Horachek's impact on the team

[GhostofPotvin29]

Sort of a Horachek impact in the sense that he presumably brought him to the coaching staff level, but moreso about the impact of Steve Staois:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/2015/02/24/steve-staios-making-impact-on-young-leafs-defencemen.html

 

[herman]

From Jonas' first post-Clarkson article:

?Just holding positions in the D-zone,? Holland said of what he learned from Winnik. ?When I first started [killing penalties] this year I used to come off after 35-40 seconds and be dog tired and he would stay out there for a minute and a half. I?d ask him how he did it and he said once you figure out the areas you need to take away it becomes a lot easier. Less is more on the PK. That?s the biggest thing I?ve taken from him.?

Efficiency in positioning seems like something the Leafs lack overall. We've got speed to burn but it is frittered away chasing the play, rather than enforcing a team-supported structure. Hopefully the rest of the season after the deadline can focus on establishing a more robust system so that our more creative players have a foundation to generate chances off of.

 

[Peter D.]

Honest question -- is Horachek going to be considered one of the worst coaches in Leaf history? Small sample size, but this is pathetic.

 

[Mr. Leaf]

Honest question -- is Horachek going to be considered one of the worst coaches in Leaf history? Small sample size, but this is pathetic.

Personally I don't think so.  Look at what he has to work with!

 

[Al14]

Honest question -- is Horachek going to be considered one of the worst coaches in Leaf history? Small sample size, but this is pathetic.

Horachek has done a fantastic job as a head coach.  Fans just don't understand that yet.

He has completely exposed the players as the problem by insisting that they play a structured hockey game.  The run and gun pond hockey they were playing just doesn't work on a consistent basis in the NHL.  If the players can't play a decent 2 way game, then, we needed to see that for a fact.  Horachek has exposed this fact once and for all.

We've had this core fail under Wilson, Carlyle, and now, Horachek!  It's on the players, not the coaches!!!

 

[herman]

Honest question -- is Horachek going to be considered one of the worst coaches in Leaf history? Small sample size, but this is pathetic.

Horachek has done a fantastic job as a head coach.  Fans just don't understand that yet.

He has completely exposed the players as the problem by insisting that they play a structured hockey game.  The run and gun pond hockey they were playing just doesn't work on a consistent basis in the NHL.  If the players can't play a decent 2 way game, then, we needed to see that for a fact.  Horachek has exposed this fact once and for all.

We've had this core fail under Wilson, Carlyle, and now, Horachek!  It's on the players, not the coaches!!!

I agree. I like Horachek's approach for the most part; however, it is getting too hard to watch to really evaluate, sort of like score-effects skewing a game, but this is a season/tank effect skewering results.

I also think the management team who built this core and the coaches who let them play that way in the past bear some burden of blame as well.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

We've had this core fail under Wilson, Carlyle, and now, Horachek!  It's on the players, not the coaches!!!

I really don't get the obsession with the "core."  The media and fans seem obsessed with saying the "core" isn't good enough.  How do you distinguish between the "core" being not good enough and the core not being surrounded by enough other talent?

I don't get the obsession with the "core" and I hope management doesn't either.  Just try to build as good of a team as possible.  It's funny if you look at someone like Kessel's stats when he was in Boston playing with guys like Marc Savard and Zdeno Chara - no evidence that they were consistently hemmed in their own zone, no evidence that he struggled to play under the Bruins system and still produce big goal totals.

As I've posted before your "core" if you consider it to be Kessel and Phaneuf mainly - Kessel hasn't had a 1C since he arrived here, and Phaneuf has arguably had one 1D calibre partner since he's been here (Beauchemin).  Why is it on them that they can't drag lesser players to an elite level?  What other "core" players around the league are held to that standard (and that's ignoring that Phaneuf is likely miscast in his role)?

 

[Chris]

Honest question -- is Horachek going to be considered one of the worst coaches in Leaf history? Small sample size, but this is pathetic.

If we wind up winning the draft lottery, he may wind up being remembered as one of the best coaches in history.

 

[ZBBM]

We've had this core fail under Wilson, Carlyle, and now, Horachek!  It's on the players, not the coaches!!!

I really don't get the obsession with the "core."  The media and fans seem obsessed with saying the "core" isn't good enough.  How do you distinguish between the "core" being not good enough and the core not being surrounded by enough other talent?

I don't get the obsession with the "core" and I hope management doesn't either.  Just try to build as good of a team as possible.  It's funny if you look at someone like Kessel's stats when he was in Boston playing with guys like Marc Savard and Zdeno Chara - no evidence that they were consistently hemmed in their own zone, no evidence that he struggled to play under the Bruins system and still produce big goal totals.

