Maple Leafs are better, but are they a playoff team?
- Thread starter cw
- Start date
Mack674
New member
Busta Reims said:Zee said:Let's break it down to even simpler terms. As long as you win more games then you lose (including OT losses), you're in the playoffs. Last season only 1 team didn't make it in where they won more games then they lost (Dallas 42W 40L)
And you do that by scoring more goals than you allow, at whatever rate that may be.
The way I see it, as long as the leafs can manage to score more goals every game than the opposing team, they'll be in good shape to make the playoffs. 8)
Zee
Active member
Mack674 said:Busta Reims said:Zee said:Let's break it down to even simpler terms. As long as you win more games then you lose (including OT losses), you're in the playoffs. Last season only 1 team didn't make it in where they won more games then they lost (Dallas 42W 40L)
And you do that by scoring more goals than you allow, at whatever rate that may be.
The way I see it, as long as the leafs can manage to score more goals every game than the opposing team, they'll be in good shape to make the playoffs. 8)
82-0? You're going oout on a limb now.
After reviewing the line-ups for the Habs, Hurricanes and Rangers, I am pretty confident that if Reimer plays on par with last year, the Leafs will make the playoffs.
Brad Richards or not, I don't think the Rangers line-up is all that hot. Lunquivst has been saving their bacon.
Canadiens are smallest still, lack scoring punch and have an injury prone defence, with little depth.
Hurricanes, when you look past Staal and Skinner, there's not much up front. I actually expect the Hurricanes to fall badly.
The Islanders, for all the talk of them up-and-coming, I'm not buying it. Unless Montoya captures the same hot streak as he did last year, like Reimer, they will be also-rans again.
Sabres will probably finish ahead of the Leafs, but I am not convinced they become world-beaters as some are predicting. Regehr and Ehrhoff no doubt aid the D, but they are not overly talented up front. Vanek & Roy, but not a lot otherwise. I think Leino is over-hyped and their better young players, Ennis and Gerbe are very smallish.
Brad Richards or not, I don't think the Rangers line-up is all that hot. Lunquivst has been saving their bacon.
Canadiens are smallest still, lack scoring punch and have an injury prone defence, with little depth.
Hurricanes, when you look past Staal and Skinner, there's not much up front. I actually expect the Hurricanes to fall badly.
The Islanders, for all the talk of them up-and-coming, I'm not buying it. Unless Montoya captures the same hot streak as he did last year, like Reimer, they will be also-rans again.
Sabres will probably finish ahead of the Leafs, but I am not convinced they become world-beaters as some are predicting. Regehr and Ehrhoff no doubt aid the D, but they are not overly talented up front. Vanek & Roy, but not a lot otherwise. I think Leino is over-hyped and their better young players, Ennis and Gerbe are very smallish.
slapshot said:
I agree only to a degree here. I think there's a lot more parity between the Leafs and other Eastern teams than last year. What this means more teams are beatable, but the reverse is also true in the sense that any team could still beat us. We're not quite the Pittsburgh Penguins or Washington Capitals so to speak.
However, there are even quite a bit of unknowns for a few teams. The Flyers are a very strange looking team: They've got a lot of fresh faces, but none that is an over the top star outside of Giroux, and we'll have to see how his numbers fare with new players. I can't imagine Briere staying up there much longer, and they're hanging a lot of their hopes on prospects. Also which Jagr will show up? He's no spring chicken, and I don't think he's the bionic man like Teemu Selanne. And outside of Pronger, their D is pretty thin.
Lightning: Outside of Stamkos and St. Louis they don't have a whole lot. Age might start to creep up on St. Louis, if he loses half a step he's done as his game relies a lot on speed. Their D is also paper thin and they're putting a lot of reliance on a very old goaltender. I can easily see them become an Atlanta Thrashers or Columbus Blue Jackets: Some very nice pieces but not enough of the right stuff.
The Devils are a team I would be very worried about, I think they're due for a huge comeback, even with Brodeur getting older. I wouldn't put it all on the coach, I think the team has a lot of the right pieces and just didn't know how to put them together. A half decent coach will be able to coach them into the post-season. The caveat again, is the D is paper thin as well, and Brodeur ain't getting any younger.
