Gauthier plays on the 4th line, book it.
- TheMussel

Goats not very good

Or maybe the refs can call the games the way they should be called.
- bobbyisno1

Playoff hockey is playoff hockey. Always has been, probably always will be. Get guys that can play it and enjoy it.

Playoff hockey is playoff hockey. Always has been, probably always will be. Get guys that can play it and enjoy it.
- Unholy_Goalie

games gong a different way, so will the reffing.

games gong a different way, so will the reffing.
- bobbyisno1

Not really.
The playoffs are still the same.
You need to be able to hit and take a hit.

Playoff hockey is playoff hockey. Always has been, probably always will be. Get guys that can play it and enjoy it.
- Unholy_Goalie

I think Johnson fits that bill honestly. I.e. able to play it and enjoy it. Both in the ahl and what I saw from him in the nhl.

I think Johnson fits that bill honestly. I.e. able to play it and enjoy it. Both in the ahl and what I saw from him in the nhl.
- mykokes

But very small.

Between Tavares, Nylander, Matthews, Marner and Kapanen, they have enough speed and skill in the top six. I just named five guys. Marleau isn't really a tough player either despite his size. That's a lot of speed and skill and almost zero grit.

Ideally, two guys like Wayne Simmons, one to play with Matthews and one for Tavares, would be great but at this point even just one guy would be an improvement.

And I really doubt Dubas is 100% about pure skill and speed too by the way. Do some research and his grandfather, who coached the Soo Greyhounds and raised Dubas, was a Don Cherry type guy. It's in there somewhere.

It swings back and forth all the time, especially depending on who just won the Cup. But even the Capitals had Tom Wilson. His price tag is ridiculous going forward but up until that extension, he was a valuable piece of the puzzle.

Definitely don't need a Matt Martin but a powerforward or two wouldn't hurt, especially against teams like the Bruins. I'd rather have Nick Ritchie and Sam Bennet than Johnsson and Brown. I like Johnsson and Brown types, but we have enough speed and skill guys, rather have a guy who plays like Hyman but with better hands and actual size.
- Unholy_Goalie

I was saying this earlier in the last blog. I hate agreeing with you but it is what it is.
Although Brown was a poor example. He may be small but he plays the boards well and doesn't loose puck battles often. Kap would have been better. I would rather have a Johnsson type playing with a Hyman type than Johnsson with another Johnsson type like Kap.
Or at least a big and skilled 4th line.
Also no need to trade for such players. Just draft them. We may have a couple guys that can pan out like Marchment, Engvall or Korshkov.

I was saying this earlier in the last blog. I hate agreeing with you but it is what it is.
Although Brown was a poor example. He may be small but he plays the boards well and doesn't loose puck battles often. Kap would have been better. I would rather have a Johnsson type playing with a Hyman type than Johnsson with another Johnsson type like Kap.
Or at least a big and skilled 4th line.
Also no need to trade for such players. Just draft them. We may have a couple guys that can pan out like Marchment, Engvall or Korshkov.
- UsernameUnknown

I like Brown but he doesn't exactly impress with his frame or drop the gloves or anything like that. I like how he digs but I'm talking about a bigger, more powerful player with the same skills.

Drafting them helps down the line but that could take years. Would rather get young guys like Bennett and Ritchie who are already in the NHL but also 21/22.

It swings back and forth all the time, especially depending on who just won the Cup. But even the Capitals had Tom Wilson. His price tag is ridiculous going forward but up until that extension, he was a valuable piece of the puzzle.

Definitely don't need a Matt Martin but a powerforward or two wouldn't hurt, especially against teams like the Bruins. I'd rather have Nick Ritchie and Sam Bennet than Johnsson and Brown. I like Johnsson and Brown types, but we have enough speed and skill guys, rather have a guy who plays like Hyman but with better hands and actual size.
- Unholy_Goalie

Bennett I like, brings an edge with some skill, Ritchie I'm not a fan of. Sure he has the size, but from when I've seen him play he's just looked a bit out of synch and not exactly the brightest player out there. This is obviously just a personal opinion but Johnsson and Brown strike me as faster with better instincts. Ritchie relies on his size but that only works for so long and deteriorates rapidly. On top of that, if you're looking for a power forward for the playoffs, he hasn't exactly performed well, even when playing on a good Ducks team.

