Article - Leafs' reno on pace, while Canucks lagging behind

[appleboy]

Virtanen had one assist , four shots and a plus one. Utica played their backup and lost 4 to 1.

 

3 points in four games now for Jake. One goal and 2 assists. He is getting more shots and is usually a plus.

[Salacious Crumb]

8 hours ago, appleboy said:

Virtanen had one assist , four shots and a plus one. Utica played their backup and lost 4 to 1.

 

3 points in four games now for Jake. One goal and 2 assists. He is getting more shots and is usually a plus.

Welcome to level 1000. You still have 0 super powers.

[DownUndaCanuck]

On 3/12/2017 at 5:24 AM, Warhippy said:

Assessment is on

 

But factoring in, the Leafs have made the playoffs once in 11 years and have drafted IIRC top 10 all but 3 of those years vs Canucks who have drafted top 10 twice and missed the playoffs 3 (?) times in the same time span.  The fact they're still so far away is actually concerning especially when you look at their depth outside of the NHL club

This is true but look at the Canucks playoff history. We had one, maybe two good runs at the Cup. Every other playoff attempt in the last 5-10 years was pretty feeble at best. We were only really a true contender for 2 years I'd say when the twins were in their prime and Edler/Ehrhoff/Luongo were here. And we blew one of those years. 

 

I say there's no point really making the playoffs unless you're contending for the cup or are just trying to train and prepare young players for playoff intensity. That's what the Leafs are doing right now. They're not going to beat the Caps or Penguins. But getting Matthews, Marner and Nylander and co. valuable playoff games against the big teams and maybe win a round or a few games is huge in their development. That's what it takes to build a Cup winner nowadays. You build a good core, get them a playoff feel, get them the wins and losses and then they put it all together to go for a deep playoff run.

 

That's how the Kings won their Cups. They had a couple of devastating 1st and 2nd round playoff losses, then put it all together to go for a deep run. Their core didn't change too much over those years.

 

Same for Chicago. They sucked for ages, drafted Kane and Toews, put together a lot of nice tertiary and secondary pieces, lost a few playoff rounds then went for a few deep Cup runs and ended up with plenty of rings once they started winning. But it all started with big regular season losses, followed by playoff round exits.

 

I believe that learning and development done in the playoffs is hard to replicate anywhere else. Similar to the Canucks, we had a few losses against Chicago, then put our experiences and learning all togehter in 2011 to go for a run.

[coastal.view]

3 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

This is true but look at the Canucks playoff history. We had one, maybe two good runs at the Cup. Every other playoff attempt in the last 5-10 years was pretty feeble at best. We were only really a true contender for 2 years I'd say when the twins were in their prime and Edler/Ehrhoff/Luongo were here. And we blew one of those years. 

 

I say there's no point really making the playoffs unless you're contending for the cup or are just trying to train and prepare young players for playoff intensity. That's what the Leafs are doing right now. They're not going to beat the Caps or Penguins. But getting Matthews, Marner and Nylander and co. valuable playoff games against the big teams and maybe win a round or a few games is huge in their development. That's what it takes to build a Cup winner nowadays. You build a good core, get them a playoff feel, get them the wins and losses and then they put it all together to go for a deep playoff run.

 

That's how the Kings won their Cups. They had a couple of devastating 1st and 2nd round playoff losses, then put it all together to go for a deep run. Their core didn't change too much over those years.

 

Same for Chicago. They sucked for ages, drafted Kane and Toews, put together a lot of nice tertiary and secondary pieces, lost a few playoff rounds then went for a few deep Cup runs and ended up with plenty of rings once they started winning. But it all started with big regular season losses, followed by playoff round exits.

