Conspiracy Theorist
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2016
- 5,670
- 1,907
It's definitely a big advantage if you have grit to go along with skill. That's how Washington made it past Tampa.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.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.
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.
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 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.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.
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
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.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.
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?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.
There’s a reason why the bruins won those series