Are the Leafs Tough Enough for Playoffs

[Conspiracy Theorist]

It's definitely a big advantage if you have grit to go along with skill. That's how Washington made it past Tampa.

 

[Nico Hischier]

Out of all of the Stanley cup contenders, leafs are probably the softest

Does it matter? Idk we will find out

Idk who is the toughest on the leafs? Kadri? Hainsey?

They gave up their tough guys Martin and Komarov

 

[Rubi]

Is Zach Hyman Toronto's answer to their apparent or implied lack of toughness? Doesn't seem to have an issue with a little dirty play once in a while and he looks like he can handle himself in a fight.



Don't want this to turn into a discussion about the hit itself (there's already a thread on that) but Toronto does appear to have a player willing to do some dirty work (no pun intended) for the team.

 

[Gallagbi]

Is Zach Hyman Toronto's answer to their apparent or implied lack of toughness? Doesn't seem to have an issue with a little dirty play once in a while and he looks like he can handle himself in a fight.



Don't want this to turn into a discussion about the hit itself (there's already a thread on that) but Toronto does appear to have a player willing to do some dirty work (no pun intended) for the team.

Hyman can grind with the best of him, but he's a wimp.

 

[GlitchMarner]

I posted this in another thread...

The Leafs' problem isn't a lack of toughness in terms of lacking Orr or Tie Domi type players.

They're a finesse/skating/skilled team and they can have trouble playing against the trap and other systems that make it harder for them to make plays in the middle of the ice. You don't necessarily need to be very tough to beat the trap and other such systems, but you do need to be able to adjust and you need to make smart plays and to be willing to get more involved physically. They may need a good grinding winger or two or they may just need to get their better players to change their style of play when necessary.

​

 

[Foppberg]

Toughness is still a key element, or at least physicality. And if you don't have that you better be damn fast and skilled (TB/Pittsburgh)

 

[GlitchMarner]

Toughness is still a key element, or at least physicality. And if you don't have that you better be damn fast and skilled (TB/Pittsburgh)

This is another comment I posted in a different thread:

I'm not going to go on a rant about how more toughness and physicality are needed, but sometimes it seems like the Leafs really have a hard time generating scoring chances/momentum when the opposition makes a concerted or even decent effort to provide resistance (whether it be physical or in the form of a disciplined and structured game).

In such instances, it can appear that intensity is lacking and for whatever reason the Leafs execution starts falling apart and failing badly.

If the team isn't built to play tough, fine... but if you're a skilled team, at least ****ing play like one even if the going gets rough.

They have a lot of skill and have some fast players, but there are times where they don't even look like a skilled team let alone a team with skill and toughness when the play gets tighter/harder. That's what worries me about the playoffs. If you're getting your chances and can control the game despite getting outhit, roughed up etc, you should be fine. But if you are getting shut down, you're in trouble.

 

[Jetcetera]

Nope they will lose in the first round again. Especially if they play boston

 

[HuGo Sham]

as a habs fan watching - they're fine. that PP is so lethal no team should want to play dirty vs them.
In montreal there's an ongoing discussion about the need to have deslauriers in the lineup.
but julien likes his goons...even though habs have enough grit with shaw, domi, weber, etc around

 

[Mick Riddleton]

Hyman fought a 5'8" guy who never had a fight in the NHL, probably his 1st fight ever. He is an instant Bob Probert now, what a hot take.

 

[NextYear67]

They're soft but its not a big deal. The Pens teams and Hawks teams that won cups were bottom of the league in hits and PIMs.

 

[JaegerDice]

I remember when the it was questioned whether the Blackhawks were tough enough to beat the Kings in 2013.

And it was questioned whether the Blackhawks were tough enough to beat the Bruins in 2013.

And it was questioned whether the Blackhawks were tough enough to beat the Ducks in 2015.

In truth, no, they weren't tough enough to beat any of them. Fortunately for them, it was never an issue. Any time any one of those teams attempted to start some 'tough' shit, the Blackhawks simply laughed in their face, skated away, and scored more goals than them.

The Maple Leafs won't win any playoff series if they allow another tougher team to dictate how the series is played. If they dictate the series is played on their terms, in a speed, skill game, then it won't matter how tough they are or how tough their opponents are. They'll be too busy outscoring them.

 

[Beukeboom]

I remember when the it was questioned whether the Blackhawks were tough enough to beat the Kings in 2013.

And it was questioned whether the Blackhawks were tough enough to beat the Bruins in 2013.

And it was questioned whether the Blackhawks were tough enough to beat the Ducks in 2015.

In truth, no, they weren't tough enough to beat any of them. Fortunately for them, it was never an issue. Any time any one of those teams attempted to start some 'tough' ****, the Blackhawks simply laughed in their face, skated away, and scored more goals than them.

