GhostofPotvin29
Well-known member
Well we’re looking at it with hindsight now as not working, but they put up seasons of 115 and 111 points in that time. I know I fully expected the stars to eventually get them over the hump.
2025 Offseason Thread: Spring Cleaning
- Thread starter herman
- Start date
Well we’re looking at it with hindsight now as not working, but they put up seasons of 115 and 111 points in that time. I know I fully expected the stars to eventually get them over the hump.
But I think his PPG numbers are somewhat masking his decline though. He had career highs in shooting percentage and on-ice shooting percentage this season. And significant career high too in personal shooting percentage at 19%. That beats his previous career high of 17.28% during the 48-game partial-lockout season with the Islanders and 16.43% during his first season with the Leafs when he scored 48 goals. In his previous 5 seasons with the Leafs his shooting percentage was just 11.9%. This is admittedly way too simplistic but if he had shot 11.9% this season he comes out with just 23 goals.
On the flip side he had career lows (or 2nd worst lows going back to the Islanders) in shot rates, CF%, and xGF%. Some of this can maybe be explained by "Berube hockey" but other players numbers didn't suffer quite as much and as I said about their playoff performance I don't think "Berube hockey" is a good enough excuse for getting outplayed at 5-on-5 consistently.
I also think it's important to note that Tavares has had a VERY plum gig as the 2C of this team. At 5-on-5 he's almost always had one of Nylander or Marner as his right winger and on the powerplay he's almost always played with both of those two plus Matthews. Kadri was brought up as a comparable and he had 67 points in 82 games while playing with Huberdeau and whatever a Martin Pospisil is at 5-on-5 and a collection of players that couldn't hold a candle to the Leafs PP1 skills on the powerplay.
I don't want to completely wave away the success that Tavares had this season. 38 goals and 74 points is remarkable especially at this stage of his career. I doubt anyone would have guessed he'd be hitting those marks in the last year of his deal when it was originally signed. But we also have to be realistic about what he can do going forward and more importantly also pay him on that basis and not on what he did in the past. Next season his shooting percentage will drop probably significantly, his on-ice shooting percentage will probably drop, and instead of always having a Nylander or Marner on his right side at 5-on-5 he might not have the opportunity to play with either of them very much.
herman
Well-known member
I think we should run three lines that suit and support the primary playdriver on each of those lines.
Matthews: works well with forecheckers who can cycle, and one other shooting threat so Matthews isn't super-iso'd
Knies is already here, so you just need one more speedy body who is a bit of a generalist with a willingness to body people off pucks. Hello, Josh Doan deadline acquisition.
Nylander: needs a defensive centre that's not slow, and works well with wingers who can play off the rush
McMann is the likely LW, and I think Laughton already sort of fits the bill and makes a lot of sense asset-wise. If the trades or signings work out, there is room for improvement. Pacioretty is a part-time option (please keep some cap room for cycling options in and out of the lineup), and Laughton can be the LW if we get a legit 2-way 2C by some miracle. Brad Marchand would cook on this semi-sheltered line.
Tavares: needs speedy forecheckers who can cycle (to the point for tip options) and knock pucks into the slot off the walls for Tavares to clean up
In-house, Lorentz and Jarnkrok already fit the bill, but I think we can do a bit better and help make L4 more viable as a result. It's like the Laughton line from the end of last year, but with an actual shooting threat. They just have to chip and chase relentlessly and ask Tavares not to try to dangle through 4 players solo. Connor Brown? It's an easy template to fill.
I don't think any of these complementary options really requires significant expense.
Matthews: works well with forecheckers who can cycle, and one other shooting threat so Matthews isn't super-iso'd
Knies is already here, so you just need one more speedy body who is a bit of a generalist with a willingness to body people off pucks. Hello, Josh Doan deadline acquisition.
Nylander: needs a defensive centre that's not slow, and works well with wingers who can play off the rush
McMann is the likely LW, and I think Laughton already sort of fits the bill and makes a lot of sense asset-wise. If the trades or signings work out, there is room for improvement. Pacioretty is a part-time option (please keep some cap room for cycling options in and out of the lineup), and Laughton can be the LW if we get a legit 2-way 2C by some miracle. Brad Marchand would cook on this semi-sheltered line.
