I don't doubt he wanted to win, but I saw that guy take so many stupid penalties. Especially when his team needed him to score. I heavily disagree with anyone mentioning Iginla in this thread, he was the only weapon Calgary had for almost every season.
What do you think the reason is that certain players built for the postseason choked in the playoffs?
- Thread starter Crosby2010
- Start date
I don't doubt he wanted to win, but I saw that guy take so many stupid penalties. Especially when his team needed him to score. I heavily disagree with anyone mentioning Iginla in this thread, he was the only weapon Calgary had for almost every season.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
You could also say that Quinn the GM made it harder on Quinn the coach by not loading up with a couple solid depth D options. Should never have had to use a player like Andrusak in a playoff series.
After taking a look, the Berard injury happened a few days before the deadline but after Vladimir Malakhov and Ray Bourque had been traded. Those were top two D dealt that year. Arguably the third best guy was Lyle Odelein who hated head coach Robbie Ftorek so much that he requested a trade away from a Cup contender. Lou wasn't likely to have dealt Odelein within the conference and ended up sending him to Phoenix.
D trades in the several weeks going to the deadline:
February 8, 2000: Chicago traded Sylvain Cote and Dave Manson to Dallas for Derek Plante, Kevin Dean, and a 2001 2nd
March 1, 2000: Montreal traded Vladimir Malakhov to New Jersey for Sheldon Souray, Josh DeWolf, and a 2001 2nd
March 6, 2000: Boston traded Ray Bourque and Dave Andreychuk to Colorado for Brian Rolston, Sami Pahlsson, Martin Grenier, and a 2000 1st
March 7, 2000: New Jersey traded Lyle Odelein to Phoenix for Deron Quint and a 2001 3rd rounder
March 10, 2000: Berard's injury
Depth guys like Bob Boughner, Todd Gill, Brad Werenka, and Cale Hulse were moved closer to the deadline after Berard's injury. I don't think they would have been difference makers for the Leafs that year.
Probably because of the recent wave of expansion there weren't many quality D available. Maybe a circumstance with the imbalanced conference but seemingly only Chicago/Calgary/Nashville were decidedly sellers in the 13 team Western Conference.
I was looking at the standings and thinking maybe the Rangers could have traded Kevin Hatcher but it looks like they were the #8 seed going into the deadline. Then they pooped the bed and went 1-8-1 to finish the season.
Berard/Karpovtsev injuries were just bad luck, maybe you could hope for a better #7 option than Andrusak/Diduck, but most of our teams had some unappealing options if given the same situation. Also the injuries to Perreault/Antropov in the first round was tough. Jeff Farkas made his NHL debut in that series as a result and scored a goal; I was Farkas fan going back to his college days.
Until I looked it up a couple years ago, I thought the Malakhov trade had happened closer to the deadline. But he channeled his inner Patrick Roy and egged on a booing Montreal crowd. Montreal decided they had to trade him immediately. Fortunate since Philadelphia might have jumped in the Malakhov bidding after losing out on Bourque. Philly outbid us for Malakhov at the 2004 deadline and Vlad played well for them as they eliminated the Devils in the first round. A lot of things beyond the Devils control happened to break in their direction that year.
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,045
- 872
Larouche was a healthy scratch in certain games the year the Habs won the Cup. 1978 and 1979. That just shouldn't happen. I don't think he was Bowman's type. I am not sure Scotty would have traded Pete for him, but when you look at it there is no way a GM doesn't make this trade. This was a Sam Pollock trade too, in reality it should have been heavily in favour of the Habs.
Unfortunately my guy Rick Nash belongs on this list.
He was always one of those guys that constantly got the benefit of the doubt. I think it was his size, his goal scoring ability and the fact that he once in a while could dazzle you out there. Remember that goal he scored where he deked out both defensemen? It was stuff like that where you always thought that if he could just do that again we're gold! And it was those great World Championships he had as well. They didn't translate into greatness in the Olympics as he was not great in 2006 and 2014 (2010 he did pretty well) but he was always picked. He was almost like a better goal scoring version of Keith Primeau. Where if you ever had him when he was "on"............look out! But even in the only trip to the Cup final he had 10 points in 25 games for the Rangers. I know they don't beat the Kings either way, but that series was a lot of overtime games, you never know.