The reason the Leafs have a good shot this year in my mind would be because the team is starting to look pretty balanced. We don't have star calibre forwards but nearly all of the top 9 legitimately can play the role asked. The top two lines will compete with each other in terms of overall productivity, Kadri will improve this year and help form a good third line with Armstrong and either Bozak or Lombardi in terms of scoring and sandpaper. The D looks solid, although I'm a bit worried we may be a bit too offensive minded in our defense this year, but they aren't slouches as long as Phaneuf doesn't give the puck away as much. Schenn, Aulie, Phaneuf, Komi can clear the crease, and we should be able to teach Franson the same thing. Reimer needs to be Reimer, but based on everything I've seen I think he's the real deal and will be able to bail the team out when needed.
As I see it the whole idea would be to win games through attrition. Weather the barrage launched by a Stamkos, Kovalchuk, Giroux, Richards etc. and come back at them with 2-3 effective scoring lines and catch them on a bad shift/change or when their weaker lines are out.
I think with all of the above the Leafs really do have a chance to kind of shoot up the middle and surprise with maybe as high as a 6th place finish. I'm confident we won't see a swan dive unless Reimer and Goose really crap the bed, although I can see Scrivens earning the backup role if things get dicey.
Standings will look something like:
Washington
Boston
Pittsburgh
NYR
Philadelphia
New Jersey
Toronto
Montreal/Buffalo
It's going to be a crazy year, but I'm optimistic.
slapshot said:
I think you are underrating the Rangers at least. Last year the Rangers allowed 198 goals. The Leafs allowed 251. That is a gap of 53 goals.
Reimer had a GAA of 2.6 last year. Approximating very roughly, Giguere and Gus had a combined GAA of 3. For the sake of round numbers, let's assuming that every game Reimer replaces Giguere or Gus gives the leafs .5 goals per game less. Let's also assume that Reimer plays 67 games -- that's a huge amount for a 2nd year player and it's extremely unlikely he'll get there IMHO. But for the sake of round numbers, that saves us 30*.5 = 15 goals.
So now the difference between the Rangers and the Leafs is 38 goals. The Leafs defense is young, but so is the Rangers. How will the Leafs close this 38 goal gap on defense?
If they don't close the gap on defense, will they close it on offense? Last year, the Rangers also scored more than the leafs -- 15 goals more. In terms of major offensive changes, Leafs acquired Connolly; the Rangers acquired Richards. The Leafs more-or-less substituted Liles for Kabby. With some luck and growth of young players like Kadri the Leafs could catch them here I suppose (though the Rangers also have growing young players like Stepan). But I don't see why one would think that they are going to suddenly shoot so far ahead that they will make up for the huge defensive gap.
Anyway, I'm certainly hoping the Leafs surpass the Rangers, but on paper, I can't really make a case for that I believe. With a lot of injury luck or just some synergistic chemistry effect, it could happen but I have a hard time predicting that is a likely outcome.
I think the Leafs are much more likely to catch Tampa. Tampa didn't add anyone and in fact lost a little depth. Other than Stamkos and Hedman, I don't think they quite have the number of young guys that are going to step in and really upgrade a slot in the lineup. I also just have to hope that Roloson and maybe St. Louis or even LeCavalier begins to slow down.
J
Jalili
Guest
In terms of teams that made the playoffs last season, Tampa Bay and Montreal are probably the ones that the Leafs can realistically catch.
princedpw said:
Totally agree with you on the Rangers front. I don't think their D is as bad as people say it is. They're a pretty balanced team the more that I look at it. Sather is unbelievably lucky that his bosses allow him to throw money away.
I'm not sure what their whole team will look like, but the Rangers seemed to really need a first line centre as well. If they were alright last year I think it's because their top player was Brandon Dubinsky. Now that Richards is there they're stacked in depth on the centre position with Dubinsky, Stepan breaking out, Anisimov etc.
