The Unofficial Fire Ron Wilson/Ron Wilson is the Greatest Thread

[cw]

I was just showing that even if you don't have the perceived best players at each position you can still be a very good team

Was Phoenix a really good team in those years or did they play a style that was able to work for them in the regular season but got exposed when the games really mattered?

I know there's a tendency  to say that it doesn't matter but I think most Leafs fans would prefer to not make the playoffs and continue building than to get in the way Phoenix did and then get exposed as pretenders.

I think it was a mixture of factors. Here's my thoughts on it:

One: they played the Wings in both playoffs. They took them to seven games in the first series but the better team won.

Two: they got distracted last year with the chatter about the team moving. Yes, the chatter had gone on for two years but Tippett was bitter about what happened at the time (that the deal had collapsed and they were done in Phoenix) and I think he had some justification.

Three: last year, in part due to the above, Bryzgalov didn't play well

Four: they were never "that good". Limited talent and good team play can only carry you so far.

They could have faced a different opponent and won a round or two but I don't think many thought they'd wind up in the finals.

To me, in both seasons, it was an example of a coach getting more than the sum of the parts. Now, if you give that coach better players, you might expect better results. But I don't think the style selected was the killer - it was the thing that helped them get as far as they did. If Tippett had a better roster, my bet would be that he'd adjust "the style" to maximize their potential.

 

[Kin]

You are going to open up a can of worms here but... why?

Well, if you asked me right now where the team's weaknesses lie I'd say goaltending and the team's #1 centre. With goaltending it was Burke's decision to go Reimer/Gustavsson as opposed to actively looking for a more established backup. Really, all Wilson can do is choose a starter. At the #1 centre, they're getting a black-hole from the team's arguably most important offensive position. That's still on Burke.

Burkes tried giving Wilson as many pieces to work with as realistically possible.  They have the most depth they have had in recent years.  He's tried fixing areas that need improvement (ex. New assistant coaches for the PK, Steckal for faceoffs, Dupuis/Lombardi for PK, etc).

Well, but that's my point. He's tried fixing those areas but he hasn't been successful. If those new assistant coaches on the PK aren't working, Burke's the guy who hired them. Steckel's worked out ok but is Steckel/Dupuis a big advantage over Brent/Boyce or Brent/Bozak? Not much. Burke's tried new things, sure, but I don't know if you can say he's tried better things. 

I guess you can say that Burke over estimated our goaltending situation but we might not be having this discussion if Reimer was healthy.

But that was always the risk. When we had this discussion over the summer the people who were in the camp of not going Reimer/Gus(like me) tried to point out how risky it was going with such an unproven tandem. When that blows up, you can't just write off the risk by saying that you wanted it to go the other way. That's why it pays to be risk-averse.

 

[Kin]

To me, in both seasons, it was an example of a coach getting more than the sum of the parts. Now, if you give that coach better players, you might expect better results. But I don't think the style selected was the killer - it was the thing that helped them get as far as they did. If Tippett had a better roster, my bet would be that he'd adjust "the style" to maximize their potential.

Just to clarify, I don't disagree with the above in bold. I agree their system carried them. I just don't think it made them a very good team as Bates suggested and that any system that masks a team's serious weaknesses is probably going to get exposed in the playoffs, especially when you have to face good coaches/teams like the Wings.

 

[Bates]

To clarify Nik I have never thought Phoenix was a good team and have stated numerous times that I think the Leafs are better.  My comments are always that the Coyotes achieve more with less talent and I think that is largely coaching.  I can't think of any player who left Phoenix in last few years and played better after.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

I have always been concerned with Wilson's system - it's been the same way every season.  I even commented after the first 4 games this season that despite winning, we should be concerned how the team was winning.  Now we see that opposing teams are hard checking the Leafs in their own end of the ice, and the Leafs are not being tough on opposing players in their own end of the ice.  This results in opposing teams getting lots of shots on net, opposing players are crashing the Leafs net and the defensive coverage has been brutal.  The goaltending has been poor the past couple of games, but the Leaf players have to score more than one goal in 2+ games. 

On the PP and on even strength, the only player going to the front of the net is Kessel, so the opposing goalie will have an easy save to make.  Under Wilson's system, the Leafs play the perimeter so opposing teams have an easy time defending against the Leafs.  As for the PK, I think we all shudder when we see a Leafs player heading to the penalty box. 

Now the Leafs are playing scared, afraid of making a mistake and the goalies can't stop a beach ball.  I am predicting the Leafs losing both their next games, and if true, this will be a 4 game losing streak.  The Leafs have decent talent on their team, yet are struggling and Wilson is not adjusting his system to counter what opposing teams are doing to the Leafs.

If the poor play continues under Wilson and I think it will, Wilson must be fired when the Leafs start falling in the standings.

 

[Kin]

To clarify Nik I have never thought Phoenix was a good team and have stated numerous times that I think the Leafs are better.

I appreciate that's not what you meant to say although this:

My point was not that Lombardi is a number 1 center.  I was just showing that even if you don't have the perceived best players at each position you can still be a very good team.

Threw me a little.

 

[Bates]

I think we can split words anyway we want to prove a stupid point.  Phoenix's 99 points last year and 107 the year before does actually make them a very good team but I have in fact stated numerous times that I think this is a team of collective players that play above themselves for this coach.

 

[cw]

To me, in both seasons, it was an example of a coach getting more than the sum of the parts. Now, if you give that coach better players, you might expect better results. But I don't think the style selected was the killer - it was the thing that helped them get as far as they did. If Tippett had a better roster, my bet would be that he'd adjust "the style" to maximize their potential.

Just to clarify, I don't disagree with the above in bold. I agree their system carried them. I just don't think it made them a very good team as Bates suggested and that any system that masks a team's serious weaknesses is probably going to get exposed in the playoffs, especially when you have to face good coaches/teams like the Wings.

