Kadri proved in his 1st call up last year he wasn't ready.
Yeah but thats only because he'd only known RW as a pro coach, once Eak showed him the real game he was able to compete a little better, but alas once more RW was his coach and now look what's happened
If there is a way to blame RW, LeafLand will find it. For some unknown reason they fail to understand that evolution is a slow process, and yeah baby the evolution is happening. If the goaltending can stand up, I think the RW bigger then life bronze ends up in Maple Leaf Square
Yeah but thats only because he'd only known RW as a pro coach, once Eak showed him the real game he was able to compete a little better, but alas once more RW was his coach and now look what's happened
Apparently this time Wilson made him good enough to be in the NHL but the GM wants him to fail.
Im not sure what people saw in the shifts he took this year, but the penchant for turning the puck over at the blue line is likely why he is going back. No shame in playing big minutes for the Marlies, he was'nt contributing much to the big club in terms of playing time or on the scoresheet. He's gonna be a good player, just give him time to learn how
Yeah but thats only because he'd only known RW as a pro coach, once Eak showed him the real game he was able to compete a little better, but alas once more RW was his coach and now look what's happened
If there is a way to blame RW, LeafLand will find it. For some unknown reason they fail to understand that evolution is a slow process, and yeah baby the evolution is happening. If the goaltending can stand up, I think the RW bigger then life bronze ends up in Maple Leaf Square
Goals Against Per Game:
2008/2009 - 3.49 (30th)
2009/2010 - 3.21 (29th)
2010/2011 - 2.99 (25th)
2011/2012 - 3.22 (25th)
Goals For Per Game:
2008/2009 - 2.98 (10th)
2009/2010 - 2.56 (26th)
2010/2011 - 2.60 (23rd)
2011/2012 - 3.22 (3rd)
So, offense from Wilson teams hasn't been consistent from year to year. That's excusable, imo. Offense is not really something you can teach.
Defensively, though, which is something you can teach, has been consistently garbage under Wilson.
Why we continue to sacrifice defense for offense I have no idea (Actually, that's a joke, we do that because of Burke)
Well, those numbers are VERY consistent. Consistently horrid. PK is an important part of coaching. Strategy on the Special Teams is on the Coach. Considering how many different players we've had in PK roles over Ron Wilson's tenure here, those numbers speak volumes.
Again, the offense is not really consistent year to year. What's shocking is 14% is 20th this year, look for that to drop as more games are played. We've all seen them so far this year. It's never looked worse.
Pretty consistent. Team comes out uninspired in the first.
So, what has been consistent during Ron's tenure here? **** defensive play, piss-poor Special Teams, inconsistent offense, unprepared to play at the start of the game.
What about this year? What are the main complaints? Defense. Special Teams. Not being prepared to play in the 1st. Inconsistent offense (Being carried by Kessel)
The guy is not a good Coach. We'd be better off without him, and that will be proven after we miss the playoffs this year (And all those areas are still subpar) and he isn't extended in the off-season.
Watch as we hire a new coaching staff, and we make the playoffs.
To bad we have to waste another year because of Burkes inability to see past his friendship.
To a lot of hockey fans, "character" means being a "gosh, golly, gee whiz" spouting prairie farm boy. Like James Reimer, for example.
Please note that this is not a slam of Reimer, just a note that he has the type of personality that many hockey fans (especially the ones who dislike more flambuoyant players) like.
Not really what i meant in my post. Let me give you an example of a player that I think has infinitely more character than Kadri, Mike Brown, even though he has infinitely less skill than him. Another good example would be Tim Brent. Of course these two are very likeable guys as they always put their hearts into each game.
Darcy Tucker was a pest, but I never felt his comments and actions seemed out of place.
Of course I am not for trading him, or burying him in the minors for ever. He will be an important part of this team soon enough. I just want for him to understand where he is at and act accordingly.
And for those of you who still don't understand what I mean... try imagining yourself at work and having a young new co-worker being all cocky and emanating unfounded self-confidence, before he learned the ropes. I don't think it would be that good for a work environment. I don't know how the other Leaf players perceive him, but I don't think his current approach has helped him integrate. And this is also an important factor besides cap issues and playing ability.
