Your TML Rebuild Plan

[Kin]

Burns also has alot of goals on the PP.  Them having a bomb from the backend is great for THEM scoring goals, but it doesn't make their PP's more effective.  I'd much rather have Rielly and Gardiner quarterbacking a top 5 PP than Weber/Burns bombing shots to the tune of a PP getting average results.  That doesn't seem like a weak argument to me.

I'd much rather earn 50,000 dollars a year with a billion dollars in the bank than earn 100,000 dollars with no money in the bank. That doesn't make 50,000 dollars greater than 100,000 dollars.

No one individual or one individual skill is going to make a PP effective. That has no bearing on whether or not a good shot from a defenseman, one of the people on the PP, is an effective weapon on the PP. The Ottawa Senators had the 23rd ranked PP last year, 26th the year before that. Is Erik Karlsson an ineffective PP presence?

And I believe this forum does not have rules about posting from the Athletic.

I suppose I was relying on people understanding general etiquette about these things but you do you.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Burns also has alot of goals on the PP.  Them having a bomb from the backend is great for THEM scoring goals, but it doesn't make their PP's more effective.  I'd much rather have Rielly and Gardiner quarterbacking a top 5 PP than Weber/Burns bombing shots to the tune of a PP getting average results.  That doesn't seem like a weak argument to me.

I'd much rather earn 50,000 dollars a year with a billion dollars in the bank than earn 100,000 dollars with no money in the bank. That doesn't make 50,000 dollars greater than 100,000 dollars.

No one individual or one individual skill is going to make a PP effective. That has no bearing on whether or not a good shot from a defenseman, one of the people on the PP, is an effective weapon on the PP. The Ottawa Senators had the 23rd ranked PP last year, 26th the year before that. Is Erik Karlsson an ineffective PP presence?

And I believe this forum does not have rules about posting from the Athletic.

I suppose I was relying on people understanding general etiquette about these things but you do you.

My understanding of the general etiquette is don't transcribe the article because its behind a paywall and that's not fair to the writers.  I haven't done that.  If there is another etiquette that those whom don't want to spend money on the Athletic should be catered to, I don't buy it.  I see links and quotes from lots of athletic articles being posted here, and while I'm sure you've complained to them as well, I don't think its fair to limit discussion of them because some people don't have access.  There is high quality information being presented in their work and avoiding it entirely does not seem prudent to advancing the discussion here. 

But since you are "the king" I suppose I can try to use other sources of information to prove my point going forward.

And back to the subject at hand.  The original poster stated

I think the problem with Rielly on the PP is that he's just not a threat to score. 

Opposition just doesn't take him seriously as a shooting threat.

I think they might need a guy that's got a bomb, or is at least a greater threat to score.

Agreed, one individual player does not make a PP effective or ineffective.  What the unit does as a whole does, and the units with d-men bombing away aren't the most effective, no matter how good the shooters are. 

My point was that the most effective PP's going these days don't have a guy bombing away.  The Leafs had one of the top units in the league last year, with Zaitsev actually shooting THE LEAST among the defensemen on top 5 units.  Yes, the fact that the forwards are Bozak, JvR, Marner, and Kadri on the unit is most likely what led to the success.  Zaitsev still had a job to do in his role there and I don't think Rielly chosen over him to start this year is a big deal.

If we could have Karlsson on our PP, I wouldn't disagree with Frank that Rielly shouldn't be on the PP.  Karlsson would no doubt make our PP even better.  But we don't have him.  Carrick, Rosen, Zaitsev probably have better shots than Rielly.  That doesn't mean they would make the unit more effective if they can't quarterback the PP as well as him. 

While the sample size is quite small, I see Rielly has been on the ice for 3 PP goals, in 9 min of PP ice time.  He has 2 assists on those goals.  Until the results begin to show us that Rielly's lack of a shot is really hurting the effectiveness of the unit, plus the proof showing that bombing away isn't as effective as what the Leafs were doing last year, I suppose the argument that Rielly shouldn't be on the PP because of his lack of a good shot doesn't hold water.

 

[Kin]

But since you are "the king" I suppose I can try to use other sources of information to prove my point going forward.

I guess I can only hope someone at the Athletic writes an article explaining the concept of irony to you.

Agreed, one individual player does not make a PP effective or ineffective.  What the unit does as a whole does, and the units with d-men bombing away aren't the most effective, no matter how good the shooters are. 

