Blues @ Leafs - Mar. 25th, 7:00pm - SN, TSN 1050

[ZBBM]

This is pretty much the core of where (as I see it) I disagree with you and Potvin.  Cashiering RC is necessary, but not sufficient.  Upgrading the defensive skill of our D corps -- which is too skewed towards offensive defensemen -- means making a smart trade for either Phaneuf or Gardiner because they are the two with most trade value.  (I assume Franson is gone and that Rielly will stay.)  As I've said before, I wish it were Phaneuf going, but that's highly unlikely so it leaves only one choice, regrettably.

And, as I've pointed out, replacing guys like Gardiner with stay at home types addresses the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause. The Leafs need to focus on improving their puck possession game, and stay at home types tend to not be strong puck possession players. First and foremost, the Leafs need help keeping the puck out their own end. That will, in turn, go a long way to improving how the deal with the puck when it is in the defensive end. Defensive minded defencemen tend to be too focused on the latter to provide the kind of help the Leafs need on the former.

Frankly, this just seems obtuse to me.  You're arguing that defensemen who play defense first and foremost (and I'm here talking about the ones who do it well, as well in that way as Gardiner plays offense) are more detrimental to a team's defense than a puck possesing d-man who is bad in his own end.  That just doesn't wash.

 

[ZBBM]

I'm going to go out on a limb here (a very thin and fragile limb about to break from very high up) and say that the Leafs win this in regulation. They have been known to up their game every 20 games or so.

Crazy things can happen.  They randomly pumped Chicago that one game.

That's what we have to hope for tonite.

 

[caver]

Very true.  My point is that it's hard to argue against the idea that the coaching needs to change and the defensive needs a major upgrade.

Well, I think the level of the talent upgrade needed on the defensive side of things could very well be mitigated fairly substantially by the change in coaching. Some upgrades are definitely needed, yes, it's just what upgrades (outside of a couple obvious ones) and how extensive they are is sort of hard to put a finger on right now.

X2... I remember the no name defence of 92-93. They got the job done. Turnovers are killing the current team. I personally would build around Gardiner and Reilly because their level of offensive potential is rare. Any other current d-man can be dealt. Get the quality stay at home guys to surround them with. They don't need to be all-stars..just capable and good in their own end.  Up and out...off the glass..or give it to Reilly or Gardiner..whatever works.

 

[hap_leaf]

Very true.  My point is that it's hard to argue against the idea that the coaching needs to change and the defensive needs a major upgrade.

Well, I think the level of the talent upgrade needed on the defensive side of things could very well be mitigated fairly substantially by the change in coaching. Some upgrades are definitely needed, yes, it's just what upgrades (outside of a couple obvious ones) and how extensive they are is sort of hard to put a finger on right now.

X2... I remember the no name defence of 92-93. They got the job done. Turnovers are killing the current team. I personally would build around Gardiner and Reilly because their level of offensive potential is rare. Any other current d-man can be dealt. Get the quality stay at home guys to surround them with. They don't need to be all-stars..just capable and good in their own end.  Up and out...off the glass..or give it to Reilly or Gardiner..whatever works.

Gleason reminds me of Bob Rouse.

 

[Highlander]

Gleason reminds me of Jackie.  Actually he blocks shots but makes one hell of a lot of mistakes

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSUIQgEVDM4[/youtube]

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't want to get into an extended argument on this point but I disagree.  Some players are naturally better at defending than others, that is, they have skills that can't be taught that allow them to be better defenders than others.  I'm thinking of, say, Lidstrom's ability to (seemingly) be in the right position most of the time, and use his stick to prevent passes, and so on.

There are natural aspects to both offense and defense that can't be taught, but generally speaking it's easier to teach a player defense than it is to teach scoring/offensive ability.  Takes less natural skill to do - why so many grinders can hang on in the game despite little offensive ability at the NHL level, and why so many junior stars can hang on despite not being expected to play defense in junior.