*Begin unscientific analysis. This will look at overall point totals regardless of how long the players was on the team (i.e. Versteeg, Lupul etc.) Also does not take into account actual lines - too much research for 1am.*
It's funny though looking at the Rags: The Leafs top scorers last year seemed to be better statistically. The Leafs' top 10 scorers outscored the Rags 421 to 390, and thats with Versteeg and Kaberle out of the lineup for a good chunk of time. Most of their top 10 played close to a full season (60gms+)
Our top 4 goal scorers (Kessel, Kooly, Grabbo, MacArthur) scored 112 Goals compared to the Rag's 90.
This leads me to my next point: Balanced scoring. We didn't have it last year. Our bottom 13 players in goal scoring managed to score 143pts compared to the Rags 203.
We scored 44 goals to their 57. Right there it becomes obvious that our top two lines weren't TOO bad offensively. Bozak wasn't amazing but it looked like our top ten plyers were decent, it's just that our bottom 13 were so inept offensively that we couldn't keep up with other teams' depth players sometimes chipping the puck in.
This reminds me of what Nik was saying all year last year: You can't win with a guy like Sjostrom on your 4th line, and he's right. You need some semblance of offence even from your depth guys. The Rangers don't have anyone even remotely close to being as bad offensively as our fourth line. One of the Rag's worst forwards in a PPG sense was Sean Avery last year. He played 76 games but still managed to put up 24pts. Us? Sjostrom: 66gp, 5pts. Mike Brown: 50gp, 8pts. Colton Orr: 46gp, 2pts.
I mean come on! This is just pitiful. I see no reason for us to dress Orr or Rosehill most nights. We HAVE to go with Boyce - Dupuis - X. At least Dupuis was close to cracking 20pts. Boyce could also be a 20pt guy. Maybe Crabb could get slotted in there or Ryan Hamilton or something, just not a meathead. As much as I like Mike Brown and his firecracker style, he's not going to give us any kind of scoring from the fourth line. There's plenty of other guys who could provide a "spark" with providing even a little offense.
To me it looks like we've addressed quite a few of our issues beginning last season: First line centre (Connolly), 1st/2nd line Winger (Lupul) puck moving D (Liles), Lebda replacement (Franson), 3rd line depth (Bozak getting pushed down, eventual arrival of Lombardi), goaltending (Reimer?) We may have solved fourth line depth too with the signing of Dupuis and letting training camp battle it out, but I'm concerned that our fourth line depth is going to be VERY shallow simply because RW will likely pick Brown and Orr to play on the fourth line. People say that the fourth line won't break you, but I have a feeling that, in addition to spotty goaltending, our fourth line that we were supposed to be able to count on for some offense fell apart completely, and was pretty big contributing factor to our not making the post season.
And with my very unscientific and very flawed analysis, I bid you adieu, because holy cow I have to be up in 6 hours.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/maple-leafs-look-for-more-scoring-punch/article2170746/?utm_medium=Feeds:%20RSS/Atom&utm_source=Hockey&utm_content=2170746&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&service=mobile
So apparently Mirtle and I share the same brain.
So apparently Mirtle and I share the same brain.
Kin
New member
Bender said:
That's a little misleading though. The Leafs four scored those goals in 327 games between them, which means that only one of them played in fewer than the full season, which was Grabo playing 81 games.
The Rangers top four scored theirs in 281 games. In a GPG sense, the Leafs top four were at a combined .342 while the Rangers were at .322, so the difference of about two goals over a 82 game season.
And a top four cut-off is pretty arbitrary. Go from top 4 to top 6, which I think we can agree is less arbitrary, and the difference more or less vanishes entirely.
Bender said:
I don't know if I specifically singled out Sjostrom at any point. I think my larger point(which we seem to agree on) was that, as a group, the Leafs' bottom 6 were kind of spectacularly inept offensively and that while there's a tendency to say "third liners aren't supposed to score" or "what difference does it make who's on the 4th line" eventually there's a cumulative effect that you illustrate well.
Bender said:
Where I think I am in terms of looking at this Leafs season is that, while the Leafs certainly seem to have been aware of and addressed their issues with player movement, I'm not entirely comfortable in saying that those issues have been solved in any way. It's not a situation like Washington or New York where they had a glaring need and went out and addressed it with someone who may be at the top 5 at his position in the NHL.
