Maple Leafs are better, but are they a playoff team?

[bustaheims]

Pittsburgh is a lock too I think... With or without the kid. I'm also very close to calling TB a lock but will refrain for the moment.

Edit: It's also very hard for me to imagine Philly or the Rags out of the dance with a healthy Bryzgalov and Lundqvist, respectfully.

Pittsburgh without Crosby isn't all that different from the middle pack type teams anymore - at least, in terms of overall talent. They're on the stronger end of that group, sure, but, not enough for me to think of them as a lock. They're a probable playoff team, but one I can still see missing - I mean, no Crosby and Fleury plays like he did in 09-10? That might be all it would take to put them at risk.

Philly is an interesting case - they've made a very significant overhaul this summer, and, if there are chemistry issues, their older backend struggles, Bryzgalov doesn't transition well or some combination of the above, they could very easily miss the playoffs. I think they still make it, but they're not a lock - there are just too many questions.

The Rangers have to pray Lundqvist doesn't have an off season, because, their blueline is very inexperienced and prone to be taken advantage of. They've missed the playoffs with a healthy Lundqvist before - is adding Richards enough of a boost to make sure that doesn't happen again? Is it enough to clearly put them ahead of the rest of the pack? Probably, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Like I said, all things considered, the only true locks I see are Washington and Boston. They have questions around them as well - every team does - but, barring injuries, I think they're still pretty clearly the best teams in their divisions, and, therefore, playoff locks.

 

[ZBBM]

Pittsburgh is a lock too I think... With or without the kid. I'm also very close to calling TB a lock but will refrain for the moment.

Edit: It's also very hard for me to imagine Philly or the Rags out of the dance with a healthy Bryzgalov and Lundqvist, respectfully.

Pittsburgh without Crosby isn't all that different from the middle pack type teams anymore - at least, in terms of overall talent. They're on the stronger end of that group, sure, but, not enough for me to think of them as a lock. They're a probable playoff team, but one I can still see missing - I mean, no Crosby and Fleury plays like he did in 09-10? That might be all it would take to put them at risk.

Philly is an interesting case - they've made a very significant overhaul this summer, and, if there are chemistry issues, their older backend struggles, Bryzgalov doesn't transition well or some combination of the above, they could very easily miss the playoffs. I think they still make it, but they're not a lock - there are just too many questions.

The Rangers have to pray Lundqvist doesn't have an off season, because, their blueline is very inexperienced and prone to be taken advantage of. They've missed the playoffs with a healthy Lundqvist before - is adding Richards enough of a boost to make sure that doesn't happen again? Is it enough to clearly put them ahead of the rest of the pack? Probably, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Like I said, all things considered, the only true locks I see are Washington and Boston. They have questions around them as well - every team does - but, barring injuries, I think they're still pretty clearly the best teams in their divisions, and, therefore, playoff locks.

I think your argument is quite defensible, and that it speaks to the spectacular mediocrity of the East.  If the league had no divisions and each team played all the others a more or less equal number of times, it's conceivable that only 4, maybe even only 3, teams from the East would finish in the top 16.

 

[maplesyrup]

Pittsburgh is a lock too I think... With or without the kid. I'm also very close to calling TB a lock but will refrain for the moment.

Edit: It's also very hard for me to imagine Philly or the Rags out of the dance with a healthy Bryzgalov and Lundqvist, respectfully.

Pittsburgh without Crosby isn't all that different from the middle pack type teams anymore - at least, in terms of overall talent. They're on the stronger end of that group, sure, but, not enough for me to think of them as a lock. They're a probable playoff team, but one I can still see missing - I mean, no Crosby and Fleury plays like he did in 09-10? That might be all it would take to put them at risk.

Philly is an interesting case - they've made a very significant overhaul this summer, and, if there are chemistry issues, their older backend struggles, Bryzgalov doesn't transition well or some combination of the above, they could very easily miss the playoffs. I think they still make it, but they're not a lock - there are just too many questions.

The Rangers have to pray Lundqvist doesn't have an off season, because, their blueline is very inexperienced and prone to be taken advantage of. They've missed the playoffs with a healthy Lundqvist before - is adding Richards enough of a boost to make sure that doesn't happen again? Is it enough to clearly put them ahead of the rest of the pack? Probably, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Like I said, all things considered, the only true locks I see are Washington and Boston. They have questions around them as well - every team does - but, barring injuries, I think they're still pretty clearly the best teams in their divisions, and, therefore, playoff locks.

