Hey let's talk about the Leafs

guyser · February 19, 2015

And while they're at it, they should also make all games worth three points. It's ridiculous that some games are worth more than others.

Curious, which games are worth more than others?

BubberMiley · February 19, 2015

Curious, which games are worth more than others?

Ones that go to overtime.

guyser · February 19, 2015

Ones that go to overtime.

Two points for an Overtime win.

Two point for a regular win.

Which one is different?

BubberMiley · February 19, 2015

Overtime games are special because they award a loser point. All games should be worth the same. If making it to overtime is worth one point for the loser team, then a regulation win should be worth three points.

guyser · February 19, 2015

Doesnt make sense to me bubber.

A reg win gets a team two points more than their opponent.

An OT win gets the winning team two more points than the opponent, but recognizes the tie in regulation for the on point.

PrimeNumber · February 19, 2015

I agree with BubberMiley the points system should be

Points System
Regulation Win = 3 points
Overtime Win = 2 points
Overtime Loss = 1 Point
Regulation Loss = 0 Points

We magically create an extra point in overtime for the losing team. If a team wins in regulation they should be rewarded that extra point for their effort. It would make playoff races pretty interesting. Other leagues in Europe use this system, as well as the IIHF in international play. So we know it works. It really is a superior point system.

PrimeNumber · February 19, 2015

I also think the 4v4 5 minute OT followed by shootout should be replaced by a 3v3 10 minute OT. The NHLPA is against it but it eliminates the shootout. Which I'm all for.

Edited February 19, 2015 by PrimeNumber

PrimeNumber · February 19, 2015

That's ok, with the lottery system, there's always a chance!

True! There's also a chance that the 14th ranked team gets the 1st round pick as well. A small chance but a chance none the less.

The NHL should have an equal lottery system for all teams that don't make the playoffs. There's enough parity with the salary cap and free agency that it's not essential that finishing last should get the very best draft pick, and it's completely unacceptable that fans should be hoping for their team to lose. I realize they're improving that situation, but they should get rid of all incentive for tanking completely.

I've always thought that the NHL should bring in a Draft Playoff Format. Currently there are 14 teams that do not make the playoffs. These 14 teams should have a "mini" playoffs so to speak. Maybe a best of 3 or 5. Short enough that it's over well before the actual Stanley Cup playoffs. Keeps all teams revenue flowing and allows fans of teams whom aren't in the playoffs to continue watching hockey. The winning team of the Draft Playoffs now has the 1st pick in the upcoming draft. The remaining picks are in order of regular season standings. It keeps the league competitive for that 1st pick rather than tanking for it. You could even give the 2nd pick to the runner up. Rewarding competitiveness is better than rewarding failure I find. The last place team in the standings still gets the 3rd pick this way, provided they didn't make it to the finals of the Draft Playoffs of course.

Edited February 19, 2015 by PrimeNumber

guyser · February 19, 2015

I agree with BubberMiley the points system should be

Points System

Regulation Win = 3 points

Overtime Win = 2 points

Overtime Loss = 1 Point

Regulation Loss = 0 Points

We magically create an extra point in overtime for the losing team. If a team wins in regulation they should be rewarded that extra point for their effort. It would make playoff races pretty interesting. Other leagues in Europe use this system, as well as the IIHF in international play. So we know it works. It really is a superior point system.

I dont see it guys. Why would it make it more interesting? They are very tight as it is now.

So if you win in reg, thats worth more than winning in OT? So a win can be less than a win? (3 vs 2)

Shady · February 20, 2015

True! There's also a chance that the 14th ranked team gets the 1st round pick as well. A small chance but a chance none the less.

I've always thought that the NHL should bring in a Draft Playoff Format. Currently there are 14 teams that do not make the playoffs. These 14 teams should have a "mini" playoffs so to speak. Maybe a best of 3 or 5. Short enough that it's over well before the actual Stanley Cup playoffs. Keeps all teams revenue flowing and allows fans of teams whom aren't in the playoffs to continue watching hockey. The winning team of the Draft Playoffs now has the 1st pick in the upcoming draft. The remaining picks are in order of regular season standings. It keeps the league competitive for that 1st pick rather than tanking for it. You could even give the 2nd pick to the runner up. Rewarding competitiveness is better than rewarding failure I find. The last place team in the standings still gets the 3rd pick this way, provided they didn't make it to the finals of the Draft Playoffs of course.