 

[bustaheims]

Frankly, this just seems obtuse to me.  You're arguing that defensemen who play defense first and foremost (and I'm here talking about the ones who do it well, as well in that way as Gardiner plays offense) are more detrimental to a team's defense than a puck possesing d-man who is bad in his own end.  That just doesn't wash.

Well, I think the issue is that I'm not entirely convinced that the type of player you're describing really exists. Gardiner's offensive ceiling is extremely high. I also don't think he's bad in his own end. He may not be perfect, but, he's a long way from bad. But, really, look at the guys who have been touted as high end defensive guys in recent years and look at how they've turned out. It's not exactly a list of players who want anchoring your backend, but, rather, it's filled with guys who are struggling to stay in the NHL or guys who have just haven't been the shutdown types they were touted to be with any kind of consistency. They're guys who have questionable mobility, limited or non-existent offence and mediocre puck skills. They don't provide the same level of positives to a team that a guy like Gardiner can, because they don't help the team have possession of the puck as much as a guy like Gardiner can. I'm not saying they're bad or anything, or that they're not something that teams need. They're just not players you move a player of Gardiner's talent for.

 

[drummond]

In a strange Leafs way I think they win tonight. I mean, it seems - at least to me - that they always tend to win the games most people think they are about to lose and fascinatingly mishandle those in which they should dominate and win easily.

 

[bakeapples]

Help us Obi-Wan Bernier - you're our only hope!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Bernier leads Leafs out for warm-ups, no sign of MacIntyre - strong indication Bernier is playing tonight.

 

[ZBBM]

Frankly, this just seems obtuse to me.  You're arguing that defensemen who play defense first and foremost (and I'm here talking about the ones who do it well, as well in that way as Gardiner plays offense) are more detrimental to a team's defense than a puck possesing d-man who is bad in his own end.  That just doesn't wash.

Well, I think the issue is that I'm not entirely convinced that the type of player you're describing really exists. Gardiner's offensive ceiling is extremely high. I also don't think he's bad in his own end. He may not be perfect, but, he's a long way from bad. But, really, look at the guys who have been touted as high end defensive guys in recent years and look at how they've turned out. It's not exactly a list of players who want anchoring your backend, but, rather, it's filled with guys who are struggling to stay in the NHL or guys who have just haven't been the shutdown types they were touted to be with any kind of consistency. They're guys who have questionable mobility, limited or non-existent offence and mediocre puck skills. They don't provide the same level of positives to a team that a guy like Gardiner can, because they don't help the team have possession of the puck as much as a guy like Gardiner can. I'm not saying they're bad or anything, or that they're not something that teams need. They're just not players you move a player of Gardiner's talent for.

Yeah yeah I know who you are referring to. His name rhymes with Schlocktown.

 

[Stronger Than All]

Go Leafs Go!!!!!!!!!!

 

[13th fan]

This is going to be one those games were the Leafs win.When they're expected  to lose they seem to find to way win...This team has no logic but yet still I cheer for them 

 

[bustaheims]

Yeah yeah I know who you are referring to. His name rhymes with Schlocktown.

You mean the inevitably inaccurate nickname you gave him that didn't catch on despite your continued use of it? Yeah, he was only one of the guys I was referring to.

 

[LittleHockeyFan]

Interesting discussion from the analysts pre game tonight. With Bernier and Bolland back, he pointed out that the team is what Nonis envisioned tonight --they're all in the roles he arranged for them.

So what happens when this team he crafted gets blown out of the arena by the Blues, one of the top teams in the league?

 

[pmrules]

Leafs icing a full line up for the first time.

Leafs will win 3-2 in some form of extra time.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[drummond]

the Leafs need support from the crowd, hopefully the place is rocking

 

[ZBBM]

Yeah yeah I know who you are referring to. His name rhymes with Schlocktown.

You mean the inevitably inaccurate nickname you gave him that didn't catch on despite your continued use of it? Yeah, he was only one of the guys I was referring to.

Ah, but had it played out the way I planned we would have a Cup by now.

 

[LittleHockeyFan]

there's an omen.......last time the Leafs beat the Blues at home was in 1998! eeeek