Why we continue to sacrifice defense for offense I have no idea (Actually, that's a joke, we do that because of Burke)
You're up late. You mean, "I build from the net out" Burke, or some other Burke? You mean the Burke that has spent near the top of the league on defensemen, Burke, or another Burke? Do you mean the Burke who has signed multiple free agent goaltenders in the hopes of shoring up that position, or another Burke? Do you mean the guy who has spent multiple assets to bring in stud defenders in his last two stops, Burke, or another Burke? Do you mean the guy who hired and employed Randy Carlyle as his coach, Burke, or another Burke? Do you mean the guy who has been slowly piecing together a bottom-6 of role specialists, Burke, or some other Burke? I'm just trying to figure out who we're talking about here.
You're up late. You mean, "I build from the net out" Burke, or some other Burke? You mean the Burke that has spent near the top of the league on defensemen Burke, or another Burke? Do you mean the Burke who has signed multiple free agent goaltenders in the hopes of shoring up that position, or another Burke? Do you mean the guy who has spent multiple assets to bring in stud defenders in his last two stops Burke, or another Burke? Do you mean the guy who hired and employed Randy Carlyle as his coach Burke, or another Burke? I'm just trying to figure out who we're talking about here.
I'm talking about the Burke who said:
“Then, the rest of it for me is, we want to have a certain attitude. We want to play an entertaining style. We don’t trap. We pursue the puck in all three zones. We hit in all three zones. We fight. And we try to score a lot of goals. We’re not afraid to trade chances because our D is good because our goaltending is good, we’re not afraid to trade chances, which leads to an entertaining hockey game.”
“Then, the rest of it for me is, we want to have a certain attitude. We want to play an entertaining style. We don’t trap. We pursue the puck in all three zones. We hit in all three zones. We fight. And we try to score a lot of goals. We’re not afraid to trade chances because our D is good because our goaltending is good, we’re not afraid to trade chances, which leads to an entertaining hockey game.”
We don't have the team to trade chances. As evidence by us being in the bottom rung of defensive stats since Ron Wilson's tenure here begin.
Hope that clears up what I was thinking about there.
It does, but it only confirms it to be muddled. You should read the Burke quote again, emphasis on the bolded bits. Not trapping doesn't mean not playing defense. You can't seem to tell the difference between Burke and Wilson.
And they don't have the team to trade chances? Being third in GF/G behind WAS and PIT, and in the same company as offense-first teams like TBY would seem to contradict that statement, would it not? Being tops in the division and high in the standings also seems to go against that, too. But hey, who knew the league measured success not in abstracted statistics but by the results of actual games? Looks like things are headed in the right direction. You didn't really expect an overnight change given the rosters of the past two seasons, did you? While icing one of the the youngest teams in the league? Less stats, more thinking, son.
This new costume is interesting though: getting in touch with your roots.
Don't have the team to trade chances? Third in GF would seem to contradict that statement. As would comments from other teams about this team's speed and skill level. This new costume is interesting though: getting in touch with your roots.
We score on average the same amount of goals a game that we give up (3.22/3.22). That suggest us trading chances isn't exactly going to keep paying off.
Considering how poor the PP has been for a lot of teams so far, it's not that hard to predict you'll see an increase in our GA/G.
Since our PK is around the same % it has been since Ron got here, I doubt we'll see much improvement there.
And, I also highly doubt Kessel will keep up a 100+ point pass. All total, I see our goal-scoring going down, and our goals against going up.
You can see it differently if you wish. That's the beauty of opinions, everyone has one, and they aren't all the same.
Hmmmm....for someone so interested in citing numbers, you haven't looked at them very closely. In particular, it seems odd that you would take a 10 game sample during the most tumultuous period of any season over the combined predictive power of the previous two seasons in which the GF and GA have improved every season. The GA has improved at about the same rate each season since Wilson took over, while the GF initially dropped, but then increased. Of course, the drop in GF during Wilson's second season is probably attributable to the change in the roster, but you seem to want to go with a kind of "Great Hero" theory in which the coach is all-important. Of course, to really do that, you'd have to cite all the historical stats relevant to the coach, and not just those with a particular team or roster.