Here is a good example of how people loved Rick Nash and trusted him maybe more than they should have. 2010 Olympics gold medal game, Canada clinging to a one-goal lead and they kept icing the puck. It was annoying me. Well, the last faceoff with 30 seconds left they have Niedermayer and Weber on defense. Alright. Up front it was Getzlaf, Toews and Nash. Okay, I get the first two, but why Nash in that situation? All I could find was that he actually had a pretty good game getting 5 shots. I get it, but you need defense in that situation, not a sniper. Anyway, the U.S. tied it and Crosby won in overtime so no harm no foul, but I guess it just goes to show you that Nash was that guy you always gave chances to make the big play.
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,271
- 2,808
82 games is a long season. It's not so easy to exert peak physical effort and mental intensity the whole way.
The other key factor is the nature of a playoff series where you are repeatedly playing the same opponent. The ability to adjust and match up against the specific opponent, and adjust to adjustments and so on, comes into play.
Michael Farber recognized Guy Carbonneau as a better playoff player than regular season player in this 1984 column for the Gazette, written after Game 1 of the conference finals. Carbonneau had only played 13 playoff games but he had already shut down Barry Pedersen, Peter Stastny, and Bryan Trottier while still doing some scoring himself, and was recognized by teammates, opponents, and media. Al Arbour said "Carbonneau ate Trottier alive on faceoffs. In fact, the entire line played poorly." Craig Ludwig said "Carbo can shut down anybody."
Carbonneau noted the team didn't match lines as much during the regular season as much as the playoffs. Farber editorialized that Carbonneau's value to his team was muted during the "80 game Walk through the Valley of Death."
The Montreal Gazette
books.google.ca
I want to emphasize that Carbonneau was recognized as a player who stepped it up in the playoffs very early in his career. And he continued to deliver great playoff results for another 15 years. That's not just picking a lucky statistical outlier in hindsight, that's recognition of a characteristic that was confirmed by subsequent results.
Looking back at the Devils 2003 team and I'm still surprised by some of the contributions:
Jeff Friesen: 5 goals in 34 playoff games as a Shark, 10 goals for the Devils in the 2003 postseason, more or less ceased to be a scoring forward after that season.
Grant Marshall: 0 goals in 59 playoff games in Dallas. 6 playoff goals for the Devils in 2003. 8 goals in 65 games in the ensuing regular season.
A guy like Jamie Langenbrunner had the reputation as a playoff performer, but if you strip out the 1999 postseason:
1999: 10 goals in 23 games
1997-2002: 5 goals in 51 games
Jeff Friesen: 5 goals in 34 playoff games as a Shark, 10 goals for the Devils in the 2003 postseason, more or less ceased to be a scoring forward after that season.
Grant Marshall: 0 goals in 59 playoff games in Dallas. 6 playoff goals for the Devils in 2003. 8 goals in 65 games in the ensuing regular season.
A guy like Jamie Langenbrunner had the reputation as a playoff performer, but if you strip out the 1999 postseason:
1999: 10 goals in 23 games
1997-2002: 5 goals in 51 games
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
I never felt Yashin was built for the playoffs.
I called him on these boards in '05 or '06 the antithesis of Hasek.
Yashin was as cringe as football's Dan on ATN.
I called him on these boards in '05 or '06 the antithesis of Hasek.
Yashin was as cringe as football's Dan on ATN.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Just for the piss of it...
Yashin being the opposite of Hasek in the playoffs (Hasek's biggest weakness, right?)
They both hadn't won any playoff series until 1998. The only real difference is that Hasek played in the NHL after age 33...
Yashin being the opposite of Hasek in the playoffs (Hasek's biggest weakness, right?)
They both hadn't won any playoff series until 1998. The only real difference is that Hasek played in the NHL after age 33...