I think that implicit in what Frank said is that we're still talking about Morgan Rielly. So that is to say the sum total of why Rielly isn't a great PP option isn't just a lack of a good shot but rather the lack of a good shot combined with average-ish abilities elsewhere. Like you said, last year the team was very effective with Zaitsev in the role. They're good with Gardiner there too.

I think in general any good PP isn't going to be defined by any one particular strategy or attribute but rather by bringing a wealth of skills to the table and the fluidity to deploy individual ones against the adapting defensive techniques they're bound to encounter throughout a game. Point shots can be a piece of that puzzle just like anything else.

Remember, this is all taking place within the larger context of Rielly's development. Not "how can we possibly make the Leafs PP most effective". So it's not "Rielly's lack of a shot means he shouldn't be on the PP" but rather "Rielly's value right now is somewhat limited because he's not bringing anything exceptional to the table on the PP".

 

[Coco-puffs]

But since you are "the king" I suppose I can try to use other sources of information to prove my point going forward.

I guess I can only hope someone at the Athletic writes an article explaining the concept of irony to you.

Could you be more condescending?  Seriously?  I just gave in to your request despite the fact it means I have to spend MORE time looking for proof to back up my statements, and this is the response I get. 

You are pretty smart, witty, and generally push discussion in the right direction but the amount of times you've been a complete a** to a number of people here is alarming.  I'm done responding to you when your posts involve putting other people down. 

 

[Kin]

Could you be more condescending? 

Absolutely I can. Can you be more hypocritical?

But since you are "the king"

 

[Coco-puffs]

Could you be more condescending? 

Absolutely I can. Can you be more hypocritical?

But since you are "the king"

You called yourself that, in another fantastic moment of being a condescending a**hat.

Seriously, busta did it the other day and now you. Don't try to "technically" me. Come at the King, you best not miss.

 

[rdowdall]

So, that's a no to Rielly on the powerplay?  Just checking.

 

[Kin]

You called yourself that, in another fantastic moment of being a condescending a**hat.

No. That was me using a line from the Wire, a line in reference to an attempted murder on a drug kingpin, to declare myself as being "the king"(the quotes there to indicate irony) of needlessly pedantic specificity. To be clear, I do not think that is a necessarily good quality and so being "the king" of it was, in fact, ironic self-deprecation. Using the line from the show was an attempt to emphasize the silliness of it.

You, however, took it at face value and have no more than once used it while rolling your eyes because you somehow thought this was me bigging up myself. Then you came in with a "how dare you insult me when I was insulting you" bit of whining which I didn't really have time for.

 

[Coco-puffs]

You called yourself that, in another fantastic moment of being a condescending a**hat.

No. That was me using a line from the Wire, a line in reference to an attempted murder on a drug kingpin, to declare myself as being "the king"(the quotes there to indicate irony) of needlessly pedantic specificity. To be clear, I do not think that is a necessarily good quality and so being "the king" of it was, in fact, ironic self-deprecation. Using the line from the show was an attempt to emphasize the silliness of it.

You, however, took it at face value and have no more than once used it while rolling your eyes because you somehow thought this was me bigging up myself. Then you came in with a "how dare you insult me when I was insulting you" bit of whining which I didn't really have time for.

I did not take it at face value.  I am fully aware that it is a quote from the Wire.  I don't know how you can use that quote and NOT consider it bigging yourself up- while belittling me.  Since then, I've called you "the king" in jest because I'm sick of your condescension... which, in this thread started with "I suppose I was relying on people understanding general etiquette about these things but you do you". 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Ooook. Let's keep this thread focused on what it was intended to discuss: our rebuild plan circa 2 and a half years ago.

 

[Kin]

I don't know how you can use that quote and NOT consider it bigging yourself up

Because who in their right mind would want to be known as "the king" of pedantry? Or associate silly arguments about technical language with violent disputes over drug territory?

 

[Rick C.]

Ding Ding.  Everyone back to their corners.

Here's the guideline for copying of content from another source:
http://www.tmlfans.ca/community/index.php?topic=4707.msg304898

 

[herman]

Oh man, pre-Matthews herman was such a sweet summer child. He thought Marner was AHL-eligible 2016-17.

 

[rdowdall]

Oh man, pre-Matthews herman was such a sweet summer child. He thought Marner was AHL-eligible 2016-17.

This was before Seth Griffith broke your heart.  Also, I believe pre-Matthews herman wanted Marner to be a centre.

