Speculation: Babcock Turning Matthews Into A Checker & The Leafs Into Boring Chumps

[BrannigansLaw]

Really? I'd almost consider it cockier if Babcock just assumed that whatever worked at the beginning of the season would continue to work as the games got tighter in the back-41/Playoffs. I think it's quite astute, and a great sign of self-awareness, to continue to try and find ways to teach and improve even when you're showing results in the standings.
I mean, when else would you want him to experiment with systems? When they're struggling to keep up with the rest of the League?
I don't believe this system is a hill Babcock's willing to die on - I think he might just be taking advantage of a good opportunity to flesh out the development of his team, and better equip them for different situations and styles.

Experimenting with systems is something I think you do in training camp.

You never know where we might be by game 70 or 80 of the season. It looks like we have a spot locked up but if we miss by a point or two, this experiment will likely be criticized.

 

[KPower]

Babs would rather lose 2-1 than win 6-5.

 

[moon111]

Babs has also won the Cup with Chris Osgood. Can you imagine how good Osgood would of been with 10 more shots a game against? With most of them being odd-man rushes, clean breakaways, uncovered opposition taking shots after a rink wide pass? Remember when the Leafs would get a goalie that had good stats and then all of a sudden they turned to @#$%? That their confidence and
careers were crushed? The Leafs have been an appalling mess defensively and losing 2-1 is fantastic compared to those previous teams.

 

[Muston Atthews]

Babs would rather lose 2-1 than win 6-5.

Easily.

 

[IBeL34f]

Experimenting with systems is something I think you do in training camp.

You never know where we might be by game 70 or 80 of the season. It looks like we have a spot locked up but if we miss by a point or two, this experiment will likely be criticized.

Training camp is often spent looking at a ton of players that are fighting for opportunities and roster spots, though, and the games themselves don't have the same pressure - I agree that it's another good time to look at systems in general, but you never get the real-world situations to truly test them until the games matter.

Rielly was reined in a couple of years ago, and it looks to be paying real dividends now that Babcock has taken off the leash. He's still developing as well, but he's taken real steps. I'm totally willing to be patient with the coaching staff to see what we can learn from this - If they ever feel that it's really setting them back, I expect them to switch things up again.

But what I think (and, yeah, hope) will happen is that we learn how to play any style of game against any style of opponent and be able to come up on top. You can't just throw your offense at all 30 other teams and expect it to work every single night, forever. They gotta be able to adapt.

 

[realgoodleafs]

I'm happy we have Babcock but it's funny that the media is all parroting the same thing. Must have gotten a memo from Bell/Rogers.

They're all going with the "it's all part of God's plan" narrative.

 

[cupcrazyman]

Gone from the 30th team to 5th in the conference in only a few years,so i guess that's something.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Experimenting with systems is something I think you do in training camp.

Yeah, agreed. If what I wrote at that time was true, I wouldn't really be a fan. You don't utilize games as high-intensity practice sessions.

I don't know if that's what I actually believe though. I think Babcock has simply identified some issues in our game, but has overreacted in his attempts to do something about it. We've gone from one of the league's most creative teams who constantly threatens the slot, to the team that, for example, utilizes the pass back to defense and the point shot the most in the whole league. When we were at our best, we were a heavy forecheck and pinching team who put other teams under immense pressure. It came with exposing some flaws in decision-making and defensive awareness at times, but it pushed games into being high-tempo, risky affairs and that suited us. Babcock have moved to cover those issues, hoping that it'll help our guys in the future, and that might be true. But short-term, it certainly seem to me that it has taken away some of what made us a really good team.

 

[BertCorbeau]

Yeah, agreed. If what I wrote at that time was true, I wouldn't really be a fan. You don't utilize games as high-intensity practice sessions.

I don't know if that's what I actually believe though. I think Babcock has simply identified some issues in our game, but has overreacted in his attempts to do something about it. We've gone from one of the league's most creative teams who constantly threatens the slot, to the team that, for example, utilizes the pass back to defense and the point shot the most in the whole league. When we were at our best, we were a heavy forecheck and pinching team who put other teams under immense pressure. It came with exposing some flaws in decision-making and defensive awareness at times, but it pushed games into being high-tempo, risky affairs and that suited us. Babcock have moved to cover those issues, hoping that it'll help our guys in the future, and that might be true. But short-term, it certainly seem to me that it has taken away some of what made us a really good team.

