Why did the Leafs lose to the Flyers in 2003?

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
They just had more firepower.

Roenick - Sundin
Recchi - Mogilny
Amonte - Nolan

Primeau - Reichel
LeClair- Roberts
Gagne - Tucker

Handzus - Green
Williams - Antropov
Kapanen - Renberg

Lapointe - Fitzgerald
Brashear- Domi
Sacco - Hoglund


Skill > Grit
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menzinger

ottomaddox

Registered User
Oct 31, 2017
10,592
4,600
Toronto
They just had more firepower.

Roenick - Sundin
Recchi - Mogilny
Amonte - Nolan

Primeau - Reichel
LeClair- Roberts
Gagne - Tucker

Handzus - Green
Williams - Antropov
Kapanen - Renberg

Lapointe - Fitzgerald
Brashear- Domi
Sacco - Hoglund


Skill > Grit

I seem to remember them having more grit than us. They certainly rattled McCabe and Kaberle. McCabe kept taking penalties and turned the puck over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supermann_98

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,092
38,153
They had enough depth to make a run and it was close for 6 games... Were the Flyers simply the better team or were the Leafs banged up?
Flyers were heavier and had slightly more skill. Tough combination to beat.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
Flyers were heavier and had slightly more skill. Tough combination to beat.

heavier?

Sundin 6'5" 230 ---- Roenick 6'1" 205
Mogilny 6'0" 210 --- Recchi 5'10" 195
Nolan 6'1" 215 ------ Amonte 6'0" 200

Reichel 5'10" 180 --- Primeau 6'5" 220
Roberts 6'2" 215 ---- Gagne 6'1" 195
Tucker 5'10" 180 --- Kapanen 5'10" 185

Antropov 6'6" 245 -- Handzus 6'5" 215
Renberg 6'2" 235 --- Leclair 6'3" 225
Hoglund 6'3" 215 --- Williams 6'1" 185

Green 6'1" 205 ----- Lapointe 5'9" 190
Fitzgerald 6'0" 190 - Murray 5'9" 180
Domi 5'10" 215 ----- Brashear 6'3" 235


Kaberle 6'1" 210 ----- Johnsson 6'1" 195
Svehla 6'0" 210 ------ Desjardins 6'1" 205

McCabe 6'2" 220 ---- Ragnarsson 6'1" 215
Wesley 6'1" 205 ------ Weinrich 6'1' 205

Lumme 6'1" 210 ----- Yushkevich 5'11" 210
Berg 6'3" 215 -------- Therien 6'5" 235
 

Ziggdiezan

Registered User
Apr 10, 2015
10,847
5,676
heavier?

Sundin 6'5" 230 ---- Roenick 6'1" 205
Mogilny 6'0" 210 --- Recchi 5'10" 195
Nolan 6'1" 215 ------ Amonte 6'0" 200

Reichel 5'10" 180 --- Primeau 6'5" 220
Roberts 6'2" 215 ---- Gagne 6'1" 195
Tucker 5'10" 180 --- Kapanen 5'10" 185

Antropov 6'6" 245 -- Handzus 6'5" 215
Renberg 6'2" 235 --- Leclair 6'3" 225
Hoglund 6'3" 215 --- Williams 6'1" 185

Green 6'1" 205 ----- Lapointe 5'9" 190
Fitzgerald 6'0" 190 - Murray 5'9" 180
Domi 5'10" 215 ----- Brashear 6'3" 235


Kaberle 6'1" 210 ----- Johnsson 6'1" 195
Svehla 6'0" 210 ------ Desjardins 6'1" 205

McCabe 6'2" 220 ---- Ragnarsson 6'1" 215
Wesley 6'1" 205 ------ Weinrich 6'1' 205

Lumme 6'1" 210 ----- Yushkevich 5'11" 210
Berg 6'3" 215 -------- Therien 6'5" 235
I imagine the poster ment they played a heavier game which is hard to debate with
 

Ziggdiezan

Registered User
Apr 10, 2015
10,847
5,676
hilarious how leafs fans rewrite history to always remember the leafs as being too soft.
I dont think it is remembering the leafs as soft as back then no team was soft. Especially when you had madmen like Tucker and Domi.

However Philly were definitely the more physical team/played a more physcial game. I'm sure you understood what that poster ment but wanted to prove them wrong for some reason so took 'heavier' literally.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,850
51,520
Picture an arm wrestling contest between two old timers. And Philadelphia was the old guy that won. Just a little bigger, stronger and deeper, little bit more in the tank.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
I dont think it is remembering the leafs as soft as back then no team was soft. Especially when you had madmen like Tucker and Domi.