An even better chance when you're 4th worst!

The_Squid · February 20, 2015

The "loser point" actually makes the standings tighter. It's a false parity. It also makes it more difficult for teams to come back when they fall out of the playoff picture earlier.

I hate the loser point rule.

PrimeNumber · February 20, 2015

I dont see it guys. Why would it make it more interesting? They are very tight as it is now.

So if you win in reg, thats worth more than winning in OT? So a win can be less than a win? (3 vs 2)

Yes it's definitely worth more than winning in OT. You should be rewarded for scoring more goals then the other team. Not scoring more goals than the other team after you tied. I am for giving an extra point for a team that wins 5-1 in regulation over a team that wins 4-3 in shootout. A win is better than a tie/win.

The west is tight the east is pretty much decided.

Edited February 20, 2015 by PrimeNumber

poochy · February 20, 2015

Im at the point with the leafs that i want them to do things, trade people, leave phaneuf on an ice flow, something, anything, even if it's the wrong thing, sometimes your lawn is infested and you just have to kill it with fire so it can grow anew., and sometimes you just want to watch something burn.

Edited February 20, 2015 by poochy

PrimeNumber · February 20, 2015

Im at the point with the leafs that i want them to do things, trade people, leave phaneuf on an ice flow, something, anything, even if it's the wrong thing, sometimes your lawn is infested and you just have to kill it with fire so it can grow anew., and sometimes you just want to watch something burn.

Lupul made some interesting points about the challenges Toronto faces with a complete rebuild.

"You can't just throw out a team of young guys and say 'Well we're going to get our ass kicked this year but then we'll be better the year after because there's no saying you will be and it could hurt guys' development big-time I think"

He was there at the start of a similar project in Edmonton, one that continues to this day in the province of Alberta. Lupul saw how the constant losing affected him as a young player and how it's likely affected current Oilers like Taylor Hall, Jordan Eberle, and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. He witnessed how the culture of losing consumed everything, including his mindset and goals as a player.

"As a young player the only thing that was on my mind was I need to score. I need to show that I fit in or I belong here," said Lupul, who had 16 goals that year as a third-year player. "That's different [from] when you're on a winning team and you bring up young players; they come in slowly in a proper role and they're not forced to put that pressure on themselves."

"What are we going to just restart with a whole complete group with four guys next year and just try and finish last? I haven't spoken to management at all but I'm sure that's not their idea," Lupul said. "You can play a bunch of young guys and lose all year, but who's to say that those young guys are going to develop? I don't know. I think [the tear-down idea is] maybe more of a media-driven thing.

"There's trade rumours on every guy in here so who are we going to put on the ice next year? A bunch of draft picks?"

He raises some great points about how a complete rebuild has not worked for Edmonton. He has a good point that you absolutely need good, experienced players to help the rookies learn the craft of the NHL and not have as much pressure on them early on in their career. Drafting and Development is the key here and Edmonton has learned that the hard way first hand. There is a reason Detroit has a playoff streak going and why they consistently Draft great players well into the 4th-5th rounds. What the leafs need is some great scouts and some key development coaches. take it slow and don't rush anything. But keep some solid veteran players so the youngsters they bring in don't have to shoulder a heavy workload right from the get go.

Black Dog · February 23, 2015

Reading this piece by Yakupov's agent Igor Larionov is quite eye-opening. Sure sheds some light on his issues with how his young client was handled.

The nut:

The problem is more philosophical and starts way before players get to the NHL. It’s easier to destroy than to create. As a coach, it’s easier to tell your players to suffocate the opposing team and not turn the puck over. There are still players whose imagination and creativity capture the Soviet spirit — Johnny Gaudreau in Calgary, Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews in Chicago just to name a few. However, they are becoming exceptions to the rule. Many young players who are intelligent and can see the game four moves ahead are not valued. They’re told “simple, simple, simple.”

That mentality is kind of boring. Nobody wants to get fired. Nobody wants to get sent down to the minors. If you look at the coaches in Juniors and minor league hockey, many of them were not skill players. It’s a lot of former enforcers and grinders who take these coaching jobs. Naturally, they tell their players to be just like them.

