Do we intimidate anyone?

Do teams want to avoid Toronto?


  • Total voters
    141

Bluelines

Python FTW!
Nov 17, 2013
12,349
4,559
I'm not confused in the least. And you are curiously leaving offence out of the picture. Why is that, I wonder?

Use whatever adjective you wish about the Leafs goals against rating, but Montreal is not tough, they don't score a lot, and they're not good defensively themselves -- so I'm really not sure why you'd be so confident they'd be able to beat a much more skilled team.

They may not be tough but they are competitive with us, the two game's that we have played have both gone to OT. Any team that has Price in nets is IMO a dangerous team. We are not far removed from the time where Price was considered the greatest player in hockey, Price has the ability to carry that team on his back.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,365
13,106
Toronto, Ontario
I'm not confused in the least. And you are curiously leaving offence out of the picture. Why is that, I wonder?

Use whatever adjective you wish about the Leafs goals against rating, but Montreal is not tough, they don't score a lot, and they're not good defensively themselves -- so I'm really not sure why you'd be so confident they'd be able to beat a much more skilled team.

I'm not at all confident they could beat Toronto, in fact, I said I didn't think Montreal should even be in the playoffs at all.

What I said was that if I had to pick up a match up, it would be Toronto. You are saying Montreal is not tough and don't score a lot, which is exactly the reason I have cited (multiple times) for wanting to play Toronto because they are not good defensively and soft, the exact things you would want if your team is not tough and doesn't score enough. I'm not sure which part of this is confusing you.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
No the team with a suspect defense and no physicality is their best match up.

Montreal shouldn't even be in the playoffs at all, the roster has holes and issues, but if there's a team I think they match up with best over a seven game series among the playoff teams in the East, it's easily the Toronto Maple Leafs.

as of now, based on pts%, you're lined up to play the Islanders first round.

I'd stick with that matchup, myself.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
I'm not at all confident they could beat Toronto, in fact, I said I didn't think Montreal should even be in the playoffs at all.

What I said was that if I had to pick up a match up, it would be Toronto. You are saying Montreal is not tough and don't score a lot, which is exactly the reason I have cited (multiple times) for wanting to play Toronto because they are not good defensively and soft, the exact things you would want if your team is not tough and doesn't score enough. I'm not sure which part of this is confusing you.

Do you know what confusing means? I'm starting to think maybe you don't.

could just as easily say that since any team would be as good or better than Montreal defensively, why not pick one with a less potent offence than the Leafs?
 

RLF

Registered User
May 5, 2014
3,303
890
I'm not at all confident they could beat Toronto, in fact, I said I didn't think Montreal should even be in the playoffs at all.

What I said was that if I had to pick up a match up, it would be Toronto. You are saying Montreal is not tough and don't score a lot, which is exactly the reason I have cited (multiple times) for wanting to play Toronto because they are not good defensively and soft, the exact things you would want if your team is not tough and doesn't score enough. I'm not sure which part of this is confusing you.

Unless I am wrong, you are saying it is your opinion that The Leafs are Montreal's best match up, but not saying they will necessarily beat The Leafs. It seems you are even saying the Leafs are the better team overall. Not sure if I agree it's the best match-up, but if it is just your opinion based on what you see and feel, there is nothing "confusing" about it. There is no real right or wrong here.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,365
13,106
Toronto, Ontario
Do you know what confusing means? I'm starting to think maybe you don't.

could just as easily say that since any team would be as good or better than Montreal defensively, why not pick one with a less potent offence than the Leafs?

Any team would be as good or better defensively than Montreal, but only Toronto could be equally as bad and only Toronto ices a defence that Montreal can exploit with speed and forechecking better than any other option, so it's an easy choice. If you look at the game last weekend, Montreal keyed on a few defenders (for example, they repeatedly dumped in or carried in on Jake Gardiner's side every time he was on the ice and he was heavily pressured, and often made ill-considered passes as a result) and it proved quite effective. Montreal outshot the Maple Leafs throughout, and if you factor in blocked shots, they directed significantly more shots on goal. They also out skated Toronto from buzzer to buzzer and repeatedly backed up that defense, and that was with their best skater and faster skater not even in the lineup. As a match up, I think it's the best one they could get.