The Maple Leafs won't win any playoff series if they allow another tougher team to dictate how the series is played. If they dictate the series is played on their terms, in a speed, skill game, then it won't matter how tough they are or how tough their opponents are. They'll be too busy outscoring them.

The difference is that Chicago had tough players those years, just not as many as the others. Toronto does not have a single tough player. Kadri is a bit gritty but that's about it.

Edit: Chicago still had guys like Carcillo, Bollig, Shaw etc.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Making the team pay on the PP works well in the regular season but not so well in the playoffs when the refs put away the whistles.
The Leafs don’t have a tough team but some players are going to have to step up and play a tougher game or they’ll get intimidated like last year. Acquiring one or two players at the deadline who bring more grit would also help.

 

[bigdog16]

Is Zach Hyman Toronto's answer to their apparent or implied lack of toughness? Doesn't seem to have an issue with a little dirty play once in a while and he looks like he can handle himself in a fight.



Don't want this to turn into a discussion about the hit itself (there's already a thread on that) but Toronto does appear to have a player willing to do some dirty work (no pun intended) for the team.

Haha it was Matt Grzelcyk.......Relax

 

[JaegerDice]

The difference is that Chicago had tough players those years, just not as many as the others. Toronto does not have a single tough player. Kadri is a bit gritty but that's about it.

Edit: Chicago still had guys like Carcillo, Bollig, Shaw etc.

Carcillo didn't play a single game in the 2013 playoffs. Because he wasn't any good.

Bollig played 1 game, and barely, because he wasn't any good.

Shaw is tough, sure, but he's tough in the way plenty of guys in the NHL are tough. He's willing to battle in corners for the puck, or get beat up in front of the net to screen the goalie.

 

[Iapyi]

I wish I could say I was surprised at the naivety of some posters thinking that team toughness doesn't matter. Probably the same people who plan the parade after the first week of the season and panic when we lose a game in mid-December.

 

[Beukeboom]

Carcillo didn't play a single game in the 2013 playoffs. Because he wasn't any good.

Bollig played 1 game, and barely, because he wasn't any good.

Shaw is tough, sure, but he's tough in the way plenty of guys in the NHL are tough. He's willing to battle in corners for the puck, or get beat up in front of the net to screen the goalie.

Carcillo played 4 games, Bollig 5. So most games against tougher opponents at least one was in there. Then Shaw and Bickell as regulars. Seabrook was not too soft back then. Finally they had Brookbank who played one game but at least was there to throw in had teams been mean to them.

I'm not saying Chicago was a tough team but still way tougher than Toronto.

 

[JaegerDice]

Carcillo played 4 games, Bollig 5. So most games against tougher opponents at least one was in there. Then Shaw and Bickell as regulars. Seabrook was not too soft back then. Finally they had Brookbank who played one game but at least was there to throw in had teams been mean to them.

I'm not saying Chicago was a tough team but still way tougher than Toronto.

2013 NHL Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals: CHI vs. LAK | Hockey-Reference.com

2013 NHL Stanley Cup Stanley Cup Final: BOS vs. CHI | Hockey-Reference.com

Carcillo did not dress for a game against either the Kings or the Bruins (the tough teams... unless you felt Minnesota and Detroit were the two tough teams Chicago played).

Bollig played 2 games against them, and I have to admit I can't remember the 2nd game. I just remember the game where his idiotic turnover in OT cost them a game. He never saw ice again after that in the series.

Brookbank wasn't going to get thrown in if teams were 'mean' to them, at least not if they wanted to win anything. He played cause Keith got suspended a game against the Kings, did fine, never saw ice again... even when the Blackhawks were down 2-1 against the Bruins. Wouldn't have that been the time to add 'toughness' to the lineup if it was needed? Instead, the Blackhawks doubled down on speed and skill.

Yes, the Blackhawks had Shaw and Bickell to hit guys, I guess. But Bickell was an impact player in that playoff run because he was scoring goals like a madman, not cause he was hitting people. Shaw, likewise, had some big goals. It wasn't their toughness that made them valuable in that series or playoff run, it was the fact that they outscored Boston's depth players as Chicago's top players were outscoring Boston's top players.

Toughness isn't worthless, but the right kind of toughness. The ability to take a hit to make a play, go into the corners with the puck and come out with it (or go in without it and get it, without taking a penalty), using your body to protect the puck, battling in front of the net, etc.

Hitting, fighting, post-whistle scrums, etc. That's all pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of winning hockey games when it matters.

 

[authentic]

Out of all of the Stanley cup contenders, leafs are probably the softest

Does it matter? Idk we will find out

Idk who is the toughest on the leafs? Kadri? Hainsey?

They gave up their tough guys Martin and Komarov

Hyman.

