Line Combos: Leafs' biggest need?

[keonsbitterness]

Ya, I would love to know what hold Dubas has over Shanny

Nothing. It's the other way around. Shanny believes in Dubas.

 

[Bluelines]

Can you link me to the part that indicates the promotion leads to a job that is considerably different from the original position?

@egd27 ever hear of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

 

[Zybalto]

You are essentially making my argument. Cooper reacted logically Keefe did not.

• Cooper identified the threat of Danault against his top offensive players so he kept them away from Danault, Keefe could have and should have done that done that. Road games is not easy but at home you should be able to control the matchups.
• Cooper identified the weakness of Caufield's defensive game and matched up his best offensive players against him. Why do you think Caufield started 90% of his shifts in offensive zone? because Ducharme knew he was a liability defensively at this stage of his career too.
• Why do you think Caufield didn't play game 1 and 2 vs Leafs? because Ducharme was scared of getting him stuck out there against Matthews and Marner. By Game 5 Ducharme had to roll the dice and Keefe made his life easy by not exploiting his last change advantage.
• The reason Danault had less Ozone starts against Tampa is they are way better and Danault was essentially taking every D zone draw as he would use 2 centres to have Danault out there for every d zone draw
• Price played real well but he is not the only reason they won
• Ducharme deserves a ton of credit for devising a game plan to beat a more talented opponent albeit Keefe made is job easier.
• Outworked? Habs were many things in that series but outworked isn't one of them.

Flipping goalies may change the result? Flipping coaches would IMO

Danault spent so much of his time away from Point/Kuch at the start of the series that one can only surmise that it was a deliberate attempt by the Habs to use him in pure defensive situations against a deep Bolts team. Its why I referenced the Tavares injury is that it killed the need to spread out the best defensive players and the injury also handcuffed Keefe in that he was going to send out Matthews/Marner if they needed to score as their big two lines were no more. Even taking out all the time Danault spent on double faceoff duty, his ozonestarts are so still so ridiculously low that he was obviously being thrown out there in the worst circumstances instead of the straight line matching. Danault is also actually an underrated point producer when you look at his assist totals so I'll throw out a stat to sort of kill some of the narratives:

Matthews/Marner dominated the Danault matchup line in almost every way. They dominated possession, dominated shots and in the end, despite Danault holding the opposition to only 1.69 5v5 goals/60, Danault ending up being the only regular player in the series to be on for 0 5v5 goals for. A -1.69 5v5 goals against/60 is really not a great performance (Danault was even against the Bolts for example). If Price wasnt throwing up a .950 against that Leafs top duo (with a number of stellar saves), I'm not sure any of us would be talking about how "good" Danault was. (I do really like Danault though and he performed much better the rest of the playoffs but he was up against the nightmare that is Matthews/Marner)

If you wanna talk team, the big problem was that some of our depth players didnt perform to expectations and our bottom pairing was pretty awful, whether it was Sandin not quite ready for primetime with the worst numbers on the team, Dermott with an awful giveaway to get the Habs the game 6 OT win or Bogo having been on for 6 of the Habs 9 5v5 goals they managed in the series.

I think you are really selling Price short as he was good even in the Habs losses in the series. He was so positionally sound that he was making tough saves look routine and combining though with the odd acrobatic save. Looked like a completely different keeper from the regular season where half the Habs board was calling for his head and for Jake Allen to replace him much of the season.

Gernerally, I think the harder working team tends to dominate possession/shots/scoring chances. I mean, how else do we even look at that sort of thing. The only person on the Habs to work harder than his Leafs counterpart was Price as he had to face 40 more shots in the series and more difficult ones at that.

and Ducharme's game plan doesnt seem apparent to me.....

Hope one of the Leafs big four takes an injury + get outshot and outchanced the whole series + hope Price does a complete turnaround from the regular season (including against the Leafs) and stands on his head?

The good news from the series is that the top 4 D were solid (the Muzzin injury was another key), Matthews/Marner tilted the ice whenever they were on and Campbell was overall steady in the net for the series. The Leafs also ranked as having the best team D in the first round and have been consistently ranked as having one the better team D systems in the NHL since Keefe came on board. This is a really good thing going forward.

Anything can happen in the playoffs though, its just hoping things align perfectly for your team each year. The Leafs are gonna be in the mix again for the forseeable future so lets hope we can get a few bounces in our direction for once. Can you name a good break the team has received the last half decade? a key injury/suspension to the OTHER team? OUR goalie going on a tear?

Could the Leafs win a cup this year? Sure. The core is that good. Could Tampa three-peat? Yup. Will some team come out of nowhere and go on a cinderella run? Probably. It's the playoffs and anything can happen......maybe even a few good things for us this year.

 

[egd27]

You're welcome to read the book or the research that's been conducted on this, if you're looking to better understand it. Examples include teachers becoming principals, or salespeople becoming managers, despite lacking the necessary skills for those considerably different positions. It does not apply to a coach becoming a coach for a slightly higher competitive level, which has been the pathway for every coach we have in the NHL.

I've actually read the book, though it was probably 30+ years ago.

I'm specifically looking for you to provide a link to support your assertion that indicates a promotion leads to a job that is considerably different from the original position as opposed to just requiring different skills.

 

[Bluelines]

You're welcome to read the book or the research that's been conducted on this, if you're looking to better understand it. Examples include teachers becoming principals, or salespeople becoming managers, despite lacking the necessary skills for those considerably different positions. It does not apply to a coach becoming a coach for a slightly higher competitive level, which has been the pathway for every coach we have in the NHL.

LOL, you googled it for examples... Jebus .. I guess if I want your opinion I will google it

So you are saying the same tactics (skills) used by any coach will apply at any level. So my skills/experience are able to motivate Pee Wee players, that is that is all that is the peak of my skill level. But you are saying no matter the level of experience, as a coach its all the same, therefore my skills are equal to Scotty Bowman. You are saying that a coach is a coach is a coach. Can a coach eventually top out at lets say the AHL level or are all coaches in teh AHL able to be good coaches in the NHL?

 

[egd27]

@egd27 ever hear of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

 

[Bluelines]

I'm always fascinated how people can succinctly fit into categories on a page in a text book. We are not as unique as we think we are I guess. I would love a Psychologist to crack my code...

 

[Racer88]

Nothing. It's the other way around. Shanny believes in Dubas.

I thought Shanny was smarter then that. Shanny had so much promise for the first part of the Shanaplan

 

[Racer88]

@egd27 ever hear of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

No but I know about Freddie Kruger

 

[egd27]

I'm always fascinated how people can succinctly fit into categories on a page in a text book. We are not as unique as we think we are I guess. I would love a Psychologist to crack my code...

Not married? My wife explains me to me at least a couple of times a week.

 

[Bluelines]

Not married? My wife explains me to me at least a couple of times a week.

28 years and counting. She knows better than to try that.

The old saying was if it was not for marriage men would go through life thinking they are right.

 

[Bluelines]

No but I know about Freddie Kruger

Yup ... he was a great lead singer and had a great lip duster...

 

[egd27]

28 years and counting. She knows better than to try that.

The old saying was if it was not for marriage men would go through life thinking they are right.

Maybe that explains a few things.

 

[CDN24]

Danault spent so much of his time away from Point/Kuch at the start of the series that one can only surmise that it was a deliberate attempt by the Habs to use him in pure defensive situations against a deep Bolts team. Its why I referenced the Tavares injury is that it killed the need to spread out the best defensive players and the injury also handcuffed Keefe in that he was going to send out Matthews/Marner if they needed to score as their big two lines were no more. Even taking out all the time Danault spent on double faceoff duty, his ozonestarts are so still so ridiculously low that he was obviously being thrown out there in the worst circumstances instead of the straight line matching. Danault is also actually an underrated point producer when you look at his assist totals so I'll throw out a stat to sort of kill some of the narratives:

Matthews/Marner dominated the Danault matchup line in almost every way. They dominated possession, dominated shots and in the end, despite Danault holding the opposition to only 1.69 5v5 goals/60, Danault ending up being the only regular player in the series to be on for 0 5v5 goals for. A -1.69 5v5 goals against/60 is really not a great performance (Danault was even against the Bolts for example). If Price wasnt throwing up a .950 against that Leafs top duo (with a number of stellar saves), I'm not sure any of us would be talking about how "good" Danault was. (I do really like Danault though and he performed much better the rest of the playoffs but he was up against the nightmare that is Matthews/Marner)

If you wanna talk team, the big problem was that some of our depth players didnt perform to expectations and our bottom pairing was pretty awful, whether it was Sandin not quite ready for primetime with the worst numbers on the team, Dermott with an awful giveaway to get the Habs the game 6 OT win or Bogo having been on for 6 of the Habs 9 5v5 goals they managed in the series.

I think you are really selling Price short as he was good even in the Habs losses in the series. He was so positionally sound that he was making tough saves look routine and combining though with the odd acrobatic save. Looked like a completely different keeper from the regular season where half the Habs board was calling for his head and for Jake Allen to replace him much of the season.