The Maple Leafs offence is clearly better, but the track record for that offence in the playoffs is not quite solidified and, all things considered, I don't find it terribly scary, particularly the way power play is currently performing and particularly because while the offence is quite talented, outside of Nazem Kadri, it has no push-back at all and in the playoffs, that proves to be an even bigger problem. As such, the Maple Leafs softness, more than anything, is why I would pick them as a first round match up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cobra777

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,365
13,106
Toronto, Ontario
Unless I am wrong, you are saying it is your opinion that The Leafs are Montreal's best match up, but not saying they will necessarily beat The Leafs. It seems you are even saying the Leafs are the better team overall. Not sure if I agree it's the best match-up, but if it is just your opinion based on what you see and feel, there is nothing "confusing" about it. There is no real right or wrong here.

The Leafs are unquestionably a better team overall and certainly should be able to beat the Canadiens in a seven game series.

All I'm saying is that if I had to pick a team that I think the Canadiens had the best chance of beating in a seven game series of all the current playoff teams, I'd select the Maple Leafs as their best chance, for the reasons I have cited.
 

RLF

Registered User
May 5, 2014
3,303
890
The Leafs are unquestionably a better team overall and certainly should be able to beat the Canadiens in a seven game series.

All I'm saying is that if I had to pick a team that I think the Canadiens had the best chance of beating in a seven game series of all the current playoff teams, I'd select the Maple Leafs as their best chance, for the reasons I have cited.

Did I miss something? Is that not what I said?
 

Not My Tempo

Registered User
Feb 22, 2015
3,711
3,794
Toronto
Lol no one was afraid of the Hawks either. In 2013 HFboard overwhelmingly picked the Kings and the Bruins to beat the Hawks because they Hawks didn’t play physical. After the Hawks won the cup, Pens fans convinced themselves that would would have won if they beat Boston because “they match up better against the Hawks). This was arguably after they had completely dominating regulars season, having 77 points in 48 games, winning the PT. It’s just a bias that persists in hockey culture. Whenever you talk to someone about the 2013 Leafs team, they probably bring up the fourth line first or talk about how we had the most fights in the NHL. No one ever mentions Kadri’s breakout season. I like I assume the majority of you guys grew up playing hockey and being told that the right way to play is by being physical, blocking shot, grinding in the corner etc...So when people see teams like the 2013 Hawks or the Leafs not play that way, it looks like they’re not very good. Just my two cents
 

ToneDog

56 years and counting. #FireTheShanaClan!
Jun 11, 2017
24,265
22,727
Richmond Hill, ON
Lol no one was afraid of the Hawks either. In 2013 HFboard overwhelmingly picked the Kings and the Bruins to beat the Hawks because they Hawks didn’t play physical. After the Hawks won the cup, Pens fans convinced themselves that would would have won if they beat Boston because “they match up better against the Hawks). This was arguably after they had completely dominating regulars season, having 77 points in 48 games, winning the PT. It’s just a bias that persists in hockey culture. Whenever you talk to someone about the 2013 Leafs team, they probably bring up the fourth line first or talk about how we had the most fights in the NHL. No one ever mentions Kadri’s breakout season. I like I assume the majority of you guys grew up playing hockey and being told that the right way to play is by being physical, blocking shot, grinding in the corner etc...So when people see teams like the 2013 Hawks or the Leafs not play that way, it looks like they’re not very good. Just my two cents

You may want to check the 2012-13 Blackhawks roster and.or compare against our s before saying Hawks were not a physical team.

Bickell, Bollig, Saad, Oduya, Carcillo, Mayers, Shaw, Keith, Seabrook, Kruger.

I do not see any Goats, Pars, Nylanders, Matthews, Gardiners etc. on that team.

While you are at it have a look at the size of that team.

2012-13 Chicago Blackhawks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cobra777

Trapper

Registered User
Nov 21, 2013
23,959
11,437
You may want to check the 2012-13 Blackhawks roster and.or compare against our s before saying Hawks were not a physical team.