 

[authentic]

2013 NHL Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals: CHI vs. LAK | Hockey-Reference.com

2013 NHL Stanley Cup Stanley Cup Final: BOS vs. CHI | Hockey-Reference.com

Carcillo did not dress for a game against either the Kings or the Bruins (the tough teams... unless you felt Minnesota and Detroit were the two tough teams Chicago played).

Bollig played 2 games against them, and I have to admit I can't remember the 2nd game. I just remember the game where his idiotic turnover in OT cost them a game. He never saw ice again after that in the series.

Brookbank wasn't going to get thrown in if teams were 'mean' to them, at least not if they wanted to win anything. He played cause Keith got suspended a game against the Kings, did fine, never saw ice again... even when the Blackhawks were down 2-1 against the Bruins. Wouldn't have that been the time to add 'toughness' to the lineup if it was needed? Instead, the Blackhawks doubled down on speed and skill.

Yes, the Blackhawks had Shaw and Bickell to hit guys, I guess. But Bickell was an impact player in that playoff run because he was scoring goals like a madman, not cause he was hitting people. Shaw, likewise, had some big goals. It wasn't their toughness that made them valuable in that series or playoff run, it was the fact that they outscored Boston's depth players as Chicago's top players were outscoring Boston's top players.

Toughness isn't worthless, but the right kind of toughness. The ability to take a hit to make a play, go into the corners with the puck and come out with it (or go in without it and get it, without taking a penalty), using your body to protect the puck, battling in front of the net, etc.

Hitting, fighting, post-whistle scrums, etc. That's all pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of winning hockey games when it matters.

Exactly.

 

[Beukeboom]

2013 NHL Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals: CHI vs. LAK | Hockey-Reference.com

2013 NHL Stanley Cup Stanley Cup Final: BOS vs. CHI | Hockey-Reference.com

Carcillo did not dress for a game against either the Kings or the Bruins (the tough teams... unless you felt Minnesota and Detroit were the two tough teams Chicago played).

Bollig played 2 games against them, and I have to admit I can't remember the 2nd game. I just remember the game where his idiotic turnover in OT cost them a game. He never saw ice again after that in the series.

Brookbank wasn't going to get thrown in if teams were 'mean' to them, at least not if they wanted to win anything. He played cause Keith got suspended a game against the Kings, did fine, never saw ice again... even when the Blackhawks were down 2-1 against the Bruins. Wouldn't have that been the time to add 'toughness' to the lineup if it was needed? Instead, the Blackhawks doubled down on speed and skill.

Yes, the Blackhawks had Shaw and Bickell to hit guys, I guess. But Bickell was an impact player in that playoff run because he was scoring goals like a madman, not cause he was hitting people. Shaw, likewise, had some big goals. It wasn't their toughness that made them valuable in that series or playoff run, it was the fact that they outscored Boston's depth players as Chicago's top players were outscoring Boston's top players.

Toughness isn't worthless, but the right kind of toughness. The ability to take a hit to make a play, go into the corners with the puck and come out with it (or go in without it and get it, without taking a penalty), using your body to protect the puck, battling in front of the net, etc.

Hitting, fighting, post-whistle scrums, etc. That's all pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of winning hockey games when it matters.

I'll give you credit for a well researched comment, but still think Toronto is softer than Chicago was. They have no one in the line up and no one to dress even if they wanted. Another difference is the superior D, but that's besides the point here.

Over the last ten years it seems two kinds of teams win the whole thing. Either extremely talanted like Chicago/Pens or tougher and heavier like Boston/Kings. Those two combos are the ones we most often have seen in the finals. So I think a hard hitting, gritty play still can take you all the way. Needless to say you can't go to the finals without top end talent. That has never ever been the case. Even the Broad Street Bullies had future HOFers.

I think Toronto are way too soft and Bruins have completely ran them over twice so far this season, this second time despite injuries on key players.

 

[bionic]

I'll give you credit for a well researched comment, but still think Toronto is softer than Chicago was. They have no one in the line up and no one to dress even if they wanted. Another difference is the superior D, but that's besides the point here.

Over the last ten years it seems two kinds of teams win the whole thing. Either extremely talanted like Chicago/Pens or tougher and heavier like Boston/Kings. Those two combos are the ones we most often have seen in the finals. So I think a hard hitting, gritty play still can take you all the way. Needless to say you can't go to the finals without top end talent. That has never ever been the case. Even the Broad Street Bullies had future HOFers.

I think Toronto are way too soft and Bruins have completely ran them over twice so far this season, this second time despite injuries on key players.

What? Leafs we're not "run over" they came out flat last night and Freddy had a bad night in net. Were the Bruins run over when the Leafs beat them last game? Or last season when the leafs swept the season series against Boston?

 

[Pyrophorus]

There’s a reason why the bruins won those series

Two different series with a totally different cast of players.

 

[LeafShark]

Maybe if the officiating weren't so lopsided, there wouldn't be an apperance of a problem here.