I'm watching the Edmonton game, I see their core has taken over the game, we watched the TO series against TB, TO won but Kucherov, Point and the rest of TB was enabling TB to outshot TO 2 to 1 in some games and basically outside of one game TB way outplayed TO, thank you Samsonov.
I would say that Samsonov was TO's only core quality player in that 1st round even tho Matthews and Marner scored like core players should.
Many will say that d-men that can defend are a greater assets than offensively capable d-men, which is true of course but those same people will maintain that great scoring d-men are usually poor defensively, yet as a general rule those same offensive d-men are paid more that the supposed defensively adept. Is this a systemic NHL problem or is it more likely that offensive d-men should be far more valuable than the defensive ones because a d-man's responsibility is to keep the puck out of his net which is essentially keeping the puck outside of his zone. A defensive d-man will push/harass/cross check the opposition but ultimately will contribute to the debris that a goaltender has to contend with trying to see where the puck is/coming from. Rielly has never been considered a good defensive d-man but his value escalates in the playoffs because he still does his offensive things while also defending with purpose. Even tho he's widely viewed as a less than ideal d-man he makes considerably more than any other d-man on TO. I would say that Rielly only qualifies as a core player in the playoffs.
We can look at Marner's and Matthews' offensive stats during these playoffs and they are impressive, they are so impressive that these players can or more likely do presume they are doing enough to justify their salaries, it is mostly because of them that TO does so well year after year during the regular season. Even tho they score like superstars, are they worth their salaries, they don't dominate games like McDavid & Drisaitl, like Point & Kucherov, like Marchand & Pastrnak, doesn't being core worthy also means that a player can dominate, take over games in every way rather than simply be dominant statistically via offensive stats. Territorially, like a d-man, a core players value is also his ability to control the game, have and keep the puck, force the play, this doesn't always end up being recognized via goals and assists but while a team's core players are dominating the chances of the opposition scoring diminishes.
In the last game, TO's only dominate looking player was Nylander, to me, he was single handily possessing the puck, creating scoring chances, everything that I expect from a core player. Of course he was able to do this because he wasn't facing Florida's best defensive unit but at the same time he's not paid $11 mil. which is more than any other players on the ice except for TO players, TO's core AM, MM and JT need to be far more dominant than I think they are capable of in order for TO to be seriously considered as a Cup contender.
Basically, what I'm saying is TO's d is a bunch of slugs with one iffy core player and the forwards are led by offensively adept core players who are not possessionally capable enough to justify their salaries, TO can't afford to augment the lineup enough to make up for what TO's core players can't do. We seen it all year, TO kept winning but we never knew which team would show up, TO could be outshot, outplayed but still win, in the playoffs that result is far less likely unless Samsonov becomes the next Price.
I would say that Samsonov was TO's only core quality player in that 1st round even tho Matthews and Marner scored like core players should.
Many will say that d-men that can defend are a greater assets than offensively capable d-men, which is true of course but those same people will maintain that great scoring d-men are usually poor defensively, yet as a general rule those same offensive d-men are paid more that the supposed defensively adept. Is this a systemic NHL problem or is it more likely that offensive d-men should be far more valuable than the defensive ones because a d-man's responsibility is to keep the puck out of his net which is essentially keeping the puck outside of his zone. A defensive d-man will push/harass/cross check the opposition but ultimately will contribute to the debris that a goaltender has to contend with trying to see where the puck is/coming from. Rielly has never been considered a good defensive d-man but his value escalates in the playoffs because he still does his offensive things while also defending with purpose. Even tho he's widely viewed as a less than ideal d-man he makes considerably more than any other d-man on TO. I would say that Rielly only qualifies as a core player in the playoffs.
We can look at Marner's and Matthews' offensive stats during these playoffs and they are impressive, they are so impressive that these players can or more likely do presume they are doing enough to justify their salaries, it is mostly because of them that TO does so well year after year during the regular season. Even tho they score like superstars, are they worth their salaries, they don't dominate games like McDavid & Drisaitl, like Point & Kucherov, like Marchand & Pastrnak, doesn't being core worthy also means that a player can dominate, take over games in every way rather than simply be dominant statistically via offensive stats. Territorially, like a d-man, a core players value is also his ability to control the game, have and keep the puck, force the play, this doesn't always end up being recognized via goals and assists but while a team's core players are dominating the chances of the opposition scoring diminishes.
In the last game, TO's only dominate looking player was Nylander, to me, he was single handily possessing the puck, creating scoring chances, everything that I expect from a core player. Of course he was able to do this because he wasn't facing Florida's best defensive unit but at the same time he's not paid $11 mil. which is more than any other players on the ice except for TO players, TO's core AM, MM and JT need to be far more dominant than I think they are capable of in order for TO to be seriously considered as a Cup contender.
Basically, what I'm saying is TO's d is a bunch of slugs with one iffy core player and the forwards are led by offensively adept core players who are not possessionally capable enough to justify their salaries, TO can't afford to augment the lineup enough to make up for what TO's core players can't do. We seen it all year, TO kept winning but we never knew which team would show up, TO could be outshot, outplayed but still win, in the playoffs that result is far less likely unless Samsonov becomes the next Price.
