Log in Register
  • For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Is it Preseason yet...

nutman said:
Well that looks like crap. Why are they selling the ice? Adds do not belong on our ice.
Click to expand...

When's the last time you actually looked at the ACC ice?

leaf15.jpg
 
Nik the Trik said:
nutman said:
Well that looks like crap. Why are they selling the ice? Adds do not belong on our ice.
Click to expand...

When's the last time you actually looked at the ACC ice?

leaf15.jpg
Click to expand...


I know there has  been adds. I just hate it, and always hope it wont get worse.
 
That's funny, I've gotten so adept at shutting out ads that I didn't even notice there were any these last few years.
 
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
That's funny, I've gotten so adept at shutting out ads that I didn't even notice there were any these last few years.
Click to expand...

Seriously. If somebody actually asked me before today if there were ads on the ice at the ACC last season I would have just guessed yes or no. Absolutely zero impact.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
That's funny, I've gotten so adept at shutting out ads that I didn't even notice there were any these last few years.
Click to expand...

Seriously. If somebody actually asked me before today if there were ads on the ice at the ACC last season I would have just guessed yes or no. Absolutely zero impact.
Click to expand...

Feels really weird to watch games at rinks with naked white boards though.
 
You should try watching a game at my home teams arena

https://twitter.com/BelfastGiants/status/897022156466520064

Ugh.
 
https://twitter.com/LeafDieHards/status/902652087040802816
We know #43 is looking forward to camp...
 
cabber24 said:
Scotiabank Arena? Meh... I will probably still call it the ACC like I call the "Rogers Centre", Skydome.
Click to expand...

Bland name.  Should be "Scotiabank Centre" not "Arena".  Sounds better. Still bland in my book.  Corporate named arenas have never sounded good, save for a few.

The ACC, Air Canada Centre, Skydome -- classy sounding.  Rogers Centre not so much either.

Only Madison Square Garden is still staying classy.  Sigh.
 
Because we are waiting for preseason.

If the Leafs don't lose Berard to that eye injury, do they win a cup?  Berard was exactly the type of d-man they needed during those years.  A #1 guy that could play at both ends of the ice.  With Sundin at center, and Berard on D, and either Joseph or Belfour in net,  that's a pretty strong core.  Then you surround it with the players that they had and that's a strong team.  I guess the answer to the question depends on how close you think the Leafs were during those years, and whether or not you think they were that one elite d-man away from getting over the hump.   
 
hockeyfan1 said:
cabber24 said:
Scotiabank Arena? Meh... I will probably still call it the ACC like I call the "Rogers Centre", Skydome.
Click to expand...

Bland name.  Should be "Scotiabank Centre" not "Arena".  Sounds better. Still bland in my book.  Corporate named arenas have never sounded good, save for a few.

The ACC, Air Canada Centre, Skydome -- classy sounding.  Rogers Centre not so much either.

Only Madison Square Garden is still staying classy.  Sigh.
Click to expand...

Scotiabank Centre already exists in Halifax.
 
I think Berard was a pretty good player and if we had possession numbers back then maybe he'd look even better but he was never really a #1 defenseman in any meaningful sense. Could he have been absent the eye injury...maybe? But I think you're remembering him as better on both sides than he really was.

So, no, I don't think he would have been the difference vs. teams like the '02 Red Wings or any of those Devils teams.
 
Nik the Trik said:
I think Berard was a pretty good player and if we had possession numbers back then maybe he'd look even better but he was never really a #1 defenseman in any meaningful sense. Could he have been absent the eye injury...maybe? But I think you're remembering him as better on both sides than he really was.

So, no, I don't think he would have been the difference vs. teams like the '02 Red Wings or any of those Devils teams.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought he had played more than he had in the year that he got injured, but he was averaging 19:34 in ice time, which was actually 5th on the team behind Yushkevich, Kaberle, Karpovtsev, and Markov.  Maybe the bigger hit to the D was Yushkevich.

