NHL GM Bible?

Certainly is,  Bower, Sawchuck, Dryden, Fleury, Binnington and the list goes on and on. Great Goaltending wins Stanley Cups more than any other single factor.

Binnington? He may have been the main reason for the team turnaround with a 1.89 GAA and .927 SV% but he wasn't as good in the playoffs, 2.46 GAA, .917 SV%. He had quite a few subpar games . I remember thinking at one point the only reason the finals went to 7 games was because of him and not in a good way.

Ok, the other guys then...geez ???

 

[Kin]

Binnington? He may have been the main reason for the team turnaround with a 1.89 GAA and .927 SV% but he wasn't as good in the playoffs, 2.46 GAA, .917 SV%. He had quite a few subpar games . I remember thinking at one point the only reason the finals went to 7 games was because of him and not in a good way.

Binnington was less consistent in the postseason but when he was good he was still really good, it's just that he was worse on his off nights than he'd been in the regular season.

Either way, and contrary to Highlander's point, you don't need a great goaltender to win in the post-season, you just need a run of really good play by a goaltender. Binnington, Ward, Chris Osgood, all the guys Chicago won with...

The pressure for that will be higher on a team like the Leafs than a team with a stronger defense but it's not fundamentally different.

 

[ZBBM]

And it will be interesting to see how Dubas responds now that the biggest obstacle to his theories are gone.  Will he make any more moves on the backend this season?  Because if the Leafs are going to make the playoffs, let along go anywhere afterward, then they are going to have to have Andersen playing like he did last night an awful lot.  Pretty risky bet, with the defense constituted as it is now.

There's a degree of truth to that and for sure the Leafs could use some improvements on defense even though the ones available are likely to be marginal but needing consistently excellent goaltending to advance deep in the playoffs is probably true regardless.

I think it's time to expand the Matthews argument to Andersen and begin to parse the nuances between "excellent," "elite," and "5-sigma sick."

 

[azzurri63]

Watching the highlights, I did notice that 2 of the 3 breakaways in the 3rd period, the Canucks forward was cherry picking quite a bit.  But yeah, as a Leafs D-man with a 1-goal lead, you have to be aware of that.

They should have done better but when the other team is trailing in the third they're going to cheat for chances and will occasionally succeed.

This is sort of indicative of the way people talk about the team though. If the Leafs fall into a shell to try and stop those high danger chances they'll get criticized for "taking their foot off the pedal", if they don't then it's "you can't let the other team get big chances with a lead".

Basically, people here won't be satisfied unless the Leafs play absolutely perfect hockey night in and out for 60 minutes and, unfortunately, this isn't a perfect team.

You're absolutely right it's not a perfect team and we don't expect them to play perfect hockey for 60 minutes.
That said the defensive zone coverage that has plagued this team for years is horrid. Babcock couldn't fix it and I don't think Keefe will either as I think this is a personnel issue.
These guys can't figure it out. The chances the Canucks got in the last 15 minutes or so was downright brutal. There is no excuse for 3 clear cut breakaways let alone the other scoring chances they got.
This team will only go as far as Freddy will take them. Been like that for 3 years and doesn't look like it's changing anytime soon.

 

[Andy007]

Well...one of the breakaways was from a pass bouncing off a Leaf skate directly onto the blade of a Canucks player and the other was after a barrage of chances from Toronto in the O zone that was blocked and pretty nicely set-up the other way. Up 2 goals on the road to a skilled team that's desperately trying to tie the game is going to result in some quality chances. I thought Toronto had some great point blank chances too, even with the lead.

I will say, though, that some of the giveaways by the defence are a little alarming. I think Muzzin should be treated for colour blindness with the way he keeps passing perfectly to the opposing team.

 

[Kin]

There is no excuse for 3 clear cut breakaways let alone the other scoring chances they got.

One day you might figure out that explanations aren't excuses. I don't feel the need to "excuse" anything the Leafs do because I'm not their angry boss checking what time they came into work and despite the fact that you like to pretend otherwise, neither are you.

 

[Guilt Trip]

...needing consistently excellent goaltending to advance deep in the playoffs is probably true regardless.

Isn't that pretty much the First Commandment of the NHL GM Bible?

Certainly is,  Bower, Sawchuck, Dryden, Fleury, Binnington and the list goes on and on. Great Goaltending wins Stanley Cups more than any other single factor.