As I've posted before your "core" if you consider it to be Kessel and Phaneuf mainly - Kessel hasn't had a 1C since he arrived here, and Phaneuf has arguably had one 1D calibre partner since he's been here (Beauchemin).  Why is it on them that they can't drag lesser players to an elite level?  What other "core" players around the league are held to that standard (and that's ignoring that Phaneuf is likely miscast in his role)?

There's no "obsession" with the core.  There's just an obvious pointing out that Phaneuf and Kessel are both deeply flawed and overpaid and most of us have realized that they both need to go in order for a new team to be built from the ground up.

 

[Joe S.]

Honest question -- is Horachek going to be considered one of the worst coaches in Leaf history? Small sample size, but this is pathetic.

That's hands down Mike Murphy.

 

[Kin]

There's no "obsession" with the core.  There's just an obvious pointing out that Phaneuf and Kessel are both deeply flawed and overpaid and most of us have realized that they both need to go in order for a new team to be built from the ground up.

Exactly. It's just a fundamental concept of team building that goes slightly more in depth than "just build as good a team as possible". A team like Pittsburgh or Chicago can look at the 4 or 5 best players they have on their team and say "If we just surround the key guys we're committed to long term with the right supporting cast they can win a cup" and so they're going to try and do that. When the cap or stalled efforts break down, they're just going to try that again with a different mix.

If, however, a team can't really say that then they have to face the hard questions of how to acquire the sort of players of which that would be true to say. Kessel and Phaneuf, regardless of their shortcomings as players, should be exhibits 1 and 1A that you can't just snap your fingers and make those kinds of players appear and that if you try to trade for them then odds are you're going to make a bad deal. Kessel needs a #1 center? Ok, how do they get one? This isn't a Nike ad, "Just Do It" is not a gameplan.

It's not a zero-sum game. Kessel and Phaneuf can not be good enough and Bozak and Lupul can not be good enough to. The reason attention is going to be focused on the "core" is because that is always going to be the immediate and pressing concern and the one that's hardest to address. A supporting cast can be signed in free agency, supporting talent can be traded for. But in the process of building a team those are finishing touches and right now the Leafs need to be asking the larger questions.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

We've had this core fail under Wilson, Carlyle, and now, Horachek!  It's on the players, not the coaches!!!

I really don't get the obsession with the "core."  The media and fans seem obsessed with saying the "core" isn't good enough.  How do you distinguish between the "core" being not good enough and the core not being surrounded by enough other talent?

I don't get the obsession with the "core" and I hope management doesn't either.  Just try to build as good of a team as possible.  It's funny if you look at someone like Kessel's stats when he was in Boston playing with guys like Marc Savard and Zdeno Chara - no evidence that they were consistently hemmed in their own zone, no evidence that he struggled to play under the Bruins system and still produce big goal totals.

As I've posted before your "core" if you consider it to be Kessel and Phaneuf mainly - Kessel hasn't had a 1C since he arrived here, and Phaneuf has arguably had one 1D calibre partner since he's been here (Beauchemin).  Why is it on them that they can't drag lesser players to an elite level?  What other "core" players around the league are held to that standard (and that's ignoring that Phaneuf is likely miscast in his role)?

There's no "obsession" with the core.  There's just an obvious pointing out that Phaneuf and Kessel are both deeply flawed and overpaid and most of us have realized that they both need to go in order for a new team to be built from the ground up.

Which players aren't deeply flawed?  Other than arguably generational talents, all players are flawed.  Deeply or not, and that's subjective anyway.

Mats Sundin is in the Hall of Fame.  But it wasn't until his 9th NHL season when he was 28 that he had a successful team and went deep into the playoffs.  Was he a deeply flawed player?  Was he a problem up until the team got better?  Or is that only these guys?

Fact is that there are tons of good to great to elite players throughout NHL history who, for one reason or another, did not have team success.  There's only so much 1 or 2 or 3 players can do for an NHL team's fortunes if the team itself is not good overall - with perhaps the one exception to that being goaltenders.

 

[ZBBM]

We've had this core fail under Wilson, Carlyle, and now, Horachek!  It's on the players, not the coaches!!!

I really don't get the obsession with the "core."  The media and fans seem obsessed with saying the "core" isn't good enough.  How do you distinguish between the "core" being not good enough and the core not being surrounded by enough other talent?

I don't get the obsession with the "core" and I hope management doesn't either.  Just try to build as good of a team as possible.  It's funny if you look at someone like Kessel's stats when he was in Boston playing with guys like Marc Savard and Zdeno Chara - no evidence that they were consistently hemmed in their own zone, no evidence that he struggled to play under the Bruins system and still produce big goal totals.

As I've posted before your "core" if you consider it to be Kessel and Phaneuf mainly - Kessel hasn't had a 1C since he arrived here, and Phaneuf has arguably had one 1D calibre partner since he's been here (Beauchemin).  Why is it on them that they can't drag lesser players to an elite level?  What other "core" players around the league are held to that standard (and that's ignoring that Phaneuf is likely miscast in his role)?