Funny enough, this is what Rielly did in that Ottawa game that he came under fire for. They were pushing the pace decently in that third and Mo wanted to keep that pressure on. Unfortunately it wasn't a great read and we saw the consequences. Of course at that time in the game they didn't need to take those risks. So part of Babcock's method, IMO, is trying to find that balance.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Funny enough, this is what Rielly did in that Ottawa game that he came under fire for. They were pushing the pace decently in that third and Mo wanted to keep that pressure on. Unfortunately it wasn't a great read and we saw the consequences. Of course at that time in the game they didn't need to take those risks. So part of Babcock's method, IMO, is trying to find that balance.

That's a terrific example. And it shows why it's understandable that Babcock has reacted to try and curb in some of those tendencies. And it wouldn't surprise me if we see an increasing trend of Babcock giving them more leash going forward.

 

[ShaneFalco]

That's a terrific example. And it shows why it's understandable that Babcock has reacted to try and curb in some of those tendencies. And it wouldn't surprise me if we see an increasing trend of Babcock giving them more leash going forward.

There's a big risk with taking a team away from their game for a while and then hoping to open things up more.

 

[IBeL34f]

Yeah, agreed. If what I wrote at that time was true, I wouldn't really be a fan. You don't utilize games as high-intensity practice sessions.

I don't know if that's what I actually believe though. I think Babcock has simply identified some issues in our game, but has overreacted in his attempts to do something about it. We've gone from one of the league's most creative teams who constantly threatens the slot, to the team that, for example, utilizes the pass back to defense and the point shot the most in the whole league. When we were at our best, we were a heavy forecheck and pinching team who put other teams under immense pressure. It came with exposing some flaws in decision-making and defensive awareness at times, but it pushed games into being high-tempo, risky affairs and that suited us. Babcock have moved to cover those issues, hoping that it'll help our guys in the future, and that might be true. But short-term, it certainly seem to me that it has taken away some of what made us a really good team.

It'll be back, don't worry.

 

[ShaneFalco]

it is funny though how if a young player does well it's because of Babcock's teachings
If they falter, it's all on them

 

[rent free]

hyman on the pp....

 

[budzz]

Nothing wrong with ingraining a batten-down-the-hatches defensive game at all. Sound overall team defense has proven itself over and over. Overall the Leafs have been a D-train-wreck for probably 15 years0, (maybe 50?) and the results have shown.

This young team has shown to have elite fire power, nobody can question that, But in tight playoff games where every inch matters, the tight D-First mentality has to be ingrained. Takes time especially with so many young pieces.

When playoff games are tight checking, teams need game breakers that can play on the right side of the puck. We have some serious young game breaker options that we've never had before,,. I trust the braintrust to keep them in the right direction.

We're on the right track. I luv it.

 

[Nithoniniel]

it is funny though how if a young player does well it's because of Babcock's teachings
If they falter, it's all on them

It's as much the other way around.

I was just reading through a few threads here and thinking to myself: "Man, there's a whole lot of people willing to lay all the blame on Babcock. Understandable, because it's easier to put all the blame on one guy than to admit that perhaps the best case scenario didn't materialize across the board like we hoped."

Matthews is human, Willie and Marner has a lot to work on, a few of the other guys have been disappointing overall. There are a lot of things ailing this team, and not all of it can be placed neatly at the feet of a scapegoat.

 

[Raym11]

Matthews is doing amazing defensively, i wouldn't say at any point he's been bad. But holy shit, Babcock needs to get him going offensively and move Nylander off his line. I'm positive Nylander is handling the puck too much as Matthews always opts to him to be the playmaker when he should just do it himself. Everytime i see him give the puck to Nylander i'm waiting for a weak play and turnover to happen as is tradition

 

[LeafsLegendAkiBerg]

“Yeah. I think a lot of guys on the bench too, pretty frustrated not being on the power play & seeing that kind of effort. I think we got to look each other in the eyes here and determine where we want to go from here.”

I wonder if Andersen is talking about anyone in particular here.

 

[Semantics]

Matthews is human, Willie and Marner has a lot to work on, a few of the other guys have been disappointing overall. There are a lot of things ailing this team, and not all of it can be placed neatly at the feet of a scapegoat.

I would buy that excuse if it was a few guys. But *every* player on this team except Rielly, Andersen, and Hainsey has fallen short of expectations. (Maybe add Hyman to that group since he had no expectations.) That's particularly damning with such a young team - you'd expect most players to improve.

But the most obvious sign pointing to the coach is just the boring brand of hockey they now play. You can't chalk that up to the players struggling. They're not attempting to play the uptempo skating, passing, and puck pressure game they played last year and at the start of this year and just getting out played at it. It's that they're not even playing the same system.