 

I believe that learning and development done in the playoffs is hard to replicate anywhere else. Similar to the Canucks, we had a few losses against Chicago, then put our experiences and learning all togehter in 2011 to go for a run.

there are/were 29 other teams playing the same game

so a run to the cup every 15 years is what the odds suggest

the canucks have had 3 runs to the cup starting in 1982, then 1994, then 2011

pretty average, maybe slightly better than average

the laffs have had none since 1967 (laffable in my view)

many other teams have had less than the canucks

there is no way to really predict a run except to cobble together the best team you can

and hope everything gels

and the best players have career years (as in 2011)

and then you have a shot

it's a game. you have to compete as best you can every year

teams that win the cup tend to have a good run unless the team is a power house . ala the recent hawk team

 

[Emmetts]

4 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

This is true but look at the Canucks playoff history. We had one, maybe two good runs at the Cup. Every other playoff attempt in the last 5-10 years was pretty feeble at best. We were only really a true contender for 2 years I'd say when the twins were in their prime and Edler/Ehrhoff/Luongo were here. And we blew one of those years. 

 

I say there's no point really making the playoffs unless you're contending for the cup or are just trying to train and prepare young players for playoff intensity. That's what the Leafs are doing right now. They're not going to beat the Caps or Penguins. But getting Matthews, Marner and Nylander and co. valuable playoff games against the big teams and maybe win a round or a few games is huge in their development. That's what it takes to build a Cup winner nowadays. You build a good core, get them a playoff feel, get them the wins and losses and then they put it all together to go for a deep playoff run.

 

That's how the Kings won their Cups. They had a couple of devastating 1st and 2nd round playoff losses, then put it all together to go for a deep run. Their core didn't change too much over those years.

 

Same for Chicago. They sucked for ages, drafted Kane and Toews, put together a lot of nice tertiary and secondary pieces, lost a few playoff rounds then went for a few deep Cup runs and ended up with plenty of rings once they started winning. But it all started with big regular season losses, followed by playoff round exits.

 

I believe that learning and development done in the playoffs is hard to replicate anywhere else. Similar to the Canucks, we had a few losses against Chicago, then put our experiences and learning all togehter in 2011 to go for a run.

Lmao at one maybe two good runs at cup when we have been in finals 3 times SINCE leafs won cup. 

[Moonshinefe]

On 3/11/2017 at 10:19 AM, Sbriggs said:

You must be kidding right?

That post was 4 months old... what are you even talking about?

[D.B Cooper]

17 hours ago, Salacious Crumb said:

Welcome to level 1000. You still have 0 super powers.

Shouldn't you be at 1000 to welcome somebody to the level?    

[Nuxfanabroad]

It's prob been stated(only looked last page, or so).

 

Appears we're building from the back-end, going then towards the fwds, (to fit in precisely), when the team's matured.

 

TO seems to be building the other way. Would say this is riskier.

 

I guess either could work? Some players bust thru their ceilings..some young guys get busted & broken.

[canuck73_3]

Such a laughable article, they should be ahead their rebuild started in 2008...

[Sbriggs]

16 hours ago, Moonshinefe said:

That post was 4 months old... what are you even talking about?

Sorry my bad

[CanadianRugby]

17 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Appears we're building from the back-end, going then towards the fwds, (to fit in precisely), when the team's matured.

 

TO seems to be building the other way. Would say this is riskier.

 

I guess either could work? Some players bust thru their ceilings..some young guys get busted & broken.

Toews/Kane 

Crosby/Malkin

The best teams of our current cap era were built on forwards taken at the top of the draft.  I'm not saying it's better than building net out but I don't think it's riskier either.  A franchise player is a franchise player, be it forward, defenceman or goalie.

 

Speaking of franchise players.  The leafs have one in Matthews.  They also have 5 other top scoring rookies this year.  So while yes, the Canucks are building from net out and Leafs are building forwards first.  Yet you have to be looking through some really thick homer glasses to think our youngsters are even close to what the Leafs have.  Their youngsters are already leading their team to the playoffs in the now tougher conference.

[Nuxfanabroad]

19 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Toews/Kane 

Crosby/Malkin

The best teams of our current cap era were built on forwards taken at the top of the draft.  I'm not saying it's better than building net out but I don't think it's riskier either.  A franchise player is a franchise player, be it forward, defenceman or goalie.