There's no "obsession" with the core.  There's just an obvious pointing out that Phaneuf and Kessel are both deeply flawed and overpaid and most of us have realized that they both need to go in order for a new team to be built from the ground up.

Which players aren't deeply flawed?  Other than arguably generational talents, all players are flawed.  Deeply or not, and that's subjective anyway.

Mats Sundin is in the Hall of Fame.  But it wasn't until his 9th NHL season when he was 28 that he had a successful team and went deep into the playoffs.  Was he a deeply flawed player?  Was he a problem up until the team got better?  Or is that only these guys?

Fact is that there are tons of good to great to elite players throughout NHL history who, for one reason or another, did not have team success.  There's only so much 1 or 2 or 3 players can do for an NHL team's fortunes if the team itself is not good overall - with perhaps the one exception to that being goaltenders.

You do realize that you aren't doing your argument any favors by trying to draw a comparison between Kessel/Phaneuf and Sundin?

Anyway, this horse of an argument died long ago.  I am confident that management has decided that, so long as a reasonable deal is to be had, Phaneuf and Kessel can and should be moved.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

We've had this core fail under Wilson, Carlyle, and now, Horachek!  It's on the players, not the coaches!!!

I really don't get the obsession with the "core."  The media and fans seem obsessed with saying the "core" isn't good enough.  How do you distinguish between the "core" being not good enough and the core not being surrounded by enough other talent?

I don't get the obsession with the "core" and I hope management doesn't either.  Just try to build as good of a team as possible.  It's funny if you look at someone like Kessel's stats when he was in Boston playing with guys like Marc Savard and Zdeno Chara - no evidence that they were consistently hemmed in their own zone, no evidence that he struggled to play under the Bruins system and still produce big goal totals.

As I've posted before your "core" if you consider it to be Kessel and Phaneuf mainly - Kessel hasn't had a 1C since he arrived here, and Phaneuf has arguably had one 1D calibre partner since he's been here (Beauchemin).  Why is it on them that they can't drag lesser players to an elite level?  What other "core" players around the league are held to that standard (and that's ignoring that Phaneuf is likely miscast in his role)?

There's no "obsession" with the core.  There's just an obvious pointing out that Phaneuf and Kessel are both deeply flawed and overpaid and most of us have realized that they both need to go in order for a new team to be built from the ground up.

Which players aren't deeply flawed?  Other than arguably generational talents, all players are flawed.  Deeply or not, and that's subjective anyway.

Mats Sundin is in the Hall of Fame.  But it wasn't until his 9th NHL season when he was 28 that he had a successful team and went deep into the playoffs.  Was he a deeply flawed player?  Was he a problem up until the team got better?  Or is that only these guys?

Fact is that there are tons of good to great to elite players throughout NHL history who, for one reason or another, did not have team success.  There's only so much 1 or 2 or 3 players can do for an NHL team's fortunes if the team itself is not good overall - with perhaps the one exception to that being goaltenders.

You do realize that you aren't doing your argument any favors by trying to draw a comparison between Kessel/Phaneuf and Sundin?

Well, for one I'm not trying to say either one of them is a Hall of Fame player, but I'm confident you see the point I was trying to make.  I also don't see you rebutting it.

 

[Chris]

Anyway, this horse of an argument died long ago.  I am confident that management has decided that, so long as a reasonable deal is to be had, Phaneuf and Kessel can and should be moved.

Hope you're right. I'm more than ready to jettison pretty much everyone and start fresh with draft picks - and watch a group of young, hungry, motivated players develop as a team.

 

[freer]

Anyway, this horse of an argument died long ago.  I am confident that management has decided that, so long as a reasonable deal is to be had, Phaneuf and Kessel can and should be moved.

Hope you're right. I'm more than ready to jettison pretty much everyone and start fresh with draft picks - and watch a group of young, hungry, motivated players develop as a team.

Unfortunately it is going to take time. A long time.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Anyway, this horse of an argument died long ago.  I am confident that management has decided that, so long as a reasonable deal is to be had, Phaneuf and Kessel can and should be moved.

Hope you're right. I'm more than ready to jettison pretty much everyone and start fresh with draft picks - and watch a group of young, hungry, motivated players develop as a team.

I should add that I'm not against going this route at all - just think their lack of success is not because of the aforementioned players.  Rebuilding with a new management focus would not be a bad thing.

 

[Chris]

Anyway, this horse of an argument died long ago.  I am confident that management has decided that, so long as a reasonable deal is to be had, Phaneuf and Kessel can and should be moved.

Hope you're right. I'm more than ready to jettison pretty much everyone and start fresh with draft picks - and watch a group of young, hungry, motivated players develop as a team.

