Are the Leafs Tough Enough for Playoffs

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
The Bruins main advantage over the Canucks was toughness.
Nope. All comes down to injuries, refs, and Thomas.

Why did Boston get away with obvious infractions? Refs.
Why did Boston not get much push back from the cheap shots? Injuries.
Why could Vancouver not capitalize on the PPs they did get, negating the supposed "toughness" advantage? Injuries and Thomas.

Any other team but Boston would have been penalized significantly more, and most teams won't be completely decimated to that level and have to face an all-time goaltending performance. And it still took 7 games. Boston's win is not based on a repeatable formula, and had nothing to do with them being "tough". I'd rather build my team for sustainable success.
 

IPS

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
15,461
24,487
Okay so the first cup they won with heavy hard hitting hockey doesn't count then. Gotcha.
They won by being one of the most stacked teams of the cap era. Buffy played a key role in beating Vancouver via his net presence as a forward I'll give you that, but the identity that Quenville forged for the team was lightning fast puck movement, tons of puck support, and relentless pressuring via forechecking/backchecking. Lots of teams tried to bully them only to get bullied themselves on the scoreboard.
 

Spazkat

Registered User
Feb 19, 2015
4,361
2,277
This probably could have been included in one of the myriad of other leafs threads on the main board.

That said, watching Kadri get lit up is always an enjoyable pastime so it wasn't a complete waste.
 

GOilers88

Fer Da
Dec 24, 2016
14,167
20,652
They won by being one of the most stacked teams of the cap era. Buffy played a key role in beating Vancouver via his net presence as a forward I'll give you that, but the identity that Quenville forged for the team was lightning fast puck movement, tons of puck support, and relentless pressuring via forechecking/backchecking. Lots of teams tried to bully them only to get bullied themselves on the scoreboard.
When they won in 2013 they still had Seabrook, Carcillo, Smith, Mayers, Hayes, Bickell and Shaw. The fact is they were always a heavy team to play against. Yeah they had a couple of guys who flew around a la Kane, but let's not pretend they didn't still lean on the opposition, because they did.
 

GodEmperor

Registered User
Oct 12, 2017
2,919
3,168
Bruins toughness had NOTHING to do with their win, neither did the Leafs lack of it.

If toughness mattered so much, why did WPG get owned by Vegas???
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menzinger

MoreMogilny

Cap'n
Jul 5, 2009
33,481
7,825
Oshawa
Love some of the takes in this thread. It’s like people didn’t even watch the play.

Some definite foaming at the mouth happening here.

It’s a shame that cowardly act by Kadri contributed to the Leafs loss last night :(
 

BigGulpsEh

Registered User
Feb 20, 2017
3,113
2,205
Mcquaid would cave kadri’s face in with one punch. Kadri was smart to not try anything or else he would’ve been smashed to pieces
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
Okay so the first cup they won with heavy hard hitting hockey doesn't count then. Gotcha.
Chicago did not win in 2010 because of "heavy hard-hitting hockey". At all. :laugh:

They, like Detroit and Pittsburgh, let other teams flail their bodies around the ice, as they focused on the puck. No need to hit and scrum and take cheapshots when you have the puck.

Also, the question isn't "can you win with toughness", it's "can you win without "traditional toughness"", so even if you were right, it doesn't matter since they won other cups without it.
 

The List Of Jericho

Judas effect
Mar 1, 2002
18,024
3,500
Toronto
Let me start by saying that I don’t believe fighting is a deterrent.

I believe it to be an action that reflects a team that stands together and enables one to play with confidence.

So last night, this happened in the NYR vs Leafs game.



No one stood up for Kadri. Leafs have a great PP, McQuaid got 4 mins (though the NYR defended the PK successfully).

In the regular season, there is enough separation in talent to ensure that skill can beat toughness with enough frequency to get enough points to get into the post season.

Leafs don’t need a goon. Or really to do anything in order to make the post season.

But once they, and teams like them are there, it’s a different game.

In rounds 2-4, the teams left will also be skilled. With good PPs and PKs. Good goaltending. Probably similar puck systems.

Amongst two equal teams, does grit matter?
Does it really come down to winning puck battles and confidence?

That’s my question to the broader community.


He also cross checked Kadri twice in the back before that...Kadri was in no state to fight.
 