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,554
- 5,190
100 playoff games or more goaltenders,
GAA:
Broda..: 1.98
Hasek..: 2.02
Brodeur: 2.02
Osgood.: 2.09
Plante.: 2.12
Sv%:
Rask........: .925
Hasek.......: .925
Lundqvist...: .921
Valsilevskiy: .921
Belfour.....: .920
Won 57% of his playoff game... will be hard for anyone listed here to have the playoff as a weakness mentionned, Hasek biggest weakness was probably ability to gain a starting goaltending job in the nhl younger (how much was it is fault, agents, Fuhr-Belfour, coaches, gm, etc...) and his hips later on.
Last edited:
- Jan 22, 2007
- 14,424
- 7,150
Complete intangibles in most cases. Mental toughness, ego, a hatred of losing, the ability to handle pressure and pain, and a deep inner "me against the world" fire. You look at guys like Clarke, Messier, C. Lemieux, Forsberg, Tikkanen, Marchand, Briere, St. Louis, Marchessault, Pavelski, etc. These dudes are driven guys... and many of them have been dealt a "something to prove" hand either in the league or in life. Clarke was a diabetic. Marchand, Briere, St. Louis, etc. were ripped for their size. Marchessault was discarded by the Panthers. Guys like C. Lemieux and Tikkanen are just driven to be agitators and high performers when it mattered. Messier and Forsberg were insanely motivated competitors.
Of course you have the "elite" group who just do it based on superior talent... Gretz, Mario, Rocket, McDavid, Crosby, Draisaitl, Makar, etc.
For whatever reason, there are just certain guys who don't have "it" when the chips are down, even though you would expect them to... Marleau, Thornton, Lindros, Matthews, etc. For some of these guys, I think the pressure might be too overwhelming. Thornton, Lindros, and Matthews kind of always had lofty expectations put on their shoulders.
You look at a dude like Eric Lindros... complete man-child. Big, strong, mean, skilled... but you sort of have to question his state-of-mind based on his path. Snubbed his nose to teams in juniors and the NHL. Let his parents dictate much of his career early on. You just wonder what was up with him at times. As a player, there were times he looked unstoppable... and there were times in the playoffs when he looked pedestrian, disinterested, or overly-frustrated.
Thornton and Matthews have struck me as regular season titans who max out during the 82 games and simply don't have "an extra gear" come playoffs. Of course Matthews still has another decade to change that.
Of course you have the "elite" group who just do it based on superior talent... Gretz, Mario, Rocket, McDavid, Crosby, Draisaitl, Makar, etc.
For whatever reason, there are just certain guys who don't have "it" when the chips are down, even though you would expect them to... Marleau, Thornton, Lindros, Matthews, etc. For some of these guys, I think the pressure might be too overwhelming. Thornton, Lindros, and Matthews kind of always had lofty expectations put on their shoulders.
You look at a dude like Eric Lindros... complete man-child. Big, strong, mean, skilled... but you sort of have to question his state-of-mind based on his path. Snubbed his nose to teams in juniors and the NHL. Let his parents dictate much of his career early on. You just wonder what was up with him at times. As a player, there were times he looked unstoppable... and there were times in the playoffs when he looked pedestrian, disinterested, or overly-frustrated.
Thornton and Matthews have struck me as regular season titans who max out during the 82 games and simply don't have "an extra gear" come playoffs. Of course Matthews still has another decade to change that.
The Panther
Registered User
I mean, Lindros led both the OHL playoffs and the NHL playoffs in scoring...
It's a bit hard to evaluate a guy who was only in the playoffs (in any significant way) during a three-year span of his career.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Craig Janney was so soft. He was the antithesis of.... David Perron.Just for the piss of it...
Yashin being the opposite of Hasek in the playoffs (Hasek's biggest weakness, right?)
They both hadn't won any playoff series until 1998. The only real difference is that Hasek played in the NHL after age 33...
Phil Kessel was so bad defensively. He was the antithesis of... David Pastrnak.
Nathan Gerbe was so small. He was the antithesis of... Patrik Elias.