In 2009-10, I'd say they were comfortably a top 8 team (4th overall in points).

"Very good?" The answer to that probably lies in what we might define "very good" as. Most would probably say they were not "very good" - just one of the better teams.

They were an excellent defensive club that lacked scoring skill. Arguably, the Wings exposed that in the playoffs.

BUT, if they had met a team like the Caps of that season, who were a great scoring club with a not-so-great defence but topped the league in pts, they may well have matched up better, shutdown the Caps offence and beat that "very good" club (kinda like what the Habs did with goaltending).

And in case you're pondering it, I think there's a sound case to be made that Washington was a powerful, very good hockey team that season who might have beaten the Hawks in the final had they made it. Their defence was similar to the Flyers who made the finals and took the Hawks to seven games and their offence scored a goal more per game during the season.

Sometimes a hot goalie can make all the difference - no matter who is playing what style or what we might feel about flaws in "very good"/"pretty good" teams.

 

[Kin]

"Very good?" The answer to that probably lies in what we might define "very good" as. Most would probably say they were not "very good" - just one of the better teams.

Personally, I'd define a good team as something that isn't really strictly defined by wins or losses. To me, what you're talking about is talent level but also the versatility and adaptability of that talent. I think that if a team runs into another and can't find a way to play against their tactics, ones specifically designed to attack their system, then they're probably pretty good.

Being a good team, though, isn't the be all and end all of winning and losing. A so-so team can win with great coaching or one singular performance(see, I guess, last year's Bruins). Likewise, a very good team can be undone with bad coaching or bad team chemistry.

Again, just my definition but it's why I think Phoenix doesn't qualify.

 

[Kin]

Just throwing this out there but if the Leafs lose tonight and follow it up with anything other than a big win on Saturday I wouldn't be shocked to see Wilson gone.

 

[rdowdall]

Just throwing this out there but if the Leafs lose tonight and follow it up with anything other than a big win on Saturday I wouldn't be shocked to see Wilson gone.

Who comes in after him?  Gordon?  I'm not to thrilled about that happening, if it does.

 

[maplesyrup]

Maybe Eakins... What about Gilmour? Would he take it and does he have enough coaching experience yet? It's possible the answer to both questions is "no."

 

[Fanatic]

Just throwing this out there but if the Leafs lose tonight and follow it up with anything other than a big win on Saturday I wouldn't be shocked to see Wilson gone.

That seems reasonable. Gotta agree.

 

[Joe S.]

Just throwing this out there but if the Leafs lose tonight and follow it up with anything other than a big win on Saturday I wouldn't be shocked to see Wilson gone.

Who comes in after him?  Gordon?  I'm not to thrilled about that happening, if it does.

Pat F'n Quinn.

 

[rdowdall]

Just throwing this out there but if the Leafs lose tonight and follow it up with anything other than a big win on Saturday I wouldn't be shocked to see Wilson gone.

Who comes in after him?  Gordon?  I'm not to thrilled about that happening, if it does.

Pat F'n Quinn.

YEAH!!!!.  A return to the "GIVE US THE CUP OR WE WILL HURT YOU" days.

 

[bustaheims]

Just throwing this out there but if the Leafs lose tonight and follow it up with anything other than a big win on Saturday I wouldn't be shocked to see Wilson gone.

Who comes in after him?  Gordon?  I'm not to thrilled about that happening, if it does.

Pat F'n Quinn.

I thought we were hoping the next coach would improve the team's defensive play.

 

[cw]

Just throwing this out there but if the Leafs lose tonight and follow it up with anything other than a big win on Saturday I wouldn't be shocked to see Wilson gone.

Haven't looked at the standings today but yesterday, two more losses would slip the Leafs out of playoff position on the basis of win% ignoring what the other teams would do between now and then.

Even at that point, I doubt Burke would pull the trigger but it would be getting pretty close if they're still struggling by the 20 game mark.

On the basis of maybe "good buddies", Marc Crawford coached for Burke and is looking for work..... ugh, never cared for him. In some respects, I think I'd rather keep Wilson if that was going to be the outcome though change would be justified. But I'm in the mode of "be careful what you wish for". 

 

[Kin]

Who comes in after him?  Gordon?  I'm not to thrilled about that happening, if it does.

Shame about Ken Hitchcock I suppose.

No, I don't know. I don't know how much, in the long run, it matters. I don't immediately think they'd replace him with a long-term guy and with Wilson's systems/coaching to date already in place I think what you'd really be doing in that situation is sending a pretty unmistakable message to the players. Whether that works or not is anyone's guess but I'm not a huge believer that coaches make a ton of difference anyway.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying it's what I'd do or that it would definitely help the team but that I could see it happening given the situation.

 

[rdowdall]

Who comes in after him?  Gordon?  I'm not to thrilled about that happening, if it does.

Shame about Ken Hitchcock I suppose.

No, I don't know. I don't know how much, in the long run, it matters. I don't immediately think they'd replace him with a long-term guy and with Wilson's systems/coaching to date already in place I think what you'd really be doing in that situation is sending a pretty unmistakable message to the players. Whether that works or not is anyone's guess but I'm not a huge believer that coaches make a ton of difference anyway.

Goalies on the other hand...

 

[Joe S.]

Just throwing this out there but if the Leafs lose tonight and follow it up with anything other than a big win on Saturday I wouldn't be shocked to see Wilson gone.

Who comes in after him?  Gordon?  I'm not to thrilled about that happening, if it does.

Pat F'n Quinn.

I thought we were hoping the next coach would improve the team's defensive play.

The Pat Quinn teams gave up less goals than the Pat Burns teams.