Tavares: needs speedy forecheckers who can cycle (to the point for tip options) and knock pucks into the slot off the walls for Tavares to clean up
In-house, Lorentz and Jarnkrok already fit the bill, but I think we can do a bit better and help make L4 more viable as a result. It's like the Laughton line from the end of last year, but with an actual shooting threat. They just have to chip and chase relentlessly and ask Tavares not to try to dangle through 4 players solo. Connor Brown? It's an easy template to fill.
I don't think any of these complementary options really requires significant expense.
Last edited:
Brown and Hyman were different levels of mismanagement. I wasn't sad to see Bunting go.
The whole hindsight thing is really annoying when a large number of us had concerns over a top heavy, capped out team team since they lost to Columbus, let alone the Canadiens.
GhostofPotvin29
Well-known member
To add some more context to this, he also had the lowest offensive zone start % of his career.
GhostofPotvin29
Well-known member
Having concerns is not the same thing as knowing it can’t or won’t work. Like I’ve previously said, in almost every other teams case, their regular season success is a predictor of some sort of playoff success, whether that is multiple round wins or whether it’s the Cup. Sustained regular season success should lead to some playoff success.
By your definition there's no way of knowing until it plays out, which makes sense to a degree, but we are dealing with a lot of unknowns and that's part of the job, but we did have some useful data points. We don't need to re-run the experiment 9 times if we ran it 5 times and wilted almost every time and in the case of Columbus and Montreal, every against obviously inferior opponents, and the fact that they couldn't get out of the first round on most occasions should tell us something. Even the Hurricanes who are a decent Leafs parallel except without any obvious star outside Aho won rounds every year since 2019.
I'm not going to re-litigate the number of times many posters here were on the money whether it was personnel decisions, asset management decisions, style under Keefe etc. Shanahan's unwavering belief led to him being out of a job. After the Montreal series there was no way I'd stake my reputation and career on the core 4 like he did, and that's not retrospect.
OldTimeHockey
Well-known member
After the Montreal series when one of the core 4 went down with an injury after getting kneed in the head? That series? Asking for a friend.
OldTimeHockey
Well-known member
I agree that Marner has to go. Not that he should, but that he "just has to". I think we can spin in circles on whether he is worth the money he is asking. From some angles he is, from others he isn't. The lack of success does not fall solely on Marner. It falls on the full group of "stars". Matthews, Nylander, Marner, Tavares and to a lesser degree, Rielly. I'd like to think that we mostly all agree with that. I just think we're getting lost in the weeds of two extremes. The people that want to move on from Marner, and the people that think this means that they're saying Marner SUCKS. For the most part, I don't think anyone here is saying that. Maybe I'm wrong.
herman
Well-known member
I think Marner the player is really good, for whatever it's worth. Like really, really good. Top 3 Leaf drafted by the team in terms of straight up talent and production.
He's just not what this team needs, unfortunately. I don't think the Leafs should be spending 13+M on a perimeter playmaking winger that needs to be hitched to our 1C at all times, and certainly not one that has a negotiation team that specializes in hissy fits and public grousing.
Is there a world where I would think this could work? If the Leafs lose Marner the $11M forward, but sign him as Marner the right-shot defenseman at 9.5-10M, I would consider that a huge win (no joke). Or if he just said, I love Toronto, I want to win here, I'm taking the Nylander number (scaled to current cap) and plays like a friggin' rat with a chip on his shoulder the rest of the way, I think a lot of fans would be more than fine with that (transplant Brad Marchand's attitude and demeanor into Marner's skillset).
Doesn't that highlight one of the points? One of them goes down and you can't beat Montreal? Because....drum roll.... you have no forward depth?
GhostofPotvin29
Well-known member
I mean they had 11 different goal scorers in that series. They lost because, among other things, Auston Matthews, Mitch Marner and Zach Hyman combined for 2 goals total. Leafs actually outscored Montreal by 4 goals in that series (lol). It’s hard for me to buy that a team lost because of lack of depth when the team that beat them scored even less - wouldn’t that mean they had even less scoring depth?
Arn
Well-known member
I wish he didn’t have to go cos for 82 games a season he is magical to watch. The entertainment he has provided me over the years in 82 game regular season has been off the charts.
I think it’s an indictment on the league that he then goes into another style of hockey where his ability to entertain is quashed by “playoff hockey”.
It just seems odd to me that you’re making teams have to choose whether to build less entertaining teams for the majority of the games of a season to try and find success in a minority of games at the end.