 

[mr grieves]

I think my bad prediction there

I think we all had pretty bad predictions. No one was expecting playoffs last year. I copy/pasted predictions and arranged them from bleak to bullish because I was struck, reading them in that order, that you can say "nope, things went better than that... and that... and that..." and hit the bottom of the list. It highlights how astonishingly well this rebuild has gone... for example:

B) I still think I'm kind of right about "one of Rielly, Nylander, Marner and (Matthews)" but that one just happens to be Rielly.

If I were told, 2 years back, that, yes, one of those four top-ten picks will disappoint: the guy we'd hope would end up a #1D is probably going to top out as a #2... well, that's still getting really lucky, as these things go, no?

is at least somewhat muted by the fact that A) I really assumed they'd deal JVR/Bozak and...

Biggest difference between those of us who saw a shorter path to respectability than those on the five-year plan was assuming that they'd trade not only Bozak and JvR but also Gardiner, Kadri, Rielly... I never really thought it likely they'd look at the latter guys and think there aren't useful contributors to a potential contender there.

And I still kind of think that making the playoffs last year will be bad for the team long term.

But even here, back to marveling at our good fortune: if I were told the Leafs would make the playoffs and still be able to draft a guy who'd been scouted the year prior as having top-3 skill...

 

[Kin]

If I were told, 2 years back, that, yes, one of those four top-ten picks will disappoint: the guy we'd hope would end up a #1D is probably going to top out as a #2... well, that's still getting really lucky, as these things go, no?

I don't entirely agree with that reading of Rielly(in at least as much as I think the #1, #2, etc thing is a terrible way to rate players) but yes. I don't want to ascribe too much to luck but there's no getting around that things in that sense have generally gone pretty well. Winning the Lottery, for instance, is certainly a huge bit of good fortune.

But even here, back to marveling at our good fortune: if I were told the Leafs would make the playoffs and still be able to draft a guy who'd been scouted the year prior as having top-3 skill...

I mean, you're going to try and make me say Angelo Esposito again but I...dangit.

 

[Kin]

Just as a for instance, I think a lot of what people didn't foresee was Andersen coming in and providing the team with immediately above-average goaltending. Now, you can chalk that up in part to luck but it's also a credit of sorts to management and a result of a designed strategy to be good sooner rather than later.

Will that prove to ultimately be a good decision? We sort of have to wait and see on that one. You don't want to read too much into early results but I have some doubts that Andersen is going to be in that fairly elite modern group of Goalies who are going to be above average every year.

 

[Bender]

One thing Andersen has consistently shown is inconsistency.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Zee]

One thing Andersen has consistently shown is inconsistency.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

It's a bit infuriating.  I mean last season he had months where he played under .900 save% and then months where he was crazy good .930% or something, and it all evens out to something like .918...would be nice if he just played .918-.920 all the time so you know what you're getting every start.  I guess that's not realistic.

 

[mr grieves]

If I were told, 2 years back, that, yes, one of those four top-ten picks will disappoint: the guy we'd hope would end up a #1D is probably going to top out as a #2... well, that's still getting really lucky, as these things go, no?

I don't entirely agree with that reading of Rielly(in at least as much as I think the #1, #2, etc thing is a terrible way to rate players) but yes. I don't want to ascribe too much to luck but there's no getting around that things in that sense have generally gone pretty well. Winning the Lottery, for instance, is certainly a huge bit of good fortune.

I enjoy how even when you don't disagree with someone you can find some semantics to quibble over (whatever Rielly is, it's a pretty good "bust" to have).

1. Matthews was a huge bit of good fortune.

2. Drafting Nylander, Marner, Rielly and having all turn into good NHLers is either being good or (cos injuries, whatever) lucky. Sometimes guys just don't turn out as expected (as you noted with Hawks' top picks)

3. Keeping Kadri and Gardiner was smart.

4. Keeping Bozak and JvR inflated their performance to some degree, to be sure. Over the long term, I think not a smart move.

5. Getting the goalie seemed premature, has worked out so far. Over the long term... I dunno.

The Leafs probably don't make the playoffs without 4 and 5, which none of us really expected or really like(d) as moves.

But 1-3 are key parts of the rebuild, I think, and, with them going as they have, the Leafs might not be a playoff team yet without 4 & 5, but they'd be looking a lot better than any of us expected.

But even here, back to marveling at our good fortune: if I were told the Leafs would make the playoffs and still be able to draft a guy who'd been scouted the year prior as having top-3 skill...

I mean, you're going to try and make me say Angelo Esposito again but I...dangit.
[/quote]

Sure. That could happen. I wondered back around draft time what the history was on guys who fell out of the top three/five over the course of their draft year. How many are Espositos? How many are Nylanders? How many are somewhere in between?