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,045
- 872
OHL though, of course. Same with World Juniors. Lindros was dominant in 1991, but he is playing teenagers. Cody Hodgson was dominant at the World Juniors.
For me I think it expands a bit with Lindros. He played in the playoffs in 6 (is that it?) times. 1995 he let the Devils dictate against him. 1996 he did the same thing with the Panthers. In the 1997 Cup finals he didn't play great. I know no one on Philly did, but neither did he. 1998 3 points in 5 games. 2000 he is crunched after two games. 2007 it doesn't count he was a 5 goal scorer in the regular season at this point. And as it is, 0 points in 3 playoff games.
To me it goes further though. 1996 World Cup he did not take that extra step, and this was right up his alley, a physical series vs. the U.S. and he is definitely the best player on either team. He didn't step up. An old Gretzky was the team's top scorer as well as an old Coffey. 1998 Olympics was his time as well. He did not fulfill expectations. I will say that he had the right idea with Hasek on the shootout, but he did not score and he wasn't scoring much prior to that either. 2002 Olympics he didn't need to play well, he did alright, what you'd expect from a guy getting 4th line ice.
Just for the piss of it...
Yashin being the opposite of Hasek in the playoffs (Hasek's biggest weakness, right?)
They both hadn't won any playoff series until 1998. The only real difference is that Hasek played in the NHL after age 33...
I will say Hasek was well known at that time as a guy whose team just simply wasn't good enough. I can remember the idea being that when Dallas played Buffalo in the 1999 Cup final that it was Dallas vs. Hasek. Ditto if the Sabres made the Cup final in 1998. It was very much a Hasek vs. Detroit mindset. So I think when you look at him in the playoffs he very much gets a pass. He didn't do what Roy did of course, but who did? And not only that, he took those teams as far as he could. Come on, Mike Peca is your best player and you get to the Cup final? Also, let's not forget he did win two Cups with Detroit, even if he was bounced out of the playoffs in 2008 in favour of Osgood.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
And let's be fair, the Sabres were beyond anemic offensively in the Hasek years. Hell in 94 they got bounced in 7 in the 1st round despite Hasek's 9.50/1.61
Roy's 93 run is epic for sure but I feel like 86 gets overrated. He was behind Chelios, Robinson, Gainey, Carbonneau
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,807
- 16,284
whoa i never heard this one before. that’s bs, tbh. as if every coach spelled “nieuwendyk” correctly every single time. i mean unless he mispelled robert reichel’s name as “mikael renberg”…
with keith tkachuk i think it wss two things. one is, like many other power forwards, he was so dominant in the regular season and got high on his own supply and just assumed he could play the same game in the playoffs. so in the playoffs, when he was facing coaches who were actively gameplanning for him and defenses who had studied him for a week, he wasn’t able to adjust enough. to varying degrees, this also afflicted bertuzzi, nolan, and lindros, among others.
but i also do firmly believe that keith tkachuk actually didn’t want to win enough. nobody who wants to win badly enough to actually win at the highest most competitive level of hockey would have held out as many times as him, or (as captain) sabotage his own team by encouraging his teammates to hold out.
i’ve said this before but when matthew tkachuk scored that thrilling hat trick against edmonton and the camera panned to keith refusing to throw his hat—again when his own goddamn son scored a playoff hattrick to ice game one of the battle of alberta after the best player in the world put up four pts to tie the game in the third—that tells you everything you need to know about keith tkachuk’s priorities.
i don’t think we’re talking about half-assimg it in the playoffs, in most cases. i think it’s also a case of role. tikkanen, claude lemieux, these guys are role players. they’re not franchise players or star scorers. their roles on teams was rarely to lead the team in scoring, although each guy did at some pt when their teams weren’t offensively deep. they had other jobs doing role player things.
and i think you wouldn’t want to rely on either guy to lead you in scoring, although again each guy was capable of putting pts on the board if needed. but when you needed a goal in the playoffs, they knew
what needed to be done and refocused energies.
fedorov you could even make an argument for falling under this.
At the start they say Sundin and Renberg are out with injury. Either way not exactly Scotty Bowman like I said.