But, fine, let's indulge the Great Coach theory using your numbers. In fact, should the GF/G improve only at the same rate as it did over the past two seasons under Wilson, the team will end up in the middle of the pack based on last season's league results. Similarly, if the GA/G improves by a similar amount as the past three seasons (around .20 per season), then again the team ends up in the middle of the pack from a statistical perspective.* We get something similar if we only take the previous 2 seasons, as well. While such a result could leave the team scoring less than it is scored upon, this would all seem to argue against your theory that Wilson has not improved the play of the club in these areas. Of course, when we actually look at the roster in addition to the coach, we have plenty of reasons to believe that GF should improve compared to last year.
Similarly, you want to use the coach as a determining factor and rely on historical trends until it comes to the PK. And you want to point to leaguewide PP numbers being down to determine GA/G. Which is it? If we follow your initial argument that the coach is chief cause, then we should actually see an improvement in the PK numbers based on the trends of the past 3 seasons, should we not? And like with the other numbers, a trend following the historical improvements year-on-year should put the team in the middle of the pack. And is there some reason we ought to believe that leaguewide PPs will improve, but PKs won't? You'll note that a worse PK percentage actually has the team ranked higher than last season. Of course, that probably just points to the problem of the sample size such that a couple of games of below- or above-average performance could shift the averages and the rankings significantly.
We can agree that the GF/G will likely go down - it's often artificially high/low for any given team at the beginning of seasons, but based on previous results with this coach that you've cited and general league trends, so will the GA/G. Only one team had a GA/G greater than 3.22 last season. Ditto the season before when even the Leafs' 2nd-to-last finish saw them generate better GA/G numbers (3.21). Why should we believe that this year's Leafs should have similar numbers? Because leaguewide PP is down in a ><10 game sample? That's snarf-worthy. Then again, just why we should expect league PP numbers to rise while the Leafs PP bucks the trend and stays static is also a mystery. Because "it has never looked worse", I guess. Forgive me if such subjective statements don't pass muster.
Finally, it's not as though these results under Wilson aren't measurable in a wider context. Once we stop squinting at abstracted statistics, we see that in the most important category - i.e. the standings - the team has improved over the past two seasons concomitant with the improvements in the other numbers. This seems to be particularly hard for some people to accept. Of course, I wouldn't put it all down to just coaching and would factor in the changes in the roster as well.
* Interesting note: the problem of judging the success of a coach/team merely by abstracted GA/G numbers -- which you essentially do by discounting "unteachable" offensive numbers (well, before sneaking them in the back door in mentioning "special teams") -- is illustrated by the fact that the Detroit Red Wings, who had the 6th most points in the league, were just .10 GA/G better than the Leafs last season. That's a difference of about 1 goal in every 8 game segment. Fire Babcock!
I guess it stands to reason that if Scott Bowman had this team the last 3 years, the bling in the dressing would be so bright that you'd have to wear shades.....that what you saying Hitosukri....get real
Umm...those posters writing about how the Wings are so successful at developing their talent, guys like Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Holstrom etc...
The point is if you have a strong roster (Red Wings were pretty much a dynasty in those days and continue to be a top contender)....then you can afford to keep the youth in the minors. Leafs are not exactly in that position and Kadri is easily amongst the most skilled forwards in the system including the parent club. That comparison.
AH, thank you , i did not pick up on that analogy.
Well here is what i would say to that.
My reference to Det was in the simplest term, (don't rush the kids) regardless whats going on with the big club.
I would rather have my young players develop down in the AHL getting top 2 line minutes , like say Kadri/Frattin would, then have them up here getting 4th line/press box minutes. Seeing that both are hoped to end up developing into top 2 types.
Part of this that helps is that none of the 3rd/ 4th line guys are dinosaurs.
I'm not concerned about any risk regarding sending those young players down, if they have it in them to develop into solid pros , they will.
I believe that if you give them more opportunity and challenges down in the AHL the better.