 

[Nithoniniel]

I would buy that excuse if it was a few guys. But *every* player on this team except Rielly, Andersen, and Hainsey has fallen short of expectations. (Maybe add Hyman to that group since he had no expectations.) That's particularly damning with such a young team - you'd expect most players to improve.

But the most obvious sign pointing to the coach is just the boring brand of hockey they now play. You can't chalk that up to the players struggling. They're not attempting to play the uptempo skating, passing, and puck pressure game they played last year and at the start of this year and just getting out played at it. It's that they're not even playing the same system.

That's an exaggeration.

Babcock is definitely deserving of criticism, but blaming him for everything is a cop-out.

 

[Semantics]

That's an exaggeration.

Babcock is definitely deserving of criticism, but blaming him for everything is a cop-out.

I'm not blaming him for everything, but I don't think his system and decisions are all that effective with this team in this league. I think there are 15 other coaches in the league who could probably get similar or better results.

Even ignoring the system and how they're playing right now, Babcock plays his top players fewer minutes than every other coach in the NHL. Is he a genius with a grand plan who's outsmarting all those other coaches? Time will tell, but I say no.

 

[Nithoniniel]

I'm not blaming him for everything, but I don't think his system and decisions are all that effective with this team in this league. I think there are 15 other coaches in the league who could probably get similar or better results.

Even ignoring the system and how they're playing right now, Babcock plays his top players fewer minutes than every other coach in the NHL. Is he a genius with a grand plan who's outsmarting all those other coaches? Time will tell, but I say no.

Well every indication is that the ice time decisions comes from the Sports Science division. As such, I'd guess there's a reason behind it.

As for your first paragraph, I'm going to expand on that a bit. See, I think there's a lot of coaches that could come in now and improve us. But that's mainly because it's easier to come in with a fresh pair of eyes and correct issues than it is to build the whole thing yourself. That's why Bylsma could be good for the Pens short-term, but abysmal long-term. But if we had a different coach from the start? I'd venture to say we'd be worse off in most cases.

The reason for that is twofold. For one, fanbases always key in on flaws of their coach while judging other teams coaches on their results. Guess what other fanbases sees when they look at us? They see a coach taking a team built around young talents and bringing them straight to the playoffs two years in a row.

The other thing is that there's a logical fallacy here, and that's that we base our opinion of Babcock on how we perform given the quality of players that we have, but we wrongly tend to judge that quality as unrelated to Babcock as a coach. The reason we think he has great talent to use is because a Babcock-led team made us believe so.

As an example, we might think Babcock should do more with a franchise player like Matthews, but there's really no way for us to judge how much - or little - credit Babcock deserves for the player Matthews has been.

And that's an issue that is hard to look past. Perhaps with another coach, the Matthews we've seen lately would have been the norm. It's very hard for us to know the extent to which that is true or false.

 

[Petrus]

Yeah, agreed. If what I wrote at that time was true, I wouldn't really be a fan. You don't utilize games as high-intensity practice sessions.

I don't know if that's what I actually believe though. I think Babcock has simply identified some issues in our game, but has overreacted in his attempts to do something about it. We've gone from one of the league's most creative teams who constantly threatens the slot, to the team that, for example, utilizes the pass back to defense and the point shot the most in the whole league. When we were at our best, we were a heavy forecheck and pinching team who put other teams under immense pressure. It came with exposing some flaws in decision-making and defensive awareness at times, but it pushed games into being high-tempo, risky affairs and that suited us. Babcock have moved to cover those issues, hoping that it'll help our guys in the future, and that might be true. But short-term, it certainly seem to me that it has taken away some of what made us a really good team.

@Nithoniniel, Just curious if you have observed (as I have) that the heavy game you are referring is still there (on a limited basis) but instead of trying to pierce to o-zone with a primary puck carrier (such as Nylander in the Matthews line) I often see us now chip it in and try to beat the defender to the puck. It has been less successful in part because I think we either chip it in too hard or not enough to be able gain possession. I think the effort is there. It just seem we are a bit off in our timing.

 

[RadekBong]

Experimenting with systems is something I think you do in training camp.

You never know where we might be by game 70 or 80 of the season. It looks like we have a spot locked up but if we miss by a point or two, this experiment will likely be criticized.

I agree. Quite frankly the poster you quoted doesn't make much sense to me. At the time we weren't playing catchup, we were winning games. There is absolutely nothing that can definitively indicate that wouldn't have continued. The Babcock ball washers can clamour about "the right way" all they want, but we were picking up points before and we're chasing now. The results of preseason experimentation proved successful and Babs has gone and thrown a wrench in it inexplicably.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

it was annoying when we were winning, but it's unbearable now that we're losing. changes are necessary