Hard to say what the Leafs would have done had Berard not been injured, with respect to acquiring Bryan McCabe, but if they had been able to go with a defense group of Yushkevich, McCabe, Kaberle, Markov, and Berard, that is a really strong group in my opinion.  In 2002, the group they ran with was McCabe, Kaberle, Yushkevich (year he gets the blood clot diagnosis), Lumme, Berg, Cross.  In that year Anders Ericksson, Karel Pilar, and Wade Belak also see time on defence.  I'd take the 5 that were listed above over that lot.

In 2003 it's Kaberle, Svehla, McCabe, Lumme, Berg, with smatterings of Belak, Ric Jackman, and Pilar.  Glen Wesley was acquired at the deadline.  Maybe it's rose coloured glasses filter thing, but I still think I take  Yushkevich, McCabe, Kaberle, Markov, and Berard over that group. 

In 2004 it's McCabe, Kaberle, Ken Klee, Berg, Bryan Marchement,  as the main contributors.  Pilar, Jackman and Belak also saw time.  The playoffs were a little different this year as they had acquired Leetch and Housley for the run, so they could actually trot out McCabe, Kaberle, Klee, Berg, Marchement, Leetch and Housley.  Still though, I kinda like that other 5. 

Anywas, I guess losing Berard wasn't that big of a hit.  Maybe it was all the churn.  The trading of Markov, and the loss of Yushkevich also wasn't great.  My feeling about those years is that the team had a group of forwards that could compete, and they had the goalies to get it done, but they defence just wasn't up to snuff. 
 
Significantly Insignificant said:
Anywas, I guess losing Berard wasn't that big of a hit.  Maybe it was all the churn.  The trading of Markov, and the loss of Yushkevich also wasn't great.  My feeling about those years is that the team had a group of forwards that could compete, and they had the goalies to get it done, but they defence just wasn't up to snuff.
Click to expand...

No, I think that's fair. I think the team needed two things to really take the step forward in those years. One being a legit #1 type Norris-y defenseman, the other being an All-Star level #2 C behind Sundin. With both of those I think they're real contenders.

Over at Yahoo they're doing off-season "What If?" scenarios for all of the teams and the one they did for the Leafs is not making the Kurvers trade and whether or not having Scott Niedermayer would have been the difference between a Cup and no Cup. Even then though I'm pretty skeptical.
 
Nik the Trik said:
No, I think that's fair. I think the team needed two things to really take the step forward in those years. One being a legit #1 type Norris-y defenseman, the other being an All-Star level #2 C behind Sundin. With both of those I think they're real contenders.
Click to expand...

I remember in one of your posts talking about the Leafs almost acquiring Lecavalier back in the Sundin hay days.  That would have been interesting.  One of the pieces that was a part of that was Kaberle, so it's hard to say what they overall impact is there.  I think the deal sets them up better long term over the next decade from that point, but they would still have the problem on defence, and they would need a way to get over that.  Still with Sundin as #1, and Lecavalier as #2, you could probably go a defence by committee route and possibly get to cup final. 

Nik the Trik said:
Over at Yahoo they're doing off-season "What If?" scenarios for all of the teams and the one they did for the Leafs is not making the Kurvers trade and whether or not having Scott Niedermayer would have been the difference between a Cup and no Cup. Even then though I'm pretty skeptical.
Click to expand...

I agree that Niedermayer wasn't the difference between them winning a cup and not winning a cup back then.  The Gilmour teams had a really good defence.  There were cases being made by people that it was the best group of 6 in the league.  Their goalie was top flight.  To me the problem with those Gilmour teams was that they just didn't have enough scoring depth past Gilmour, Andreychuk and Clark.

Now if you add Neidermayer to the Sundin teams.  Maybe, but yeah, they still might not have enough to compete for the cup.  However, it does weaken the Devils, so that road block potentially gets removed.  Hard to say to what the impact would have been. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top