- Jan 22, 2007
- 14,424
- 7,150
Lindros only impressed me once during his entire playoff tenure in Philly -- vs. the Rangers. Outside of that, he would tend to "play down" to inferior teams like Tampa and Florida. And, of course, the Devils and Sabres made him look silly at times. His play in the Cup Finals vs. Detroit was non-existent.
Matthews, so far, has reminded me of Lindros in that way -- frightening and often dominant in the regular season but when the playoffs arrive there's no extra gear... or the ability to carry the team for any duration (outside of an isolated great series here or there).
In juniors, Lindros was a freak. So I don't put too much stock into that. Often times there are players who dominate in junior but cannot match it at the NHL level.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,807
- 16,284
omg haha not that i would have described that as a spelling mistake but i was totally joking. wow he actually got reichel and renberg mixed up
tbf i always did on those leafs too but
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,979
- 2,361
For those who remember it, the narrative goes that ,with both Sundin and Reichel out of the picture, Quinn was forced to promote Alyn McCauley to the first line with Roberts and Hoglund, and they had a magical run for a while (as they should have because Reichel sucks in the playoffs and McCauley is a handsome Ontario boy). That doesn't get across how rattled the Leafs bench actually seemed to be by the disruption.
The lines they attempted to run in the game were:
Roberts - Reichel - Hoglund
Tucker - Green - Mogilny
Healey - Corson - Domi
Ponikarovsky - McCauley - Valk
They started the game with their third line, and the kerfuffle with the lineup card happened after the first whistle. They send Green's line out after that, and then Karel Pilar takes a high-sticking penalty. They kill that penalty and go back to the full lines they still have, and it's not until 5 minutes in before you see Roberts and Hoglund out there. You leave Gary Roberts on the bench for 5 minutes to start the game because you don't know who his linemates are - that's as clear a sign as any that you're not in control of the situation and none of this was remotely on purpose. Roberts and Hoglund both end the game having played fewer minutes than Garry Valk, despite a two goal night for Hoglund on assists from Roberts.
By game 6, they're running with the lines they'd mostly maintain through the rest of the series, round 2 with the Senators, and up to round 3, game 4 where the Canes and Irbe had pretty definitively solved that line.
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,045
- 872
Can you imagine Game 7 of the Cup final they misspell the name Matthews or McDavid? Let's say that happens, do we really think they remove these guys from the game over that?
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,045
- 872
One thing about the 1986 and 1993 teams is that people tend to think these weren't good teams. They were good, just not great. No one thought either one of them was winning the Cup that year and both years were filled with legendary upsets that the Habs did happen to slip through the cracks with. That being said they are still 6th in points in 1993. Not bad. Quebec is the best team they play that spring and they almost lost to them. But they avoided Boston, Pittsburgh and then didn't play Chicago or Detroit or anyone in the final, it was the Kings who had scored less points than they allowed all year. That's a break, but 10 overtimes wins in a row is still impressive.
1986 is sort of similar. They are 7th overall. They avoided the Flyers, Capitals and then the Oilers. They beat the Flames in the Cup final who had 89 points and that was their best team they faced. Maybe the Flames are considered better, but I think Roy is the difference. And I agree the Habs had some seasoned veterans who knew how to win and some up and comers. I think in 1986 he gets a lot of miles rightly or wrongly from Game 3 of the semis against the Rangers. He made 44 saves in an overtime win with many of them being of the highlight reel variety.
But you are right, the defense really stood strong in front of him too. The Rangers had low shot counts the rest of the series, as did the Flames in the final. They had 15 shots in Game 4 against him. Hartford or Boston didn't get a ton of shots on him either earlier on. He was the story either way, and the Habs did not have that classic game breaker on the team although Claude Lemieux as a rookie scored some timely goals that year. So he rightly won the Conn Smythe, but overall the Habs weren't the late 1990s Sabres by any means.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,807
- 16,284
1993 was a lot of lower in the lineup guys playing out of their minds supporting roy and carbonneau
but 1986… i’d call that team great, albeit not in a traditional way.
has there been a better defensive lineup since the O6 than carbo and gainey, skrudland and mcphee, claude lemieux, with a top for of chelios, robinson, ludwig, and green?