However Philly were definitely the more physical team/played a more physcial game. I'm sure you understood what that poster ment but wanted to prove them wrong for some reason so took 'heavier' literally.

I mean, we can see the rosters right up there.

In which line or pairing matchup there would you describe the flyers as being the more physical side, other than the bottom defense pair?
 

Ziggdiezan

Registered User
Apr 10, 2015
10,847
5,676
I mean, we can see the rosters right up there.

In which line or pairing matchup there would you describe the flyers as being the more physical side, other than the bottom defense pair?
More Weight/Height != Playing More Physically

Edit: I will use a saying my smaller Irish friend would always say:

It is not about the size of the dog in the fight it is about the size of the fight in the dog
 

67Leafs67

Registered User
Nov 8, 2014
773
630
Well, Philadelphia was a better team for one. They had 107 points in the regular season to Toronto's 98, and a +45 GD to Toronto's +28. They also controlled 55.7% of shots, compared to Toronto's 47.0%. Toronto's advantage was significantly better special teams (both PP & PK), however, they had also shot at almost 3% higher than the Flyers had all season long, which was probably due to a bit of luck, as both teams had the skill to score. This Flyers team was the best defensive team in the entire NHL (only 166 GA), and played a structured game under Hitchcock. Meanwhile, Toronto was a bit more of a run & gun team, without a whole lot of structure, that relied pretty heavily on big goalie performances in the playoffs. Also, Philadelphia played a much cleaner game, only going on the PK 338 times in the regular season compared to Toronto's 426.

In Game 1, Toronto won 5-3 (one ENG), despite being outshot 31-15. It was basically the Sundin & Mogilny show, as Mogilny scored a hat-trick to hand the Leafs this victory.

Game 2 was pretty much the same, Toronto outshot 36-17, but this time Cechmanek put in a decent performance, and Toronto lost 4-1.

In Game 3, Toronto finally put up a good performance, came back from 2-0 down to win 4-3 in 2OT, outshooting Philadelphia 41-39 in a close game.

Game 4 went to 3OT, but really was not a close game at all. It was just Ed Belfour holding on for dear life in a 3-2 nail-biter loss, as Toronto was outshot 75-38.

Game 5 was somewhat closer, with Philadelphia outshooting the Leafs 29-23, but the score was 4-1, with Kapanen scoring against Toronto twice on the PP.

Game 6 was one of Toronto's better games, they won 2-1, and actually matched Philadelphia in shots 36-36, Travis Green scoring the 2OT winner.

Game 7 saw Toronto get in a bunch of penalty trouble (as they had all series long), and lose 6-1 on a 36-19 deficit in shots.

My take on the series is this. Philadelphia was a team that had learned to play a disciplined, defensive minded, structured system under Ken Hitchock, and implemented it all season long. However, with names like Amonte, Gagne, Kapanen, LeClair, Primeau, Roenick, Recchi, & Williams, they clearly still had the ability to burn you with some goals. Since Toronto had very little in the way of a defensive system back then, I'm guessing Philadelphia just had the puck most of the time, and Toronto was able to burn them off the rush sometimes, but ultimately was just stifled by a better team. Belfour was (by his standards) just "okay" in this series, with a .915 SV%, compared to the .928 SV% he sported in the 2004 playoffs, or the previous efforts by CuJo that had propelled the Leafs further on in the race.
 

firstemperor

Registered User
May 25, 2011
8,755
1,445
We weren't really a soft team back then, but we weren't stacked or particularly deep (at least, on defense, either). IMO, we were a cup contender during that era (not favorites)...

Similar to the Leafs and Bruins, but not as pronounced. We were kind of a physical and somewhat heavy (instead of being physical, I want to say we were strong on the puck...Sundin wasn't overly physical but he was an unmovable object out there) team with a lot of heart (Gary Roberts was a warrior)....but the Flyers were just the more physical and bigger team, period.
 

Ziggdiezan

Registered User
Apr 10, 2015
10,847
5,676
I asked you which one of those matchups featured the flyers as "more physical". Other than that bottom pairing.
I cant find any hit stats or takeaways etc that far back so I cant make a stat based arguement. Being a more heavy team doesnt mean comparing line to line and saying this one is more heavy theoretically or this one isn't. It is about a team identity and everyone buying into it and being really difficult to play against.

I also never said the leafs were soft, you just insinuated I said that out of nowhere. Leafs had a ton of crazy guys or guys taking a ton of penalties. The classic McCabe canopener was still happening back then I think lol
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->