The_Squid · February 23, 2015

That is very interesting... Igor has always been a cerebral type of player... Good for him for not just whining about how his client is getting screwed but to actually give people pause to think about the lack of imagination and skill in the NHL (and minor leagues) these days.

overthere · February 23, 2015

He was there at the start of a similar project in Edmonton, one that continues to this day in the province of Alberta. Lupul saw how the constant losing affected him

That a load of crap.

Lupul came to the team that had just gone a couple months before to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup final. There was no 'constant losing' at that point and none of the young players in Edmonton now were on the team played with Lupul.

Lupul had -by far- the worst plus/minus on the team, and it was because he was lazy, entitled and put forth no effort at all. The effect was the other way around: Lupul had that 'loser' effect on the other players. Looks like it spread to his ultimate destination : Toronto.

overthere · February 23, 2015

There are still players whose imagination and creativity capture the Soviet spirit — Johnny There are still players whose imagination and creativity capture the Soviet spirit — Johnny Gaudreau in Calgary, Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews in Chicago just to name a few. However, they are becoming exceptions to the rule. Many young players who are intelligent and can see the game four moves ahead are not valued. They’re told “simple, simple, simple.” in Chicago just to name a few. However, they are becoming exceptions to the rule. Many young players who are intelligent and can see the game four moves ahead are not valued. They’re told “simple, simple, simple.”

What a silly analogy Larionov attempts here, since "Johnny Gaudreau in Calgary, Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews in Chicago " all play for very displined, systemic teams. If you act as a 'free spirit' with Quenneville or Hartley(or Babcock or Hitchcock or...) your ass will bestapled to the bench and stay there.

As Hitchcock said so clearly" when our team has the puck, you can do whatever you want. When the other team has the puck, you'll do what you I tell you to do". All of those are successful coaches and teams, even Calgary has been a surprise because they play a firce system of defence first, score on tranisition. Toews is a great two way player, and even Kane and Gaudreu backcheck.

Yakupov is trying to do it better lately, but most often he is goalsucking, getting caught out of position and exposed defensively, a liability. He does not see the game one move ahead.

Black Dog · February 23, 2015

What a silly analogy Larionov attempts here, since "Johnny Gaudreau in Calgary, Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews in Chicago " all play for very displined, systemic teams. If you act as a 'free spirit' with Quenneville or Hartley(or Babcock or Hitchcock or...) your ass will bestapled to the bench and stay there.

As Hitchcock said so clearly" when our team has the puck, you can do whatever you want. When the other team has the puck, you'll do what you I tell you to do". All of those are successful coaches and teams, even Calgary has been a surprise because they play a firce system of defence first, score on tranisition. Toews is a great two way player, and even Kane and Gaudreu backcheck.

Yakupov is trying to do it better lately, but most often he is goalsucking, getting caught out of position and exposed defensively, a liability. He does not see the game one move ahead.

No idea what point you're trying to make here.

No one would argue the Soviets didn't have a system. Larionov definitely isn't. His point is that their system- emphasizing "puck control, improvisation, and constant movement"- is different and arguably more aesthetically pleasing than the North American systems. Look at your examples: Ken Hitchock teams are, without exception, boring as hell. Detroit and Chicago play a bit less conservative, but that's largely a product of having the talent they do. North American dump-and-chase hockey is fine for teams that don't have the talent to play anything else, but IMO, if you have skill players, turning them into pluggers is a crime. That's what Eakins tried to do (and not just with Yakupov).

overthere · February 23, 2015

puck control,

is another word for defense.

The reality is that the 70s-80s Soviets played far more like the LA Kings did with defence first than they did like the firewagon Oilers teams of the 80s. The Soviets did not have the physicality of the Kings, but they certainly played within very tight, rehearsed formats that were effective. 5 man systems play, start to finish.

The Russian teams of the glory Soviet days realized they'd do a bit better if they let their skilled players lose from the rigidity of the Soviet systems play.

The Canadians teams of that era realized they'd do better with more systems play and less freewheeling.

Both acted on their realizations, but systems hockey has prevailed and produces winning teams.

The 'Soviet spirit' is conformity, so Larionov is blowing smoke up our asses.

Black Dog · February 24, 2015

is another word for defense.