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,045
- 872
On paper that is pretty deadly. Although a lot of them are there at different times of their careers. They were 4th in goals against that year, so that's good, but the Rangers, Capitals and the Flyers - by 39 goals - allowed less. But that is some serious name recognition. Obviously in the playoffs they delivered.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,554
- 5,190
It is up there, I imagine the best editions of 70s MTL with the Robinson-Lapointe-Savard, peak version of Gainey-Lemaire-Jarvis.
98-99 Dallas Stars
Zubov-Hatcher-Matvichuk-Sydor-Chambers-Ludwig
Modano-Lehtinen-Carbonneau-Keane-Nieuwendyk, etc... (Reid, Hogue, Langenbrunner and some other got some lost Selke vote from there and there)à
Belfour in net
Hitchock behind the bench
Some of the 90s Wings and the 2007-2008 edition had Lidstrom-Rafalski-Chelios-Kronwall
Maltby-Draper-Zetterberg-Datsyuk
BadgerBruce
Registered User
- Aug 8, 2013
- 1,559
- 2,195
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned money.
While I’m sure there are earlier examples, the so-called “Cup Bonus” clause negotiated by Rocket Richard in his contracts during the 1950s included significant payments for each victory in the playoffs. In other words, he was powerfully incentivized to perform well and help the team win. In the 60s, guys would go to Punch Imlach and ask for a salary increase from, say, $13,000 to $18,000. Imlach would hold the line at $14,000 but add another $3,000 as a bonus for winning the Stanley Cup. In other words, if you want a good raise, just play well and win. Sometimes, these bonuses were 25% or more of a player’s annual salary, which meant a lot in the days of low salaries, 1-year contracts and a reserve clause that allowed clubs to renew them into perpetuity.
I’m not sure in which round of collective bargaining these playoff performance bonuses were outlawed, but we never hear about “money players” any more. Annual salaries cease at the end of the regular season and there is a (relatively) small pot of dough divvied up between teams on the basis of playoff success. It’s not a financial difference maker for anyone other than the odd rookie scale player. The days of “perform in the playoffs to supplement your income” are long gone. Today’s players are paid to play in the regular season, not to win in the playoffs.
We all like to think that NHL players are hyper competitive men driven to win. Getting your name engraved on the Cup, or the old Fred Shero “Win today and we walk together forever” line. But not every player is built this way — some really are “show me the money” types.
While I’m sure there are earlier examples, the so-called “Cup Bonus” clause negotiated by Rocket Richard in his contracts during the 1950s included significant payments for each victory in the playoffs. In other words, he was powerfully incentivized to perform well and help the team win. In the 60s, guys would go to Punch Imlach and ask for a salary increase from, say, $13,000 to $18,000. Imlach would hold the line at $14,000 but add another $3,000 as a bonus for winning the Stanley Cup. In other words, if you want a good raise, just play well and win. Sometimes, these bonuses were 25% or more of a player’s annual salary, which meant a lot in the days of low salaries, 1-year contracts and a reserve clause that allowed clubs to renew them into perpetuity.
I’m not sure in which round of collective bargaining these playoff performance bonuses were outlawed, but we never hear about “money players” any more. Annual salaries cease at the end of the regular season and there is a (relatively) small pot of dough divvied up between teams on the basis of playoff success. It’s not a financial difference maker for anyone other than the odd rookie scale player. The days of “perform in the playoffs to supplement your income” are long gone. Today’s players are paid to play in the regular season, not to win in the playoffs.
We all like to think that NHL players are hyper competitive men driven to win. Getting your name engraved on the Cup, or the old Fred Shero “Win today and we walk together forever” line. But not every player is built this way — some really are “show me the money” types.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
GAME 7 - Ocelari Trinec @ HC Dynamo Pardubice - Series tied 3-3.Wagers: 3Staked: $219.00Event closes- Updated: