The Dave Hakstol Effect

stuart5035

Registered User
Apr 9, 2017
328
338
I never thought I’d post twice within days but I came across an article today that both excites me, yet annoys me......

In my other recent post I deplored the ineffective offensive zone presence of our Leafs-I have been frustrated all year watching them skate around the periphery of the slot, endlessly turning the puck over because of ineffective shots from way out, never really exerting pressure in the high scoring areas (I even wondered if it was just my imagination that opponents seemed to be far more dangerous in our end, despite CORSI being on our side). Especially frustrated with this poor offensive play because of unending media comments about our offensive talent.

Then along comes today’s article:
It’s a must read I believe: Go to “hockey writers.com” and click on “Maple Leafs offence, not defence, causing concern”. Then read about the Dave Hakstol effect.

I’m left wondering:
1-If it is that simple, why hasn’t it been addressed? Once a problem is identified, a solution should be forthcoming. Why was this guy hired in the first place, if it’s accurate?
2- They are well aware of it but lack the personnel (the grit, the will) to go to the sweet spots, and have reverted to a “periphery “ offence.
3-Other teams know it and simply tell their five players to form a wall around the sweet spots (it always seems the Leafs face an impenetrable defensive wall in front of the opponents goal, at least to me, and that hopeless shot from a distance is easily blocked and turned over).
4-Is what’s missing here a few less Travis Moore types (good heart but so small) and a few more Josh Anderson’s (a bulldog) and a willingness to attack the slot? And go to the boards and hit?
5-Is this more over-coaching and “systems” instead of letting the forwards ad lib?

Just my take, and a little excitement at what may be an answer to a Leaf ailment. I realize the sample size is small, but it sure explains a lot, I think. However, there are others more knowledgeable than me, perhaps I’m a little naive here to be excited at what I see as a possible answer to our offensive woes (I think I read today that we are like 19th now on the power play, not even top 10 in offence.) But if it has merit, why isn’t it being addressed? Is it that stubborn mule of a coach? And I realize this could be all for naught as the Leafs rise to new heights beginning tonight against the Islanders, with a “back to the walls, no Marner, “do or die”, playoffs could be in doubt mentality” and really hit their stride.

Go ahead and vilify this entire thought process if you must-but I thought it intriguing and worth a post.
 

Nineteen67

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 12, 2017
22,367
9,841
I never thought I’d post twice within days but I came across an article today that both excites me, yet annoys me......

In my other recent post I deplored the ineffective offensive zone presence of our Leafs-I have been frustrated all year watching them skate around the periphery of the slot, endlessly turning the puck over because of ineffective shots from way out, never really exerting pressure in the high scoring areas (I even wondered if it was just my imagination that opponents seemed to be far more dangerous in our end, despite CORSI being on our side). Especially frustrated with this poor offensive play because of unending media comments about our offensive talent.

Then along comes today’s article:
It’s a must read I believe: Go to “hockey writers.com” and click on “Maple Leafs offence, not defence, causing concern”. Then read about the Dave Hakstol effect.

I’m left wondering:
1-If it is that simple, why hasn’t it been addressed? Once a problem is identified, a solution should be forthcoming. Why was this guy hired in the first place, if it’s accurate?
2- They are well aware of it but lack the personnel (the grit, the will) to go to the sweet spots, and have reverted to a “periphery “ offence.
3-Other teams know it and simply tell their five players to form a wall around the sweet spots (it always seems the Leafs face an impenetrable defensive wall in front of the opponents goal, at least to me, and that hopeless shot from a distance is easily blocked and turned over).
4-Is what’s missing here a few less Travis Moore types (good heart but so small) and a few more Josh Anderson’s (a bulldog) and a willingness to attack the slot? And go to the boards and hit?
5-Is this more over-coaching and “systems” instead of letting the forwards ad lib?

Just my take, and a little excitement at what may be an answer to a Leaf ailment. I realize the sample size is small, but it sure explains a lot, I think. However, there are others more knowledgeable than me, perhaps I’m a little naive here to be excited at what I see as a possible answer to our offensive woes (I think I read today that we are like 19th now on the power play, not even top 10 in offence.) But if it has merit, why isn’t it being addressed? Is it that stubborn mule of a coach? And I realize this could be all for naught as the Leafs rise to new heights beginning tonight against the Islanders, with a “back to the walls, no Marner, “do or die”, playoffs could be in doubt mentality” and really hit their stride.

Go ahead and vilify this entire thought process if you must-but I thought it intriguing and worth a post.

I didn’t read the article but I do recall after the game against the Pens early last season a lot of us were concerned they were setting the model for defending the Leafs offence by making them play on the periphery.
 

Prominence

Ryan Tverberg Fan
Jul 22, 2011
1,251
745
Vancouver
Leafs were outshooting isles in the 1st, but the only good chance was the miss by nylander near the net. High danger scoring opportunities were why leafs outscored their problems last year.
 
Last edited:

bbgobie

Registered User
Sep 19, 2009
690
149
Pretty sure if you take away the middle.high danger areas against any team you'll do alright.
Do teams try and let other teams take the middle normally and lock it up against the Leafs?
 

Ashdown2

Registered User
Aug 19, 2006
1,333
784
very simple ..... all i want to know is who hired these assistants this year .
1) if its babcock ... fire babcock right away because hes lost his marbles.
2) if its dubas ... fire dubas right away because he clearly doesnt understand coaching.


this is by far one of the worst coaching staffs in the league ... with all this talent ,
they get line matches and situations wrong, the PP and PK both suck. the goalie decisions are madening, ceci is somehow playing 23 min a game and dermott 12, marincin kept getting ice time, too many men on the ice calls, usage of players on the PP etc etc etc i can go on
serious what a joke
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duffman955

moon111

Registered User
Oct 18, 2014
2,890
1,283
Or consider that their #1 line hasn't played a single game together yet?
 

Rebels57

Former Flyers fan
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2014
76,383
122,700
Flyers fans tried to warn you. He was arguably our worst coach in franchise history. Every single aspect of this guys thinking is flawed. I truly cannot believe Toronto hired him. I hope you are free of him after this season if Babcock is fired. He doesn't deserve to work in this league.
 

Judas Tavares

S2S (Sundin2Sandin)
Sponsor
Feb 9, 2007
10,163
3,557
I wanted a whole coaching overhaul this offseason, but knew Babcock would have a longer rope, so as long as the assistants where changed, I was at least content. McFarland seemed promising. Hakstol baffled me. I really didn't remember the Flyers as a recent defensive juggernaut.

I am curious how much input these assistants have, or does everything still kind of filter through Babcock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spring Samauri

Deuce Awesome

Registered User
Feb 23, 2010
2,456
710
I actually convinced someone one time that the only reason the Flyers hired Hakstol was it was a marketing thing with his name being so close to Hextall.


Hakstol, Hextall....these aren't the worlds most common names....


I didn't even know he was one of our coaches now hahaha.
 

Rebels57

Former Flyers fan
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2014
76,383
122,700
I actually convinced someone one time that the only reason the Flyers hired Hakstol was it was a marketing thing with his name being so close to Hextall.


Hakstol, Hextall....these aren't the worlds most common names....


I didn't even know he was one of our coaches now hahaha.

Hextall hired Hakstol for one reason and one reason only: He coached his son Brett at North Dakota. Classic case of it's not "What you know, it's who you know."
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spring Samauri

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->