Bickell, Bollig, Saad, Oduya, Carcillo, Mayers, Shaw, Keith, Seabrook, Kruger.

I do not see any Goats, Pars, Nylanders, Matthews, Gardiners etc. on that team.

While you are at it have a look at the size of that team.

2012-13 Chicago Blackhawks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com
Big Buff was also playing forward for them in their first Cup.

Do people think we are saying to get rid of Nylander (or whoever) to bring in Milan Lucic? That’s not what we’re saying.

We need another Kadri in the top 6 or a Johnsson who is 200 lbs and can play like Hyman.
Hyman plays in the top 6, he forechecks hard, he is defensively responsible, he is one of the few Leafs who pushes back in scrums. If he had a little more offense he’s very Oshie like.

A Johnsson/Hyman hybrid on with Matthews and a solid top 4 RHD to start.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
Any team would be as good or better defensively than Montreal, but only Toronto could be equally as bad and only Toronto ices a defence that Montreal can exploit with speed and forechecking better than any other option, so it's an easy choice. If you look at the game last weekend, Montreal keyed on a few defenders (for example, they repeatedly dumped in or carried in on Jake Gardiner's side every time he was on the ice and he was heavily pressured, and often made ill-considered passes as a result) and it proved quite effective. Montreal outshot the Maple Leafs throughout, and if you factor in blocked shots, they directed significantly more shots on goal. They also out skated Toronto from buzzer to buzzer and repeatedly backed up that defense, and that was with their best skater and faster skater not even in the lineup. As a match up, I think it's the best one they could get.

The Maple Leafs offence is clearly better, but the track record for that offence in the playoffs is not quite solidified and, all things considered, I don't find it terribly scary, particularly the way power play is currently performing and particularly because while the offence is quite talented, outside of Nazem Kadri, it has no push-back at all and in the playoffs, that proves to be an even bigger problem. As such, the Maple Leafs softness, more than anything, is why I would pick them as a first round match up.

yes I got all that already.

you're making an awfully big meal out of one regular season game there -- a game you lost, by the way, simply because the Leafs have more talent. maybe you think there is some other gear for the Canadiens than what you saw in that game? I can assure you having watched them all season the Leafs certainly have one. not so sure your team can play a lot better than that.

secondly, the softness thing is a) largely a narrative(the Leafs did not lose in the playoffs the last two seasons because they're soft) and b) not something your team would be in any position to exploit from what I've seen.

anyway, I'm not challenging your right to an opinion. My belief is a team with less skill to exploit Montreal's weaker D and ordinary forward lineup would be a better matchup for you guys. but whatever.
 

FraumBallard

Registered User
Dec 9, 2018
980
407
Do you know what confusing means? I'm starting to think maybe you don't.

could just as easily say that since any team would be as good or better than Montreal defensively, why not pick one with a less potent offence than the Leafs?
Maybe because no team is as
soft as ours?
I think that's true.
Look.
I said that without being rude
or condescending.
Try it sometime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cobra777 and dsred

FraumBallard

Registered User
Dec 9, 2018
980
407
yes I got all that already.

you're making an awfully big meal out of one regular season game there -- a game you lost, by the way, simply because the Leafs have more talent. maybe you think there is some other gear for the Canadiens than what you saw in that game? I can assure you having watched them all season the Leafs certainly have one. not so sure your team can play a lot better than that.

secondly, the softness thing is a) largely a narrative(the Leafs did not lose in the playoffs the last two seasons because they're soft) and b) not something your team would be in any position to exploit from what I've seen.

anyway, I'm not challenging your right to an opinion. My belief is a team with less skill to exploit Montreal's weaker D and ordinary forward lineup would be a better matchup for you guys. but whatever.
We are super soft.
Softest team in the league.
By a mile.
 

Not My Tempo

Registered User
Feb 22, 2015
3,711
3,794
Toronto
You may want to check the 2012-13 Blackhawks roster and.or compare against our s before saying Hawks were not a physical team.

