Post-Game Talk: No Cup for Winnipeg this Year | 4-1 Leafs Win

[notDatsyuk]

Basically it would, unless it’s blatantly obvious, you wouldnt challenge.

Theoretically to increase offence, the blue line should be like the goal line in football. Measured at the center ice side of the line, as soon as tip enters the zone it’s in, or the entire puck exits the zone, it’s out. The skaters use other side of the blue line.

Because it's much easier to see if the puck is fully in the white area, it is only considered to be 'in' an area (net, trapezoid, offensive zone, neutral zone) when it is fully in the white.

Completely consistent and logical. (No idea how the NHL figured it out. )

 

[PromisedLand]

Some more burn for haters

 

[Nineteen67]

.

Because it's much easier to see if the puck is fully in the white area, it is only considered to be 'in' an area (net, trapezoid, offensive zone, neutral zone) when it is fully in the white.

Completely consistent and logical. (No idea how the NHL figured it out. )

Then make the blue line the same width as the goal line

 

[kevsh]

Pre-season thought Kampf belonged on the 3rd line, Simmonds was done and Clifford should only be played in games like this. One great night doesn't change my mind on all of that, but I did overlook the lack of toughness on the roster without these guys.

So, glad they are here and I get the sense the rest of the team likes having them in the lineup. I think most NHL players would admit that it makes everyone on the team feel a little bigger and more confident out there with a Clifford or Simmonds in the game.

 

[notDatsyuk]

.

Then make the blue line the same width as the goal line

That would make it harder to see and cause even more confusion. What good would it do?

Until the puck is fully in the white, it isn't in that zone. The thickness of the line has no bearing on that. The width on the blue line just makes it easier for everyone to see.

 

[notbias]

Didn’t Marner got smashed during the PP and JT scored like 5 seconds later.

So what is the point of having guys who fight and don't do much more if this stuff still happens and they don't get revenge?

 

[Dekes For Days]

Just remarkable the lengths you will go to try and downplay an effective little roster tweak that resulted in a gritty road win despite the players saying otherwise.

What's remarkable is that you're trying to take a bad penalty that didn't actually accomplish anything, and trying to twist it into a positive. What's remarkable is that people in this thread are trying to strip credit from the players who actually responded, in order to give it to the players who didn't really contribute to the response. What's remarkable is people making up stories claiming that the only reason we responded was Simmonds/Clifford sitting on the bench doing nothing. No player came close to suggesting that was the case, and there's absolutely zero reason to think that's the case.

Simmonds had a decent game, but that little roster tweak is not what caused the gritty road win, or the response, and it's pretty insulting to the other players who did way more, to suggest that everything good that happened was just a result of Simmonds/Clifford's mere existence.

 

[Stephen]

What's remarkable is that you're trying to take a bad penalty that didn't actually accomplish anything, and trying to twist it into a positive. What's remarkable is that people in this thread are trying to strip credit from the players who actually responded, in order to give it to the players who didn't really contribute to the response. What's remarkable is people making up stories claiming that the only reason we responded was Simmonds/Clifford sitting on the bench doing nothing. No player came close to suggesting that was the case, and there's absolutely zero reason to think that's the case.

Simmonds had a decent game, but that little roster tweak is not what caused the gritty road win, or the response, and it's pretty insulting to the other players who did way more, to suggest that everything good that happened was just a result of Simmonds/Clifford's mere existence.

What makes you so certain that Simmonds-Clifford didn’t have an impact on the team when the GM brought them up to the big team, the coach dressed them in the game and the behaviour of the team changed and their teammates credited their presence?

All factors point to a roster change by design, an immediate positive result and yet, you seem to know better than the team itself.

 

[Lauro]

Am already looking forward to the next PGT when the Winnipeg effect, oops sorry, Simmonds and Clifford effect probably will have vanished and the Leafs are bubbling down their normal program.

 

[cyris]

If we’re keeping score of physical contribution - and we shouldn’t because it’s a team game - Simmonds took an unsportsmanlike run at Mark Scheifele after a whistle. Which is a direct escalation of taking the physical play to their best players as a cease and desist.

The translation for people who don’t understand that dynamic is if you touch Matthews, Nylander, Marner, Tavares, Robertson etc. someone is going to mug your best player at the time of our choosing.

Do you actually think the presence of Simmonds and Clifford in our lineup actually stopped the Jets from taking runs at our star players in a game where Marner was sent face first into the boards and they took runs at Tavares and Robertson seconds apart?