In the end I think intelligence and skill are much more useful, especially on a team built the way the Leafs are. I do agree they could use some size though, and if an opportunity to grab a power forward like a poor man's Wheeler or a Simmonds, then that would be worth it. Ritchie just doesn't do it for me.

Bennett I like, brings an edge with some skill, Ritchie I'm not a fan of. Sure he has the size, but from when I've seen him play he's just looked a bit out of synch and not exactly the brightest player out there. This is obviously just a personal opinion but Johnsson and Brown strike me as faster with better instincts. Ritchie relies on his size but that only works for so long and deteriorates rapidly. On top of that, if you're looking for a power forward for the playoffs, he hasn't exactly performed well, even when playing on a good Ducks team.

In the end I think intelligence and skill are much more useful, especially on a team built the way the Leafs are. I do agree they could use some size though, and if an opportunity to grab a power forward like a poor man's Wheeler or a Simmonds, then that would be worth it. Ritchie just doesn't do it for me.
- 13sundin13

Ritchie is still young, plenty of room to grow and learn. That's why Babcock gets paid the big bucks right?

Players can be taught hockey IQ, can't teach size though.

I'd take Bennett over Brown and Ritchie over Johnsson. Like I said earlier, the rest of the top-six is already filled with skill and speed. Take the extra speed and skill and move it for some young prospective power forwards.

Ritchie is still young, plenty of room to grow and learn. That's why Babcock gets paid the big bucks right?

Players can be taught hockey IQ, can't teach size though.
- Unholy_Goalie

I wouldn't agree that you can easily teach hockey IQ, I actually think it's probably the hardest skill to develop and it's the one thing that separates good players from everyone else. You can teach certain mechanical basics, but a player's ability to think the game at a high level is rare.

Size is obviously something you can't teach either but as countless players have proven over the years, it's not something that is necessary for success. So many players have been drafted ahead of better players because of their size only to drop out of the league quite quickly, making the team that drafted them look pretty foolish. In today's game I think it's wise to take the smart player over the big player.

I wouldn't agree that you can easily teach hockey IQ, I actually think it's probably the hardest skill to develop and it's the one thing that separates good players from everyone else. You can teach certain mechanical basics, but a player's ability to think the game at a high level is rare.
- 13sundin13

Coaching and desire. If the instruction is high level and the player wants to do it, it can be done. It takes time, patience, the right linemates, the right coach and team environment but it can be done. But making a guy who is 5'11" 170 into a 6'4" 220 is impossible.

Size is obviously something you can't teach either but as countless players have proven over the years, it's not something that is necessary for success. So many players have been drafted ahead of better players because of their size only to drop out of the league quite quickly, making the team that drafted them look pretty foolish. In today's game I think it's wise to take the smart player over the big player.

Every case is different but if you bring in a Sam Bennett and Nick Ritchie and put them with Matthews and Tavares with Babcock behind the bench, I think you have as good a chance as you'll get to turn those guys into smarter players and add a size and toughness element that the Leafs currently lack. The game is easier when you're playing with high level talent who help guide you and give you better chances to succeed.

Coaching and desire. If the instruction is high level and the player wants to do it, it can be done. It takes time, patience, the right linemates, the right coach and team environment but it can be done. But making a guy who is 5'11" 170 into a 6'4" 220 is impossible.



Every case is different but if you bring in a Sam Bennett and Nick Ritchie and put them with Matthews and Tavares with Babcock behind the bench, I think you have as good a chance as you'll get to turn those guys into smarter players and add a size and toughness element that the Leafs currently lack. The game is easier when you're playing with high level talent who help guide you and give you better chances to succeed.
- Unholy_Goalie

I think it's equally difficult to make a player like Ritchie think like Brown or Johnsson. It's not just desire and coaching, it's creativity and intelligence. Sure you can teach certain essentials, but that can only take a person so far. Much like size, some people are just born smarter in certain areas and that's what separates them from everyone else. Physically and skill wise, there are so many players who are as good as than players currently in the NHL, but the mental game is what separates the very good players from NHL players.

Like I said, Bennett I'd be into, Ritchie I wouldn't.

I think it's equally difficult to make a player like Ritchie think like Brown or Johnsson. It's not just desire and coaching, it's creativity and intelligence. Sure you can teach certain essentials, but that can only take a person so far. Much like size, some people are just born smarter in certain areas and that's what separates them from everyone else. Physically and skill wise, there are so many players who are as good as than players currently in the NHL, but the mental game is what separates the very good players from NHL players.

Like I said, Bennett I'd be into, Ritchie I wouldn't.
- 13sundin13

People said the same about Yzerman before Bowman showed up in Detroit. Yzerman was a one-way player until the right coach and the right team was created. If the player cares enough and if the coach is good enough, it can be done.

Look at Lucic in Boston compared to everywhere else. The coaching, the system and the benefit of playing with Bergeron etc. helped him play better than he really was. If you create the right environment, you can get more from a player who otherwise isn't as good outside the system.

Ritchie is young enough that it'd be worth the risk (depending on the cost of course, something like Johnsson + a pick or something). And I'm not saying it 100% absolutely has to be him, it could easily be another power forward prospect, but he'd be a pretty good candidate to bring some skill and size to the top-six who is young enough to mold and improve upon.

People said the same about Yzerman before Bowman showed up in Detroit. Yzerman was a one-way player until the right coach and the right team was created. If the player cares enough and if the coach is good enough, it can be done.

Look at Lucic in Boston compared to everywhere else. The coaching, the system and the benefit of playing with Bergeron etc. helped him play better than he really was. If you create the right environment, you can get more from a player who otherwise isn't as good outside the system.

Ritchie is young enough that it'd be worth the risk. And I'm not saying it 100% absolutely has to be him, it could easily be another power forward prospect, but he'd be a pretty good candidate to bring some skill and size to the top-six who is young enough to mold and improve upon.
- Unholy_Goalie

Yzerman was a supremely gifted player, not a one way player, flirting with being a generational talent. He got there because of his intelligence and creativity, not his physical attributes, and that has continued past his playing career. Sure he changed his game, but it was because he was a smart hockey player and knew the game so well that he could do it effectively. He was challenged by his coach, but it wasn't a matter of educating him and increasing his hockey IQ, it was about applying his intelligence in a different more effective way. That's why having smart players is so important.

To me, Lucic is a prime example of why they should stay away from Ritchie. If you get the player in a good situation, sure they can have success, but put any player on Bergeron's wing and they're going to have success. Take him off the line and he's much less effective, bordering on detrimental. Take him out of the strict system that gave him success and he's lost.

Now, if you take a player like Brown, he can play on the top line, he can play on the checking line, he can play on the 4th line. He can play anywhere because he's smart. Players like that are much more useful and valuable than a player like Lucic, as time has proven.

Anyways, I do think we agree that they could use some size, it's something that is still useful in the game, I just think that player needs to bring more to the table than Ritchie does. Obviously, I could easily be wrong here, so we may have to agree to disagree.

Yzerman was a supremely gifted player, not a one way player, flirting with being a generational talent. He got there because of his intelligence and creativity, not his physical attributes, and that has continued past his playing career. Sure he changed his game, but it was because he was a smart hockey player and knew the game so well that he could do it effectively. He was challenged by his coach, but it wasn't a matter of educating him and increasing his hockey IQ, it was about applying his intelligence in a different more effective way. That's why having smart players is so important.
- 13sundin13

He was mostly an offensive player that learned to play defense and play smarter because of a great coach. That was my basic point.

To me, Lucic is a prime example of why they should stay away from Ritchie. If you get the player in a good situation, sure they can have success, but put any player on Bergeron's wing and they're going to have success. Take him off the line and he's much less effective, bordering on detrimental. Take him out of the strict system that gave him success and he's lost.

Boston and Lucic won a Cup together, in large part to his physical style and being insulated by the right cast of players in a good system. The same could be done with a power forward playing beside Matthews and/or Tavares. It's not a problem until that player wants 7 million a year and at that point you can trade him when he's worth the most and replace him with a cheaper player to avoid making the same mistakes other teams made.

Now, if you take a player like Brown, he can play on the top line, he can play on the checking line, he can play on the 4th line. He can play anywhere because he's smart. Players like that are much more useful and valuable than a player like Lucic, as time has proven.

Rather have the bigger, higher impact player. You can replace Brown with another depth prospect. You can't necessarily get what a legit power forward brings as easily.

Anyways, I do think we agree that they could use some size, it's something that is still useful in the game, I just think that player needs to bring more to the table than Ritchie does. Obviously, I could easily be wrong here, so we may have to agree to disagree.

Like I said before, it can be somebody other than Ritchie but I think he's a good candidate too. Maybe not the best, but a guy worth looking at considering his size, cost, age and connection to the Soo Greyhounds. Bottom line though, this team can afford to lose the lower end speed and skill players if it means bringing in some more power forwards.

He was mostly an offensive player that learned to play defense and play smarter because of a great coach. That was my basic point.



Boston and Lucic won a Cup together, in large part to his physical style and being insulated by the right cast of players in a good system. The same could be done with a power forward playing beside Matthews and/or Tavares. It's not a problem until that player wants 7 million a year and at that point you can trade him when he's worth the most and replace him with a cheaper player to avoid making the same mistakes other teams made.



Rather have the bigger, higher impact player. You can replace Brown with another depth prospect. You can't necessarily get what a legit power forward brings as easily.



Like I said before, it can be somebody other than Ritchie but I think he's a good candidate too. Maybe not the best, but a guy worth looking at considering his size, cost, age and connection to the Soo Greyhounds. Bottom line though, this team can afford to lose the lower end speed and skill players if it means bringing in some more power forwards.
- Unholy_Goalie

Yzerman was an intelligent player which allowed him to become a great all round player. Bowman convinced him to apply that talent to the defensive side of the game as well but he didn't teach him how to be smarter, he was already a smart player. I don't see Ritchie having that level of hockey IQ and I don't think it can be coached into him. Hockey IQ is a natural talent in itself.

Bracco is terrible

Ritchie is still young, plenty of room to grow and learn. That's why Babcock gets paid the big bucks right?

Players can be taught hockey IQ, can't teach size though.

I'd take Bennett over Brown and Ritchie over Johnsson. Like I said earlier, the rest of the top-six is already filled with skill and speed. Take the extra speed and skill and move it for some young prospective power forwards.
- Unholy_Goalie

Now you want to start trading away the team for guys like Nick Ritchie and Sam Bennett.


Im very glad you have no say.

Yzerman was an intelligent player which allowed him to become a great all round player. Bowman convinced him to apply that talent to the defensive side of the game as well but he didn't teach him how to be smarter, he was already a smart player. I don't see Ritchie having that level of hockey IQ and I don't think it can be coached into him. Hockey IQ is a natural talent in itself.
- 13sundin13

I agree hockey iq isn't something that is coachable, it's a natural talent. I don't think Richie has very high hockey iq and thus have no faith that he'll be able to be changed by coaching.

Now you want to start trading away the team for guys like Nick Ritchie and Sam Bennett.


Im very glad you have no say.
- nbboy

Agreed, sounds like Dave nonis for (frank)s sakes. Forget about skill and talent and iq, we need more intangibles and more size

Agreed, sounds like Dave nonis for (frank)s sakes. Forget about skill and talent and iq, we need more intangibles and more size
- burn

I like the skill and speed aspect and we will have that in buckets.
I also think Boston last year and Washington the year before won more physical battles in the playoffs.
With both Polak and Martin gone we lack that aspect. For that reason I think Borgman will make the team out of camp. The guy has some sandpaper in his game and Babcock will want him in the lineup.

Bracco is terrible
- BernardShakey

I wish this wasn't true, and I hope it changes. From seeing him in junior though, he was way overrated.

I like the skill and speed aspect and we will have that in buckets.
I also think Boston last year and Washington the year before won more physical battles in the playoffs.
With both Polak and Martin gone we lack that aspect. For that reason I think Borgman will make the team out of camp. The guy has some sandpaper in his game and Babcock will want him in the lineup.
- Rang

Possibly one of Rosen or Borgman, and one of Grundstrom or Marchment in the lineup.

Would not be a surprise if none of them make it though.

Does UG not have a job and still live in his moms basement suite? How can you stay up until 2AM every night, talk hockey, and then go to work?