>unbelievable tear and many many posters were already calling them the
>greatest team ever to play the game. 20 or so games before the
>playoffs the absurdity of those comments are there for everyone to
of the best this year. They play hard and with heart, and that's what
wins them games.
>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.
>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
Gretzky, but then again, who (other than Whayne) is? I don't see the
>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.
Potvin has had games where he has had to face that many shots. And
what's so bad about having a good defense which limits the shots on net.
As long as they can keep it up, there isn't a problem is there? And are
you trying to say that Roy is NOT one of the better goalies in the NHL?
Wow! That's a pretty hefty statement. Again, I don't see how you're
point proves anything.
>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.
talent (which is agreeable, especailly since Burns will also admit it)
then your arguement of Burns' coaching style is useless. You say they
can't win because Burns won't let them exploit their talent, then you go
say that they don't have any. According to you, it doesn't apply. BTW,
Burns' said yesterday that the Leafs MUST pay hard to win, beacause they
can't rely simply on talent alone. they don't have #99's or #66's, so
it's hard work that'll make them win.
>abscence of a great supporting cast, and the Leafs lack that cast. Roy
>won the cup last year because of great supporting cast. Potvin is no
>Roy and Gilmour is NOT great enough to carry the Leafs.
stats to Roy when Roy played under Burns' style of hockey. Well, I don't
know for sure, but wouldn't that imply that Potvin IS similar to Roy.
BTW, many members of the hockey press would agree that they are
comparable, and have written article on it.
Also, you say that there is no supporting cast? What do you call Clark,
Andreychuck, Boreschevsky, Ellet, Bomber, Mironov? All these guys and
others are respectable players. Clark and Andreychuck were nominated to
the All-star game. Doesn't that say anything to you?
-\| |/- TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS
\ / 1994 Stanley Cup Champions