I’d love the Leafs to add some tough players that are good enough to contribute in important minutes. But there presence won’t stop teams from playing heavy physical games.

 

[All Mod Cons]

Do you actually think the presence of Simmonds and Clifford in our lineup actually stopped the Jets from taking runs at our star players in a game where Marner was sent face first into the boards and they took runs at Tavares and Robertson seconds apart?

I’d love the Leafs to add some tough players that are good enough to contribute in important minutes. But there presence won’t stop teams from playing heavy physical games.

No one has ever, ever, ever, ever, ever thought that the presence of Simmonds and Clifford in our lineup actually stopped the Jets from taking runs at our star players.

I know this because there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of comments in this thread saying "the presence of Simmonds and Clifford in our lineup doesn't actually stop the Jets from taking runs at our star players.

No one has ever though that. No one will ever think that.

Please give us some ideas of how we can get this message across successfully, because thus far, it hasn't seemed to have translated well.

 

[ACC1224]

Maybe a different approach is needed for the few struggling with the concept.
Why do you think Dubas signed these players and why do you think Keefe chose to dress them ?

 

[Dekes For Days]

What makes you so certain that Simmonds-Clifford didn’t have an impact on the team when the GM brought them up to the big team, the coach dressed them in the game and the behaviour of the team changed and their teammates credited their presence?

Except that's a wildly inaccurate representation of what happened. The behaviour of the team did not change. The behaviour was exactly as everybody expected. The same as it was the last time we faced Winnipeg. The same we've shown plenty of times before when things get heated to that level, Simmonds/Clifford or not.

You seem to think that because we didn't start line brawling for a singular, less visible incident the game before, that the only reason we responded differently to a massively different situation with multiple incidents in the Winnipeg game was because we swapped out a couple 4th liners who didn't even contribute to the response. Even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest that. Heck, in both games, the initial incident was not even responded to. It was the subsequent incidents in the Winnipeg game that drew the response.

You also seem to be taking incredibly mundane comments where one teammate when questioned basically said our 4th line brings energy, and you're somehow twisting that into teammates crediting Simmonds/Clifford for other players responding and for the win. Nothing remotely close to that was said by anybody.

I've said multiple times that Simmonds had an impact. He had a decent game, and had a nice primary assist. But I'm only here to talk about things that actually happened, not fantasies about them casting protection force fields from the bench. The GM and coach put them in to bring energy and keep the 4th line hungry while we had the cap space for extras. That doesn't mean our response was a result of those players. That doesn't mean the win was a result of those players.

I don't know why you're so desperately trying to heap all the credit on them instead of acknowledging the players who actually responded, or just crediting the whole team in general. This whole narrative is specifically designed as a shot at all of the other players, acting like they can't handle things on their own despite the fact that they literally did.

 

[The Podium]

Some more burn for haters

I think you’re missing the point. People around here are happy with how that line performed, especially Simmonds. What is being questioned is the mythical influence they had on the teams physicality.

 

[ACC1224]

You only have to look at how uncharacteristicly Rielly snapped to know the players were wound a little tight for this one. They knew they were going to war the minute they heard who was dressing.

 

[The Podium]

Maybe a different approach is needed for the few struggling with the concept.
Why do you think Dubas signed these players and why do you think Keefe chose to dress them ?

Maybe a different approach is needed for the few struggling with the concept.

Why did this “protection effect” not work for Simmonds last 110 games with the Leafs?

 

[Stephen]

Do you actually think the presence of Simmonds and Clifford in our lineup actually stopped the Jets from taking runs at our star players in a game where Marner was sent face first into the boards and they took runs at Tavares and Robertson seconds apart?

I’d love the Leafs to add some tough players that are good enough to contribute in important minutes. But there presence won’t stop teams from playing heavy physical games.

No, like I said goons are typically not a preventative tool because things will get out of hand in certain games but it creates an environment where the team will stick up for itself in tough moments and creates team cohesion. Think of classic moments like Clark sticking up for Gilmour after the McSorley cheap shot. Didn’t prevent it but McSorley paid keep that nonsense up and someone else on the Kings would have gotten it too. It’s eye for an eye.

 

[Stephen]

Except that's a wildly inaccurate representation of what happened. The behaviour of the team did not change. The behaviour was exactly as everybody expected. The same as it was the last time we faced Winnipeg. The same we've shown plenty of times before when things get heated to that level, Simmonds/Clifford or not.