Just about every one of the Leafs' "solutions" brings questions, and not the sort of questions you could ask about any player like "will he be healthy" or "Will his play suddenly fall off". For most of them it's a far more pressing question of whether or not they can actually be successful in those roles over a season(except Franson, I suppose, as a chair on skates could be a successful Lebda replacement).
To my mind, the biggest questions this team has are:
1. Can the 1st line be effective/find chemistry?
2. Can the bottom 6 go from a weakness to a strength?
3. Can any of the defensemen play like a legit #1 and #2?
I'd throw Reimer on there but I think the Reimer question is too similar to one that applies to just about every team in the East short of a couple.
I also believe that scoring ability of third and forth line is what is going to determine the Leafs post-season chances more then anything. If you look at last years stats you see there was group of top 6 forwards + Kaberle and then Bozak and then couple of defensemen and so called bottom six forwards were almost literally bottom six. No team can be carried by two lines only, the third and fourth line has to chip in once a while. I do not mind guys like Mike Brown or Colton Orr, but Tie Domi was able to score 10+ goals on regular basis, and current Leafs need exactely the same.
Saint Nik said:
Always nice to have a peer review
In the end we were pretty close in offense from our Top 6 to a playoff team in the Rags, so I would say that the Top 6, although a concern, really wasn't that bad and wasn't our biggest issue amongst the forwards. Besides poor goaltending/defense or what have you, the lack of scoring depth really diminished our chances last year.
Although I could be remembering it a bit off, I remember people talking about how responsoble Sjostrom was but you mentioned the fact that he was so offensively inept kind of negated most of the positives he brought. Even if you didn't single him out or say this I think that conclusion is pretty accurate.
Everything else I'm in a total agreement. We didn't solve any positions as much as address them with big caveats. It seems to me high-ish risk with medium reward in some cases (Connolly, Lupul, Lombardi etc).
I'm just hoping the risk plays out to be far less than the reward.
Kin
New member
Bender said:
I don't disagree completely but I think that needs to be put in some kind of context. I don't think a lot of people think the Rangers had a particularly good top 6 or made the playoffs because of their top 6. The Rangers brass probably agreed as that's why they were so interested in throwing truckloads of money at Brad Richards. Sure, they made the playoffs with that team but they knew they needed to significantly upgrade there. So did/do the Leafs. I think every team wants to have a top 6 that is really good in context, one that stacks up to your Pittsburghs, Vancouvers and Chicagos. I think there's a more important gap between the Leafs best offensive players and the teams with the best offensive players in the game than anything having to do with the bottom 6.
Now, if you don't have that, as the Leafs don't, then you can still be pretty good provided you've got really good depth and that seems to be the approach the Leafs are taking. It's not ideal but it does have the potential to get them over the playoff hump. I'm a little less optimistic than you as to them having done that but, at the very least, Bozak/Kadri/Lombardi should be better than what they had in that regard.
Bender said:
I may have said something like that, I've said a lot after all. I think my larger point though was that the Leafs bottom 6, as a whole, were really bad. Even Brent, who won a lot of acclaim here for being competent, was clearly a piece Burke was fine with saying adios to. Sjostrom was crummy offensively, sure, but the bigger problem, I think, with Sjostrom was that he combined crummy offense with...ok defense. Not terrible, but nothing to write home about. Nothing that elevated him above any other guy scrambling for a job in the NHL.
That's what I think the Leafs were desperately in need of this offseason, outside of a top centre, are bottom six guys who wouldn't just be ok or competent but guys who might elevate the Leafs bottom 6 to be one of the better group of grinders/defensive forwards in the league. If this is the top 6 they're going with, they need everything they can get from their bottom 6.
I've thrown this criticism at them before but the PK last year was one of the worst aspects of the team and over the off-season it looks as though they've done very little to improve it in terms of on-ice personnel(outside of what figures to be a marginal change from Brent to Dupuis).
maplesyrup
New member
Boston won the cup last year with virtually no PP (horrific actually) but a great PK... I think there's a lesson there somewhere.