Gernerally, I think the harder working team tends to dominate possession/shots/scoring chances. I mean, how else do we even look at that sort of thing. The only person on the Habs to work harder than his Leafs counterpart was Price as he had to face 40 more shots in the series and more difficult ones at that.

and Ducharme's game plan doesnt seem apparent to me.....

Hope one of the Leafs big four takes an injury + get outshot and outchanced the whole series + hope Price does a complete turnaround from the regular season (including against the Leafs) and stands on his head?

The good news from the series is that the top 4 D were solid (the Muzzin injury was another key), Matthews/Marner tilted the ice whenever they were on and Campbell was overall steady in the net for the series. The Leafs also ranked as having the best team D in the first round and have been consistently ranked as having one the better team D systems in the NHL since Keefe came on board. This is a really good thing going forward.

Anything can happen in the playoffs though, its just hoping things align perfectly for your team each year. The Leafs are gonna be in the mix again for the forseeable future so lets hope we can get a few bounces in our direction for once. Can you name a good break the team has received the last half decade? a key injury/suspension to the OTHER team? OUR goalie going on a tear?

Could the Leafs win a cup this year? Sure. The core is that good. Could Tampa three-peat? Yup. Will some team come out of nowhere and go on a cinderella run? Probably. It's the playoffs and anything can happen......maybe even a few good things for us this year.

Gonna have to agree to disagree. Did you watch game one of the finals? It wasn't for lack of trying to get Danault line against Point and Kucherov. Cooper was avoiding it. with last change he could ensure Kucherov line did not start against Danault. Whenever Danault got on that line got off. When Suzuki line got on Kucherov Point got on. They dominated that matchup. Suzuki line much better in game 2 defencivly but trying to contain Point Kucherov neutered their own offense.

I would not say that Matthews/Marner dominated the matchup. In the regular season they had a GF% of 3.74 and 3.67/60 respectively. Danault line was tasked with limiting their damage, the plan being limit what those 2 can do and see if Habs depth can eek out 4 wins against the rest. That's what they did, they weren't there to score, they were there to limit the Leafs top players and they did significantly limit them, especially after replacing Tatar with Evans on that line for games 5/6/7.

Depth players did not play up to expectations, I would argue they did and Leafs almost won the series because of them not despite them. You used GF/60 above. 12 Leafs had a better GF/60 than Marner and Matthews. all but 1 of them, Bogosian, had a GF% above 50%. They seemed to be able to score on Price in limited minutes. The problem was the Mtl game plan to limit Matthews and Marner and that plan focused on Danault Gallagher and Evans limiting the damage. Thing is in game 5 and 7 he should have been able to keep them away from that matchup but chose not to. It is like he could not or would not adjust his game plan and really only thought loosing was possible when Game 7 was already decided. Mtl probably executed quite the rope a dope on Keefe in all honesty.

 

[Racer88]

Yup ... he was a great lead singer and had a great lip duster...

Close but Freddie Mercury.
Hahahaha I missed your winky face……well played

 

[Zybalto]

Gonna have to agree to disagree. Did you watch game one of the finals? It wasn't for lack of trying to get Danault line against Point and Kucherov. Cooper was avoiding it. with last change he could ensure Kucherov line did not start against Danault. Whenever Danault got on that line got off. When Suzuki line got on Kucherov Point got on. They dominated that matchup. Suzuki line much better in game 2 defencivly but trying to contain Point Kucherov neutered their own offense.

I would not say that Matthews/Marner dominated the matchup. In the regular season they had a GF% of 3.74 and 3.67/60 respectively. Danault line was tasked with limiting their damage, the plan being limit what those 2 can do and see if Habs depth can eek out 4 wins against the rest. That's what they did, they weren't there to score, they were there to limit the Leafs top players and they did significantly limit them, especially after replacing Tatar with Evans on that line for games 5/6/7.

Depth players did not play up to expectations, I would argue they did and Leafs almost won the series because of them not despite them. You used GF/60 above. 12 Leafs had a better GF/60 than Marner and Matthews. all but 1 of them, Bogosian, had a GF% above 50%. They seemed to be able to score on Price in limited minutes. The problem was the Mtl game plan to limit Matthews and Marner and that plan focused on Danault Gallagher and Evans limiting the damage. Thing is in game 5 and 7 he should have been able to keep them away from that matchup but chose not to. It is like he could not or would not adjust his game plan and really only thought loosing was possible when Game 7 was already decided. Mtl probably executed quite the rope a dope on Keefe in all honesty.