I should add that I'm not against going this route at all - just think their lack of success is not because of the aforementioned players.  Rebuilding with a new management focus would not be a bad thing.

You've been pretty vocal about this "core issue". I'm wondering if you'd care to share your thoughts on the "best approach". If this was your team to manage, would you be trying to trade "the core" and start over? Or would you try to retool around Kessel, Phaneuf, JVR, etc? Would winning the draft lottery change your approach?

Perhaps you've described your preferred approach somewhere but I don't recall seeing it.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Anyway, this horse of an argument died long ago.  I am confident that management has decided that, so long as a reasonable deal is to be had, Phaneuf and Kessel can and should be moved.

Hope you're right. I'm more than ready to jettison pretty much everyone and start fresh with draft picks - and watch a group of young, hungry, motivated players develop as a team.

I should add that I'm not against going this route at all - just think their lack of success is not because of the aforementioned players.  Rebuilding with a new management focus would not be a bad thing.

You've been pretty vocal about this "core issue". I'm wondering if you'd care to share your thoughts on the "best approach". If this was your team to manage, would you be trying to trade "the core" and start over? Or would you try to retool around Kessel, Phaneuf, JVR, etc? Would winning the draft lottery change your approach?

Perhaps you've described your preferred approach somewhere but I don't recall seeing it.

It would all depend on what the potential return is on those guys.  I'd have no trouble moving them if the return was good but if you would be selling really low I wouldn't have a problem keeping them either (provided they don't need to for cap reasons).  I'd basically be looking to invest everything I could into the drafting/development aspects of the team.  There's no easy answer to anything though.

I don't think there's one way to go or path to set the team on other than try to make as many smart decisions as possible.  If you finish worst or not, the best teams have shown an ability to consistently draft well (with the exception of the Rangers I guess) whether they finish high or low in the draft.  Get a management system in place where the entire organization is in lock-step: you're bringing in players who will be able to play the style you want from juniors on up.  They don't all have to be one kind of player, just have the ability to fit in.  I've said it before, but this was basically Dubas' philosophy with the Greyhounds - careful drafting, careful signings, careful hirings which all meshed together seamlessly.  He was able to bring in not only skilled players, but he did due diligence on the people behind the players as well (or so he says anyway, I don't know).

Now that's a lot harder in the NHL, but the team should be thinking long-term anyway.  It's not super specific, but I don't think anyone can really be at this point.

 

[ZBBM]

We've had this core fail under Wilson, Carlyle, and now, Horachek!  It's on the players, not the coaches!!!

I really don't get the obsession with the "core."  The media and fans seem obsessed with saying the "core" isn't good enough.  How do you distinguish between the "core" being not good enough and the core not being surrounded by enough other talent?

I don't get the obsession with the "core" and I hope management doesn't either.  Just try to build as good of a team as possible.  It's funny if you look at someone like Kessel's stats when he was in Boston playing with guys like Marc Savard and Zdeno Chara - no evidence that they were consistently hemmed in their own zone, no evidence that he struggled to play under the Bruins system and still produce big goal totals.

As I've posted before your "core" if you consider it to be Kessel and Phaneuf mainly - Kessel hasn't had a 1C since he arrived here, and Phaneuf has arguably had one 1D calibre partner since he's been here (Beauchemin).  Why is it on them that they can't drag lesser players to an elite level?  What other "core" players around the league are held to that standard (and that's ignoring that Phaneuf is likely miscast in his role)?

There's no "obsession" with the core.  There's just an obvious pointing out that Phaneuf and Kessel are both deeply flawed and overpaid and most of us have realized that they both need to go in order for a new team to be built from the ground up.

Which players aren't deeply flawed?  Other than arguably generational talents, all players are flawed.  Deeply or not, and that's subjective anyway.

Mats Sundin is in the Hall of Fame.  But it wasn't until his 9th NHL season when he was 28 that he had a successful team and went deep into the playoffs.  Was he a deeply flawed player?  Was he a problem up until the team got better?  Or is that only these guys?

Fact is that there are tons of good to great to elite players throughout NHL history who, for one reason or another, did not have team success.  There's only so much 1 or 2 or 3 players can do for an NHL team's fortunes if the team itself is not good overall - with perhaps the one exception to that being goaltenders.

You do realize that you aren't doing your argument any favors by trying to draw a comparison between Kessel/Phaneuf and Sundin?

Well, for one I'm not trying to say either one of them is a Hall of Fame player, but I'm confident you see the point I was trying to make.  I also don't see you rebutting it.

I don't need to waste time rebutting a response that itself never addressed my own point, which is that neither Kessel or Phaneuf, nor them together, are worth trying to build a team around.  You think they are; I think they are not, and I further think most people agree with me, and that now MLSE management does too.