Binnington? He may have been the main reason for the team turnaround with a 1.89 GAA and .927 SV% but he wasn't as good in the playoffs, 2.46 GAA, .917 SV%. He had quite a few subpar games . I remember thinking at one point the only reason the finals went to 7 games was because of him and not in a good way.

Ok, the other guys then...geez ???

Well you did  elevate Biddington to HHOF status putting him in that group...Pretty sure Flower is a slam dunk for the HHOF. I would agree though, goaltending has the biggest effect on Cup winners. Very few times in history have teams won despite their goalies. Red Wings come to mind as one.

 

[Kin]

Pretty sure Flower is a slam dunk for the HHOF.

Really? I get that he has a lot of wins but his SV% is basically league average for his career and he's never been even a Vezina finalist. I get that he won a couple cups but his playoff numbers are worse than his regular season numbers.

 

[Bender]

Watching the highlights, I did notice that 2 of the 3 breakaways in the 3rd period, the Canucks forward was cherry picking quite a bit.  But yeah, as a Leafs D-man with a 1-goal lead, you have to be aware of that.

They should have done better but when the other team is trailing in the third they're going to cheat for chances and will occasionally succeed.

This is sort of indicative of the way people talk about the team though. If the Leafs fall into a shell to try and stop those high danger chances they'll get criticized for "taking their foot off the pedal", if they don't then it's "you can't let the other team get big chances with a lead".

Basically, people here won't be satisfied unless the Leafs play absolutely perfect hockey night in and out for 60 minutes and, unfortunately, this isn't a perfect team.

You're absolutely right it's not a perfect team and we don't expect them to play perfect hockey for 60 minutes.
That said the defensive zone coverage that has plagued this team for years is horrid. Babcock couldn't fix it and I don't think Keefe will either as I think this is a personnel issue.
These guys can't figure it out. The chances the Canucks got in the last 15 minutes or so was downright brutal. There is no excuse for 3 clear cut breakaways let alone the other scoring chances they got.
This team will only go as far as Freddy will take them. Been like that for 3 years and doesn't look like it's changing anytime soon.

They were actually half decent at limiting chances for the game until the 3rd. I don't know if it's personnel related (it's possible) but I think making a judgment on whether Keefe can or can't push them to play better defensively as a team is hugely premature.

 

[Kin]

Also, just in general, re: the Red Wings it's true that they won 3 of their 4 Cups with goalies who aren't going to the HHOF or serious candidates for it but when they won those cups those middling goalies played very well. Vernon won the Conn Smythe in '97 and Osgood had a .930 SV% in 2008. Osgood "only" had a .918 SV% in '98 which I guess qualifies but I think the list of teams who won cups with mid-range goalies getting hot at the right moment is actually pretty long. Just off the top of my head there's Cam Ward, Anti Niemi, Tom Barrasso, Jonathan Quick in 2014 etc.

 

[Bender]

There is no excuse for 3 clear cut breakaways let alone the other scoring chances they got.

One day you might figure out that explanations aren't excuses. I don't feel the need to "excuse" anything the Leafs do because I'm not their angry boss checking what time they came into work and despite the fact that you like to pretend otherwise, neither are you.

And even then, its almost as if the other team doesn't have good players, aren't trying their damndest to make the game hard and score on you. The difference in our jobs is generally even though some people can oppose you they aren't trying to figuratively grind you into a pulp any time you try to do anything.

"There is no excuse for the other team to be able to do anything!"

 

[Kin]

And even then, its almost as if the other team doesn't have good players, aren't trying their damndest to make the game hard and score on you. The difference in our jobs is generally even though some people can oppose you they aren't trying to figuratively grind you into a pulp any time you try to do anything.

"There is no excuse for the other team to be able to do anything!"

And even then, hockey strategies aren't static things. In addition to players trying to make it hard on the Leafs, other teams have coaches constantly trying to adjust and counteract anything the Leafs do.

All teams give up chances. All teams have stretches where they get outworked. All teams give up breakaways.

Are the Leafs worse than average? Sure. Right now they're not a very good defensive team. But it's a difference by a matter of degrees. Most games they don't give up a truckload of breakaways in the 3rd period so it's not a systemic flaw, it was an odd result caused by a number of factors. Flipping out and trying to tie it to worn out hobbyhorses is just useless. It's not intelligent or engaging commentary.