Ill agree to disagree on the coach thing but I gotta push back a bit on the top lines vs depth argument.

I'm probably a little bigger fan of Danault than most folks around here and was singing his praises far before the series as he was maybe the most underrated playmaker in the league last year. While not a great goalscorer, his 5v5 primary assists/60 ranked 3rd in the league among all centers with at last 700 minutes played ahead of guys like Drasaitl, Matthews and Barkov all while being as good a shutdown center as any in the league. Its why, despite his tough usage he still ended up with a near 60% GF% on the year.

Did he shut down Matthews or did Matthews shut him down?...

 

[Al14]

I think a change to our core is the way to go !!! Getting something for greedy Marner would be my preference !!! He is not worth his contract, and likely never will be.

 

[ShaneFalco]

Maybe that explains a few things.

Tee hee

 

[Dekes For Days]

LOL, you googled it for examples...

Actually, I named things discussed within the book itself, and in the research done on the principle. If you're going to reference a principle, it's important to actually understand the situations in which it is applicable.

No, you are not equal to Scotty Bowman. No, coaching in peewee and the NHL is not the same thing. You have repeatedly misrepresented the things that I have said, even though I have been very clear in my explanations. An AHL champion coach moving up one level to an NHL coach does not require such a significantly different skillset that the Peter principle would apply.

Some coaches that are good at lower levels will not be successful at higher levels, but that would still not mean that they were hired for unjustified reasons. Moving up through lower leagues is how all NHL coaches become NHL coaches. Toronto had plenty of time to understand the skillsets Keefe has, and Keefe has done well in his jump to the NHL so far.

You have brought nothing to support the idea that the Keefe hire wasn't justified, or that he does not have the skills to be an NHL coach. You have just arbitrarily concluded that a coach you dislike was unsuitable for the NHL because you personally disagree with some of his decisions - including ones that have legitimate justifications, and ones that are not even uncommon in the NHL.

 

[firstemperor]

Hard to name one thing....we have such an unlikeable team from top to bottom.

 

[Bluelines]

Actually, I named things discussed within the book itself, and in the research done on the principle. If you're going to reference a principle, it's important to actually understand the situations in which it is applicable.

No, you are not equal to Scotty Bowman. No, coaching in peewee and the NHL is not the same thing. You have repeatedly misrepresented the things that I have said, even though I have been very clear in my explanations. An AHL champion coach moving up one level to an NHL coach does not require such a significantly different skillset that the Peter principle would apply.

Some coaches that are good at lower levels will not be successful at higher levels, but that would still not mean that they were hired for unjustified reasons. Moving up through lower leagues is how all NHL coaches become NHL coaches. Toronto had plenty of time to understand the skillsets Keefe has, and Keefe has done well in his jump to the NHL so far.

You have brought nothing to support the idea that the Keefe hire wasn't justified, or that he does not have the skills to be an NHL coach. You have just arbitrarily concluded that a coach you dislike was unsuitable for the NHL because you personally disagree with some of his decisions - including ones that have legitimate justifications, and ones that are not even uncommon in the NHL.

With you its like we can get you to the pond but just cant make that thirsty horse drink.

Keefe is a Calder winning coach because that team was stacked, not because he made great coaching decisions. Him being a Calder winning coach because of a stacked team is not the qualifier for a NHL coaching gig that you think it is. Conveniently you forget the day he was hired as the Marlies coach he was considered Babcock's replacement. In effect Dubas hired a OHL coach to coach with zero pro coaching experience to coach the Leafs.

The coaching decisions that I disagree with are to people with hockey experience easy to identify mistakes. It's like bunting with the bases loaded, you just don't do it. It's not arbitrary, it's for people with experience an easily recognizable cheap OHL parlor trick.

Keefes glide path to the NHL was because he Knew Dubas from the Sault, not merit.

You;ve poorly debated thsi point, a number of other posters have pointed out your logical fallacies. If you cant do any better next time, just do you and I an favor and don't waste my time with another blah blah blah reply.

I'm getting the impression that you would argue the value of 25 cents.

 

[PromisedLand]

is AHL goalie coach on the menu?

 

[Azail]

All of the above, and don't forget new GM and new Pres ???

I forgot we finished in the bottom 10 last year.

Blow the team up.

 

[Maple Leaf]

Trade for Kadri and Domi and we got a stew going​

 

[ShaneFalco]

I forgot we finished in the bottom 10 last year.

Blow the team up.

No but don't squander an excellent opportunity to actually to do something because of a short sighted gm set in his ways despite never having been a GM in the NHL previously