Edited Dec. 10, 2020 at 9:37 p.m.
Quoting: DJSums17
Don't get me wrong I read all the points and some are right. Most are probably right. But arguin the same point for everything I say is not impressive. Sandin is better then Marincin. Playing him isnt stunting his growth. IF putting a player in a bad situation mattered to development... it really hurt McDavid... it really hurt Rielly... it really hurt Brady Tkachuck... it really hurt Carter Hart... it really hurt Chabot... the list goes on.
I am not sure if you are just being dishonest for the hell of it or simply completely clueless. 1) I am talking about the development of D. The development of forwards and goalies has nothing to do with it, although Dubas was talking about both forwards and D when he said that shuttling up and down to and from the minors when they are 18 - 21 years old was harmful and that prospects that age would only ever be brought into an NHL game by him when he was certain they would be full-time NHL players from that game onward. Again that is what Dubas said, but everyone who knows anything about development knows that as all the evidence supports it. People who deny this are either completely clueless of are trying to defend an undefendable position.
Playing on a bad team as McDavid and Brady Tkachuk did as young players is not a bad situation, and often a good situation as long as the team doesn't remain bad for a long time. You get to come into a low stakes environment, get lots of ice time and responsibility and grow with the team. That has nothing to do with anything I have ever talked about.
The current Norris trophy winner, Josi, came into the NHL at 21, full-time, had played 87 AHL games, but never played another one. They partnered him with physical vet Klein and within roughly 50 games he was top-pair with Weber. Hedman and Doughty both came into the NHL as top-4. In both cases their team acquired massive physical vets specifically to mentor them into the lineup (37 year old O'Donnell for Doughty and 33 year old Ohlund for Hedman). Keith played his first games with big, physical vet Cullimore. If teams understood that even world class prospects like them needed to be mentored by big, physical vets, and never brought in before they were ready to be full-time (which means both the player being ready and the team having the right environment - as they all did by ensuring the proper partner was there from day 1), then there is no excuse for the Leafs to be so idiotic. More recently Carlo and McAvoy were both brought in playing with Chara, Joki and Boqvist were partnered by Keith, Hughes with Tanev, Girard with Johnsson, Makar with Graves (not a vet, but massive), Heiskanen with Polak, Dahlin with Bogo, Chabot with Karlsson, and so on.
We know how most top-4 D are developed. They 1) are brought into the NHL as full-time D, they 2) in their first year or two (or longer) are played with a partner who is either a veteran D or a big, mean D, or both and they 3) either start in the NHL as top-4 D or move into the top-4 quickly (usually within 50 or so). That is not the case for every single top-4 D, but if you look at every top-4 D in the NHL you will see that easily 70% had at least two of the three (and almost always had #1 - which is no surprise as shuttling young D up and down is usually a complete career killer). Most of the outliers are D who were late developers (either late draft picks or undrafted players) who somehow succeeded in the slog or they were big, physical Ds who were considered to be projects when they were drafted. The evidence is all there. Dubas knows it. They did none of that with Sandin. Not because they didn't know better, but because they don't actually care about development. They did none of that with Liljegren. Not because they didn't know better, but because they don't actually care about development. They did that with Dermott - full-time on the Leafs' from day 1 and with an appropriate big, physical vet partner in Polak - until Dubas took over as GM and that all immediately went out the window as Dubas played 37-games of experience Dermott with zero games experience Oz and then never even attempted to test him in the top-4 until about 150 career games on the 3rd pairing (even bringing in Marincin to play in the top-4 when Muzzin was injured before finally giving Dermott his first shot).
They are a team that is very bad at D development - and that is not new. At least Rielly was also a full-time D from game 1, but it took them over a season to really let him move into the top-4 and the team passed him around through partner after partner before settling on Polak and then vet Hunwick during his early years. Not good, but not the disaster they are now. Sometimes when you are bad at development you get lucky and the odd player turns out anyway, but it rare.
You would know all this if you looked into it. But you haven't and you won't because you prefer to live in a fantasy land.
Quote:
Not getting Bogo at the deadline was 100% the right move. You bring him in and the team looks at it like being rewarded for bad play it could've easily gone worse. Bogo isn't helping the offensive side of the puck. He wouldn't of made a difference.
Bringing in Bogo last February would not have been a reward. It would have been a team with a couple D injuries getting an appropriate partner for a small 19-year-old rookie D with 20 games NHL experience who the team was playing with a small 20-year-old rookie D with a half-dozen games NHL experience. To not do that is extreme negligence and a clear sign that the team does not care about proper development. NHL teams that care about developing D routinely bring in vet partners to play with their young D prospects. The Leafs' don't and that is why they are so terrible at it.
Quote:
As for shooting% I didn't specify when they had it. It wasn't overy 5v5 it was over the entire series. But even if it was 5% that's not that much better either. Also taking 1 example over 5 game series is just nitpicking. I'm sure there's others like it because it's hockey and that's how the game is played. Like I said if you watch that series now and say it wasn't majority the goalies I don't think we're watching the same games.
You haven't re-watched the games. You have latched on to a complete lie because you find it comforting. The Leafs' sucked. Columbus goaltending was not great.
Shots from game 1
period 1 – Robertson, Mikheyev, Muzzin, Mik, Rielly, Ceci, Barrie, Matthews, Barrie, Rielly, Kerfoot
period 2 – Tavares, Muzzin, Kapanen, Nylander, Matthews, Kerfoot, Hyman, Matthews
period 3 – Muzzin, Matthews, Matthews, Barrie*, Tavares, Barrie, Holl, Mik, Barrie,
*this shot by Barrie was recorded as a shot by Matthews (who was nowhere even close to the puck). Not surprising as the recording of the data which is used for advanced stats has poor accuracy and is never corrected.
The shot by Robertson was ok. Matthews’ first shot in the second period was decent. There was no other shot on net that was even remotely dangerous. The best chance of the game was a high shot attempt by Matthews, but that wasn't a save (or a shot on net) and had nothing to do with the goaltender who wouldn't have saved it if it was on net - again - not great goaltending. There is a reason why almost half the shots came from D (even though there was almost never anyone in front for a rebound). The Leafs’ couldn’t (or wouldn’t) get anywhere close to a scoring position. If they did and managed to get a shot off like Hyman did in the second period it was while falling to his ass, but most of their shot attempts from in close were either deflected or blocked – great systems and D, not great goaltending. A number of the shots on net were going to miss the net. One of Matthews’ “shots” was a dump in from behind the red line. There was zero cycling by the Leafs. Just rushes in which they took weak shots from the outside and then the Jackets went back the other way. In the four years of the Matthews’ era this was the worst game for quality of shots. Advanced stats are useless. The team knew that it was destroyed this game. They knew that they had to completely change tactics and fight much harder to gain any sort of position because they were kept completely to the outside, and any shot attempt from in closer was poor. But they were unsuccessful in changing tactics and lost a series where they were clearly the inferior team.