 

Speaking of franchise players.  The leafs have one in Matthews.  They also have 5 other top scoring rookies this year.  So while yes, the Canucks are building from net out and Leafs are building forwards first.  You have to have to be looking through some really thick homer glasses to think our youngsters are even close to what the Leafs have.  Their youngsters are already leading their team to the playoffs in the now tougher conference.

Yeah, it's an interesting point. You might use Nashville as a study in contrast, where they focused on D first, ultimately to lesser results. Of course there are more factors at play, but it's something to consider...

[Salacious Crumb]

20 hours ago, drummerboy said:

Shouldn't you be at 1000 to welcome somebody to the level?    

Bro was stuck at 999...I wanted to do the Canadian thing.

[CanadianRugby]

On ‎2017‎-‎03‎-‎13 at 1:10 AM, canuck73_3 said:

Such a laughable article, they should be ahead their rebuild started in 2008...

In 2009 the Leafs traded away two 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick for Kessel.  That's an attempt at a playoffs, not a rebuild.  Only on CDC is trading your draft picks away considered rebuilding. 

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

In 2009 the Leafs traded away two 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick for Kessel.  That's an attempt at a playoffs, not a rebuild.  Only on CDC is trading your draft picks away considered rebuilding. 

This summer we signed Eriksson which according to many wasn't a rebuild move either. So our rebuild is technically less than a year old!! 

 

Carefully you don't split yourself in two trying to have it both ways 

[CanadianRugby]

28 minutes ago, J.R. said:

This summer we signed Eriksson which according to many wasn't a rebuild move either. So our rebuild is technically less than a year old!! 

 

Carefully you don't split yourself in two trying to have it both ways 

I think the Canucks rebuild started the last trade deadline.  Going into a draft with 2 picks in the first 4 rounds (like we did this year), and signing an overpriced past his prime free agent to a big 6 year contract, I wouldn't call it rebuilding.  Nobody in the media called it rebuilding. 

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

I think the Canucks rebuild started the last trade deadline.  Going into a draft with 2 picks in the first 4 rounds (like we did this year), and signing an overpriced past his prime free agent to a big 6 year contract, I wouldn't call it rebuilding.  Nobody in the media called it rebuilding. 

And yet here we are with a ton of roster turnover, youth and prospects (only a paltry 2 of which were added at the TDL you want to claim as the 'start')...hmmmm

 

Nobody called it one, yet we're evidently 'lagging behind' on it... hmmm

 

Seems a lot of people are confused about something happening right in front of their eyes. Maybe we should start calling JB 'The Magician' pulling rebuilds out of thin air?

 

[CanadianRugby]

5 minutes ago, J.R. said:

And yet here we are with a ton of roster turnover, youth and prospects (only a paltry 2 of which were added at the TDL you want to claim as the 'start')...hmmmm

 

Nobody called it one, yet we're evidently 'lagging behind' on it... hmmm

 

Seems a lot of people are confused about something happening right in front of their eyes. Maybe we should start calling JB 'The Magician' pulling rebuilds out of thin air?

 

Roster turnover isn't rebuilding.  How many players does Chicago or Boston have from 2011?  I think I heard on the radio that Boston had 5 guys in their lineup last night from 2011. 

[Alflives]

Just now, CanadianRugby said:

Roster turnover isn't rebuilding.  How many players does Chicago or Boston have from 2011?  I think I heard on the radio that Boston had 5 guys in their lineup last night from 2011. 

Roster turnover is what ALL teams do.  As you say, it's not rebuilding.  We CLEARLY need young core guys to compliment Bo.  

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Roster turnover isn't rebuilding.  How many players does Chicago or Boston have from 2011?  I think I heard on the radio that Boston had 5 guys in their lineup last night from 2011. 

No, but roster turnover while getting younger, adding prospects and building a new core is.