I think your argument is quite defensible, and that it speaks to the spectacular mediocrity of the East.  If the league had no divisions and each team played all the others a more or less equal number of times, it's conceivable that only 4, maybe even only 3, teams from the East would finish in the top 16.

It sure is defensible. Though again, a lot of it has to do with goaltending. I think if one wants to assume that certain teams will get "as expected" goaltending from their guys, 2/3 locks in the East probably goes to 4/5.

 

[Kin]

I think your argument is quite defensible, and that it speaks to the spectacular mediocrity of the East.  If the league had no divisions and each team played all the others a more or less equal number of times, it's conceivable that only 4, maybe even only 3, teams from the East would finish in the top 16.

I think it has way more to do with the way talent is distributed league-wide than it does any disparity between the two conferences. Just about every Western Conference team has some pretty glaring deficiencies as well.

 

[ZBBM]

I think your argument is quite defensible, and that it speaks to the spectacular mediocrity of the East.  If the league had no divisions and each team played all the others a more or less equal number of times, it's conceivable that only 4, maybe even only 3, teams from the East would finish in the top 16.

I think it has way more to do with the way talent is distributed league-wide than it does any disparity between the two conferences. Just about every Western Conference team has some pretty glaring deficiencies as well.

Puzzlement re the bolded sentence....  sounds like a tautology.  The disparity between the conferences IS about talent.

I agree re the glaring deficiencies.  But that's probably true of all teams since the Canadiens of the 70s.  Even the Wings were weak in goal with Osgood. 

 

[cw]

Three of the top four teams in the standings last year were from the east and that didn't include the eventual Cup winner who was also from the east. Four of the top five teams in overall odds to win a Cup (average of 25 oddsmakers) in 2012 are in the east: Pens, Flyers, Caps & Bruins.  Ignoring injuries and extremes of 'anything can happen', they might not all finish top 4 in the east but I think regarding them as 'virtual locks' to make the playoffs is not unreasonable.

Even if that were debatable, I can't look at the Leafs roster and conclude that it is as strong as or close to the rosters of those four teams.

 

[Kin]

Puzzlement re the bolded sentence....  sounds like a tautology.  The disparity between the conferences IS about talent.

But the issue, to my thinking, is the league-wide distribution of talent rather than a discrepancy between the two conferences. The teams at the top are closer to the middle because of the cap.

I mean, in the West you have Vancouver who'll maybe be a little weaker this year than last because of losing Erhoff, and San Jose who seem like really strong top to bottom clubs(although I'm still not sold on Niemi) but after that? Detroit has issues on top of issues and then you have a bunch of solid and unspectacular teams like Nashville, Anaheim, LA and on and on. I don't think there's a huge gap between clubs like Nashville and Anaheim and, say, Philly and NYR.

I agree re the glaring deficiencies.  But that's probably true of all teams since the Canadiens of the 70s.  Even the Wings were weak in goal with Osgood. 

I don't think so. The Avs when they were winning the Cup, the '02 Wings, some of those Devils teams and so on were pretty strong all over.

 

[Jalili]

It's all just speculation but the teams I think the Leafs have to beat out are the Habs and Canes. Then there's a few teams that are hard to get a good read on... the Devils/Flyers/Lightning.

 

[ZBBM]

Puzzlement re the bolded sentence....  sounds like a tautology.  The disparity between the conferences IS about talent.

But the issue, to my thinking, is the league-wide distribution of talent rather than a discrepancy between the two conferences. The teams at the top are closer to the middle because of the cap.

I mean, in the West you have Vancouver who'll maybe be a little weaker this year than last because of losing Erhoff, and San Jose who seem like really strong top to bottom clubs(although I'm still not sold on Niemi) but after that? Detroit has issues on top of issues and then you have a bunch of solid and unspectacular teams like Nashville, Anaheim, LA and on and on. I don't think there's a huge gap between clubs like Nashville and Anaheim and, say, Philly and NYR.