Bickell, Bollig, Saad, Oduya, Carcillo, Mayers, Shaw, Keith, Seabrook, Kruger.

I do not see any Goats, Pars, Nylanders, Matthews, Gardiners etc. on that team.

While you are at it have a look at the size of that team.

2012-13 Chicago Blackhawks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com
They were also last in the league in hits.

Out of the guys you mentioned, Saad and Kruger aren’t physical, like at all. Keith is only physical when he’s hacking away with his stick. Carrillo and Mayers never played in the playoffs.

And you’re saying all this in hindsight. Hawks fans were so sick of hearing about physicality that after they won the cup they had this post on their board:
The Myth of Physical Teams Bullying the Hawks
 

FraumBallard

Registered User
Dec 9, 2018
980
407
No. I think their talent outworked the talent of the opponent.

I think they played a hard game and played it with confidence.

That’s grit.

It’s not played on a spreadsheet so I understand that recent hockey fans won’t necessarily understand.
Brilliant.
I can't like posts for some reason.
So.
I LOVE this post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pookie

Not My Tempo

Registered User
Feb 22, 2015
3,711
3,794
Toronto
Big Buff was also playing forward for them in their first Cup.

Do people think we are saying to get rid of Nylander (or whoever) to bring in Milan Lucic? That’s not what we’re saying.

We need another Kadri in the top 6 or a Johnsson who is 200 lbs and can play like Hyman.
Hyman plays in the top 6, he forechecks hard, he is defensively responsible, he is one of the few Leafs who pushes back in scrums. If he had a little more offense he’s very Oshie like.

A Johnsson/Hyman hybrid on with Matthews and a solid top 4 RHD to start.
There no arguments from me here because all you’re saying is that we need players who are good because they are physical, which I have no problem with. But I don’t think being physical is a requirement to being good.
 

FraumBallard

Registered User
Dec 9, 2018
980
407
Hitting is not necessary every time but engaging the puck carrier is always the better option, it forces them to make decisions faster, it forces them to make passes they don't want to make. I'm always of the mind set to make who ever has my puck life miserable. I am the guy who hacks the back of your leg, chops the top of your skates, hack your gloves on face offs, things that rarely get called but are extremely effective. Fly byes are giving the other guy a free pass, you have my puck you better believe I'm making your life miserable until you give it up.
Well said.
Who are these people who don't understand the very basics about hockey.
Ugh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cobra777

Cams

Registered User
May 27, 2008
1,478
572
Windsor, ON
Feel exhausted reading through all of this to simply say an addition like Josh Anderson, Austin Watson (on ice, not off ice issues), Wayne Simmons would add so much to this lineup - these are your present day Gary Roberts, Darcy Tucker, Shanahan, Neely type players, and are so few and far between. The cost is too high unfortunately, or we can assume so. Nobody is saying they need to add a Colton Orr - mind you I do miss those days.

Need 1 more physical presence on D as well. Not sure what complementary type Dmen are available that fit this need, nor what their cost would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cobra777

FraumBallard

Registered User
Dec 9, 2018
980
407
the idea that these other teams being mentioned hit opponents at every opportunity is....untrue.
Here's a surprise for you.
I agree.
The whole league is trending heavily toward no hitting.
Don't ask for numbers.
I just watch.
It makes the game so much worse.
Tortorella is right.
There is no hate/emotion/passion/intensity.
You are correct though.
 

Papa Mocha 15

I love the smell of ice in the morning.
Nov 27, 2008
3,870
825
Hanging with Brad Doty.
how about you try typing out a proper sentence? Or perhaps, like mathematics, you find that beneath you and a waste of your time?

maybe I'd take your ignorant opinions more seriously then.

I thought it was rather poetic. If you read it as prose it seems to suggest a high level of intelligence

One would hang on the end of the 1st line because you would expect a powerful word and it is "soft". Totally didn't expect that.

"I said that without being rude almost seems like an end of a sentence but then it goes deeper because the next line is "or condescending". It's like a literary 1-2. If you look beyond the surface it was pretty clever.

It's at the quantum level of literary math because of the level of insight. Genius.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad