Why the Maple Leafs Will NOT WIN the Stanley Cup

Why the Maple Leafs Will NOT WIN the Stanley Cup

Post by SEMENOV KIRI » Sun, 20 Mar 1994 08:06:03


Article 38621 (19 more) in rec.sport.hockey:

Quote:
>I had originally argued that the Leafs would not win the cup. I now
>feel vindicated as more and more people realize that the Leafs are
>nothing more than a Burns construct capable of winning games in the
>meaningless regular season by exploiting an EFFECTIVE defensive but
>are incapable of walking away with the cup.

Of course The Leafs are Burns' construct. I had better hope they are.
He's the coach.
If the regular season were meaningless, they would jump straight into
the playoffs. Yet the 20-some teams still go through the same 80-some games
sharade every year. Must be SOME reason why...
I will argue that the Leafs are capable of walking away with the Cup as
much as any other team that makes the playoffs. Even if San Jose or the
new expansion teams make it.

Quote:
>The reasons are:
>1) Gilmour is a very good player who had a Mark Messier type
>season(i.e. a season where his point totals were totally out of
>context with the rest of his career) and who after that brilliant year
>in which he managed to become vastly overrated will retreat to
>normalacy.

Gilmour may seem over-rated in the context of other NHL players, but his
value to the Leafs cannot be stressed enough. That is why he finished
second in the MVP voting last year.

All his life he's been the supporting player in the shadow of other
greats. Much the same story with Andreychuck. Now he's the star.

So far this season he has managed to stay in the top 4 scorers in the
League, behind such talents as Gretzky and Fedorov. I would hardly call
that 'normalcy', unless, of course, you're Lemieux. He is on track to
repeat his last year's performance and there's no reason why he
shouldn't.

Quote:
>2) Potvin statistics are skewed by Burns' system. Roy was brilliant
>every year under Burns but not last year. Why? Well because he was
>facing very few shots. A method developed by Klein and Reif pretty
>much confirms my hypothesis that Roy had the same great season save
>for the number of shots at him.

Your point is not very clear. Are you saying that because Roy had less
shots at him due to Burns' system he was great? And not after Burns
left, because the number of shots increased?

It was said before that goaltending is a very unstable commodity, and
it's true. My hat goes off to any goaltender who can play consistently
well through the season and the playoffs. Unfortunately, it doesn't
happen. No matter what you can say about Potvin, he a GOOD goalie.
Flashes of brilliance here and there, some terrible moments, but GOOD on
the overall. Good under pressure, thus good enough for the Cup.

Quote:
>3) Burns can not win because he refuses to let his players exploit
>their talents, and in the case of the Maple Leafs that might not be an
>issue. His defensive system is of no use if the other team can play as
>disciplined, and in my own humble opinion 5 NHL teams at this point
>can do it. At the beginning of the year only the Leafs were so they
>were winning big.

Exactly. There's very little talent on the Leafs' roster. Gilmour,
Andreychuk, Potvin are sure bets. Borschevsky is talented but way too
small. Clark is talented but it is more his hard work that pays off. The
rest, if it weren't for Burns, would be a bunch of blind kittens.

All in all, there's no one here, or anywhere else for that matter who
can say who will win the Cup in '94. There can be favourites, and the
Leafs sure are one of them.

GO LEAFS GO!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Go Toronto Maple Leafs - 1994 Stanley Cup Champions!         |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|'I have my faults, but being wrong isn't one of them' - Jimmy Hoffa|
---------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Why the Maple Leafs Will NOT WIN the Stanley Cup

Post by Mike Godfr » Wed, 23 Mar 1994 02:21:13


Quote:

>1) Gilmour is a very good player who had a Mark Messier type
>season(i.e. a season where his point totals were totally out of
>context with the rest of his career) and who after that brilliant year
>in which he managed to become vastly overrated will retreat to
>normalacy.

Are you talking about Gilmour's top ten scoring finish of last year or his
third place pace of this year?  

Which of these is so out of context for him that he'll never be able to
duplicate it?

--
Mike Godfrey                        A *real* patriot is the fellow who
Dept of Comp Sci, UofT              gets a parking ticket and rejoices that