BostonBruins11

Registered User
Dec 4, 2010
1,941
1,453
Moncton, N.B.
SO because he didn't want to sit in the box for 5 minutes and take the 4 min PP, and because at the same time he wouldn't fight one of the toughest guys in the league, that makes him a *****? How many guys have fought guys Kadri has, no one else is expected to fight goons.

Maybe he shouldn't cross check goalies

Kadris a punk
 
  • Like
Reactions: FanSince72

ToDavid

Registered User
Dec 13, 2018
4,029
4,978
This probably could have been included in one of the myriad of other leafs threads on the main board.

That said, watching Kadri get lit up is always an enjoyable pastime so it wasn't a complete waste.

“Lit up”

Lol
 

easton117

Registered User
Nov 11, 2017
5,070
5,635
I seem to remember Buff, Bickell, Ladd, Brouwer, Boynton, Seabrook, Eager, Hjalmarsson and Burish being pretty physical players.
I also seemed to have a different version of history than many in this here spin thread.

Chicago, LA, Boston, Washington...even Pitt had guys that played hard along the walls.

The fancy pants kids rack up all the regular season glory. The guys who play ugly win cups.

Speed gets slower as the playoffs wear on. It’s inevitable with injuries and fatigue. Big and physical is always big and physical. Just the way it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bocephus86

Bedards Dad

I was in the pool!!
Nov 3, 2011
13,716
8,269
Toronto
He was literally released in mid air.

He literally spun, pulled karri then pushed him down when off balance.

But you know whats great, he could have punted him out of the arena and it means nothing. McQuaid is (and always has been) trash, his team is trash while Kadri and his Leafs are the 2nd best in the league.
 

Bocephus86

Registered User
Mar 2, 2011
6,166
3,664
Boston
Toughness is overrated now. Fighting & being tough hasn't really mattered since maybe the Bruins cup team? But standing up for a teammate does matter. You don't need to win a fight, you don't even really need to fight, but you can't let a team push you around without doing anything - at least rallying to hug the guy tossing your player around. Eventually not standing up gets demoralizing.

Doesn't really matter in the regular season but if you're teammates are getting ragdolled & pushed around in the playoffs, that gets old by game 3 & then people either over-respond with penalty or suspension type plays (looking at you Kadri) or the team just starts being flat. If you stand up to the physical play from the start, it can galvanize a team. Again, I'm not talking about fighting, I'm talking about guys rallying to a scrum to hold onto someone, at least.

Not to mention playing tough along the boards, that's a whole 'nother thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bertuzzzi44

Dr Quincy

Registered User
Jun 19, 2005
28,683
10,516
I also seemed to have a different version of history than many in this here spin thread.

Chicago, LA, Boston, Washington...even Pitt had guys that played hard along the walls.

The fancy pants kids rack up all the regular season glory. The guys who play ugly win cups.

Speed gets slower as the playoffs wear on. It’s inevitable with injuries and fatigue. Big and physical is always big and physical. Just the way it is.
The problem with this logic is that every other team in the NHL those same years had guys who could play hard against the walls. That's how pretty much every NHL roster is constructed. To say, "See, CHI winning it (or BOS or WAS) that shows that teams need to be big and tough to win" can be countered by picking the 4 bottom teams, naming some big tough players on them and saying "See, having big, tough guys on the roster doesn't work."

Correlation /= Causation. The reason BOS won had more to do with a historic performance by a goalie. LA was similar. PITT has 2 generational Cs. Ignoring all that to focus on Bryan Bickell or Chris Kunitz is misleading at the very least.
 

blankall

Registered User
Jul 4, 2007
14,935
5,263
Nope. All comes down to injuries, refs, and Thomas.

Why did Boston get away with obvious infractions? Refs.
Why did Boston not get much push back from the cheap shots? Injuries.
Why could Vancouver not capitalize on the PPs they did get, negating the supposed "toughness" advantage? Injuries and Thomas.

Any other team but Boston would have been penalized significantly more, and most teams won't be completely decimated to that level and have to face an all-time goaltending performance. And it still took 7 games. Boston's win is not based on a repeatable formula, and had nothing to do with them being "tough". I'd rather build my team for sustainable success.
It was a conspiracy by the refs to let Boston win? That was playoff hockey back then. There were also a lot of penalty calls in that series.

After the Rome hit on Horton the Bruins leaned into the Canucks, who had no way to answer. A large part of the Canucks strategy was to use pests to draw penalties so that the Sedins could cycle on the PP. The Bruins physical style negated that strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aeroforce
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->