The reality is that the 70s-80s Soviets played far more like the LA Kings did with defence first than they did like the firewagon Oilers teams of the 80s. The Soviets did not have the physicality of the Kings, but they certainly played within very tight, rehearsed formats that were effective. 5 man systems play, start to finish.

Not sure what any of this means. All the teams you mentioned won by keeping the puck away from the opposition. That's not what Larionov or I are thinking of when we talk about "defensive hockey."

overthere · February 24, 2015

Not sure what any of this means. All the teams you mentioned won by keeping the puck away from the opposition. That's not what Larionov or I are thinking of when we talk about "defensive hockey."

And that is exactly what the Soviet system did : keep the puck away from the opposition with team play. They would skate and pass endlessly and never, ever dump it in.

He is trying to blow smoke up everybodys ass when he talks of the 'Soviet spirit' of free play. Never happened. Strict, rigid system hockey.

But he has a purpose.

He knows the players he represents- Yakupov and Galchenyuk- are both up for second contracts. Yakupov wants the big bucks as a #1 overall and expects Larionov to get it. Players get what they get on entry level deals. Now it time for a payday in Nails eyes.

And Larionov has to sell what he does, and it doesn't involve backchecking. Yak has to score, and Larionov knows it. His horrific plus/minus can be overlooked, but scoring is all he has. Or had. Things are different in the OHL. What Larionov is doing is pitching that Yakupov is a cerebral skilled guy who needs to be allowed to do what he does best. The problem for the Oilers and any NHL team is that if Yak does what he does best, every shift is like a powerplay for the other team. As we have seen nearly every night.

Black Dog · February 24, 2015

And that is exactly what the Soviet system did : keep the puck away from the opposition with team play. They would skate and pass endlessly and never, ever dump it in.

He is trying to blow smoke up everybodys ass when he talks of the 'Soviet spirit' of free play. Never happened. Strict, rigid system hockey.

That wouldn't have work without the individual brilliance of the players involved. Systems only go so far in telling players where they need to go. The devil is in the execution.

But he has a purpose.

He knows the players he represents- Yakupov and Galchenyuk- are both up for second contracts. Yakupov wants the big bucks as a #1 overall and expects Larionov to get it. Players get what they get on entry level deals. Now it time for a payday in Nails eyes.

And Larionov has to sell what he does, and it doesn't involve backchecking. Yak has to score, and Larionov knows it. His horrific plus/minus can be overlooked, but scoring is all he has. Or had. Things are different in the OHL. What Larionov is doing is pitching that Yakupov is a cerebral skilled guy who needs to be allowed to do what he does best. The problem for the Oilers and any NHL team is that if Yak does what he does best, every shift is like a powerplay for the other team. As we have seen nearly every night.

plus minus again, eh. :rolleyes:

Personally, I'm glad the Oilers have a coach who is trying to restore the confidence of a talented young player by placing him in a situation where he can succeed by using his talents instead of a guy like Eakins who seemed to be dedicated to tearing his players down to rebuild them into his image of what a hockey player should be.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Black Dog

overthere · February 24, 2015

Much of what we will see in the next months regarding Yakupov will be strictly facesaving by management. The persistent story locally is that it was Katz who made the call on him. The scouting staff wanted Ryan Murray.

If they traded him now they'd get very little back. Their only hope of getting perhaps a second round pick is to hope he plays much better, and accepts a short bridge contract this summer. Worst case is they lose him for nothing at all, which is entirely possible. And a second rounder is pretty close to nothing for the first overall.

Yeah, plus/minus. I don;t see it as an overly reliable stat when comparing between teams. It is not overly reliable when compared to the defensemen on your own team. But he is the worst forward on the team, again. Compounding this is that he rarely plays against the other teams best lines, and other teams don't play their best defenders against him either.

overthere · February 24, 2015

I'm glad the Oilers have a coach

We;ll see if he is a coach. The Oilers have had a middling record since Nelson took over, playing Eastern Conference teams. An improvement, but there was nowhere to go up but up after all.

Their last 20 games are mostly against big Western teams jockeying for playoff spots. And the Oilers will be doing it without their best defenceman.

Eakins was clearly a mistake, one that McTavish still does not seem to take any responsibility for- hiring him or keeping him so long. So they fired their rookie NHL coach with no experience and replaced him with... the same thing. I guess leftovers are all that is on the table mid season.