You seem to think that because we didn't start line brawling for a singular, less visible incident the game before, that the only reason we responded differently to a massively different situation with multiple incidents in the Winnipeg game was because we swapped out a couple 4th liners who didn't even contribute to the response. Even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest that. Heck, in both games, the initial incident was not even responded to. It was the subsequent incidents in the Winnipeg game that drew the response.

You also seem to be taking incredibly mundane comments where one teammate when questioned basically said our 4th line brings energy, and you're somehow twisting that into teammates crediting Simmonds/Clifford for other players responding and for the win. Nothing remotely close to that was said by anybody.

I've said multiple times that Simmonds had an impact. He had a decent game, and had a nice primary assist. But I'm only here to talk about things that actually happened, not fantasies about them casting protection force fields from the bench. The GM and coach put them in to bring energy and keep the 4th line hungry while we had the cap space for extras. That doesn't mean our response was a result of those players. That doesn't mean the win was a result of those players.

I don't know why you're so desperately trying to heap all the credit on them instead of acknowledging the players who actually responded, or just crediting the whole team in general. This whole narrative is specifically designed as a shot at all of the other players, acting like they can't handle things on their own despite the fact that they literally did.

Here’s a simple question for you. Who would you dress in place of Simmonds and Clifford next time there’s a potential bloodbath game where our stars, younger players and smaller guys could be at risk of big targeted cheap shots?

 

[ACC1224]

Maybe a different approach is needed for the few struggling with the concept.

Why did this “protection effect” not work for Simmonds last 110 games with the Leafs?

Answering a question with a question is the same as saying you don’t know.
If you don’t know you aren’t obligated to reply.

 

[ShaneFalco]

Players indicate having someone like Simmonds in the line-up helps them and makes them play with more physicality

Posters here - no they're wrong

 

[The Podium]

Answering a question with a question is the same as saying you don’t know.
If you don’t know you aren’t obligated to reply.

Classic, dodge the question

To answer yours, Simmonds has been reportedly very well liked in the dressing room and is still chasing a cup. Not to long ago Dubas had him on the trade block to give him playing opportunity he likely doesn’t get here.

Why did Keefe play him? We’ll the current 4th line has been good awful so why not switch it up a bit when the players are available.

As for Clifford, I have no answer. He isn’t an NHL player anymore.

 

[BertCorbeau]

It’s good to have guys like Simmonds and Clifford that you can put into the line up situationally but also that you have the depth where you don’t have to dress them every game.

They’re just not regular NHLers anymore. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have a use for the occasional game that calls for some physicality and toughness to give the team a boost.

 

[Stephen]

I think you’re missing the point. People around here are happy with how that line performed, especially Simmonds. What is being questioned is the mythical influence they had on the teams physicality.

It’s actually the “mythical” quality they brought to their game is the important thing. Simmonds isn’t always an impactful player as we’ve seen over long stretches and Clifford in isolation is whatever. But the whole group behaviour changed with them there.

This is an extremely typical hockey team dynamic but becomes a referendum on something else because people want to see hockey a different way.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Here’s a simple question for you. Who would you dress in place of Simmonds and Clifford next time there’s a potential bloodbath game where our stars, younger players and smaller guys could be at risk of big targeted cheap shots?

I wouldn't stress about who dresses because the rest of the team has shown time and time again, just like in this game, that they can handle themselves if necessary, regardless of who dresses on the 4th line. And regardless of who dresses, it's not going to deter those dangerous moments from happening in the first place anyway.

Clifford didn't do much of anything, so I'd replace him with somebody who is better at hockey. Simmonds I think looked good and has earned more games rotating in, so I'd have no problem with him being dressed. And I'll credit them for things they actually do, instead of crediting them for some made-up magical aura of protection.

 

[The Podium]

It’s actually the “mythical” quality they brought to their game is the important thing. Simmonds isn’t always an impactful player as we’ve seen over long stretches and Clifford in isolation is whatever. But the whole group behaviour changed with them there.

This is an extremely typical hockey team dynamic but becomes a referendum on something else because people want to see hockey a different way.

Again, why didn’t that “protection effect” happen in the last 110 games Simmonds dressed for the team?

Seems like people are using a 1 game sample where the team coincidentally played more physical against a team they have a history playing physical against. Where was this team physical play in Simmonds 2 year tenure?