I agree re the glaring deficiencies.  But that's probably true of all teams since the Canadiens of the 70s.  Even the Wings were weak in goal with Osgood. 

I don't think so. The Avs when they were winning the Cup, the '02 Wings, some of those Devils teams and so on were pretty strong all over.

I still think the top level in the East is truncated in comparison with the West.  Put em all in one hopper and the West teams come out on top much more.

As for the other comment, the Avs -- OK, probably, except they did have a deficit on D until they snagged Bourque for that one Cup.  The Devils had a huge deficiency on offense -- they were as far from a well-rounded team as you could get.

 

[Kin]

The Devils had a huge deficiency on offense -- they were as far from a well-rounded team as you could get.

I'm thinking pretty specifically of the '01 cup finalists, a team that had Elias(3rd in the league in scoring), Mogilny(15th in scoring in only 75 games), Sykora(19th), Scott Gomez, Jason Arnott(55 points in 54 games) and then some terrific defensive forwards in John Madden and Bobby Holik. Those Devils were #1 in the league in goals for and #6 in goals against. The Cup winners the year before were also #2 in the league in offense.

That was about as well-rounded a team as you could get.

Edit: Much to my surprise those late 90's Devils teams were actually very good offensively year in and out. From 98-2001 they ranked , #9, #2, #2 and #1 in goals for.

 

[Kin]

Also, while I'm at it, you're being a little tough on the Avs defense pre-Bourque. Yes, the 2001 cup team with Bourque, Blake and the rest were the best by a fair stretch but before that they had some pretty good defensemen like Ozolinsh, Foote and Lefebvre.

 

[dappleganger]

If you guys want to look at well balanced teams, look no further than last years Vancouver Canucks. 1st in goals for, 1st in least goals against.

 

[TML fan]

If you guys want to look at well balanced teams, look no further than last years Vancouver Canucks. 1st in goals for, 1st in least goals against.

1st in choking, 1st in whining...they had it all!!

 

[louisstamos]

If you guys want to look at well balanced teams, look no further than last years Vancouver Canucks. 1st in goals for, 1st in least goals against.

1st in choking, 1st in whining...they had it all!!

We have a winner!

 

[dappleganger]

If you guys want to look at well balanced teams, look no further than last years Vancouver Canucks. 1st in goals for, 1st in least goals against.

1st in choking, 1st in whining...they had it all!!

I did say well balanced. 

 

[Tigger]

 

[Captain Canuck]

It will all depend on the goaltending, thats the big question mark. Can Reimer continue to build on last season? Can "the Monster" stay healthy? If the answer to these is yes, then I think we have a chance to sneak in as the #8 seed.

 

[maplesyrup]

I'm going to stop updating The Hockey News forcast now that we've gotten to the Leafs @ 10... and the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to include Pittsburgh with Washington and the Bruins as locks for a playoff spot. Fleury is no slouch in net, Malkin and Staal appear to be healthy, they added Neal late last season and Sullivan I think could contribute a bunch offensivly on that team.. Letang is among the best in the league and with Martin, Michalek, and Orpik, they have a pretty strong "D." I just think they're too deep in every position to not be considered a playoff lock. 

 

[Seymore Pucks]

If you guys want to look at well balanced teams, look no further than last years Vancouver Canucks. 1st in goals for, 1st in least goals against.

1st in choking, 1st in whining...they had it all!!

I did say well balanced. 

1st in smashing windows and setting things on fire.

 

[ZBBM]

The Devils had a huge deficiency on offense -- they were as far from a well-rounded team as you could get.

I'm thinking pretty specifically of the '01 cup finalists, a team that had Elias(3rd in the league in scoring), Mogilny(15th in scoring in only 75 games), Sykora(19th), Scott Gomez, Jason Arnott(55 points in 54 games) and then some terrific defensive forwards in John Madden and Bobby Holik. Those Devils were #1 in the league in goals for and #6 in goals against. The Cup winners the year before were also #2 in the league in offense.

That was about as well-rounded a team as you could get.

Edit: Much to my surprise those late 90's Devils teams were actually very good offensively year in and out. From 98-2001 they ranked , #9, #2, #2 and #1 in goals for.

Quit screwing with my stereotypes.  I use them a lot and don't want to replace them.