Daily Free Talk / Armchair GM Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Please use this thread to post ANYTHING you want! Memes, photoshops, anything that would normally be removed for breaking the low-effort content rule, is totally, 100% welcome here!

This thread can also be used for Armchair GM ideas that may not require a standalone post. Is there a free agent you want to see on this team? Is there a player that's rumoured to be on the move that you think the Leafs should go after? Are there players on this team you want to trade away? Feel free to post about it here!

Normal moderation will occur, such as watching for personal insults, racism, and things of that nature.

Otherwise, feel free to use this thread to chat about your random Leafs thoughts, or share things like a photoshop of a Habs logo on fire or a reaction gif to something going on in Leafs Nation right now!

The use of this thread is not necessary on "Anything Goes Sundays," and this thread will not be posted.

Downvotes are discouraged for the most part, everyone's opinion is fair game in this thread. If you see rule breaking content, report it!

[u/Ok_Elevator4215]

The organic way was him proving himself at every single level to be an exceptional player and earning the 1st selection. He's not getting enough PP2 time to show what he can do properly, he looked great when he was out there, even Hiller said it.

I'm pretty sure it is statistically the worst line in hockey right now by almost every single relevant metric. And the fact we have to bring up rebuilding teams fourth lines to try and disprove it kind of proves it doesn't it? They've been truly awful whether it's stats or eye test. I'll amend the statement to "the worst top 9 line in hockey" if it makes you feel better. Still not a good look.

[u/Sirrebral99 → u/Ok_Elevator4215]

Share a link with the stats showing they're the worst line in hockey, if its available. They've been rough, not disagreeing with you there. Just pointing out its a pretty wild jump to go from saying they're underperforming / missing expectations to being worst in the league

Willy also has two goals in 3 games, that's a dynamite start for 95% of the league. There are twelve players in the whole league with more goals than him at this point.

[u/Ok_Elevator4215 → u/Sirrebral99]

Says my comment was removed for a twitter link so here's an article with the link: https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2026/10/05/maple-leafs-notebook-oct-5/

[u/Sirrebral99 → u/Ok_Elevator4215]

This is what you're referring to I assume?

A 3-game sample size with a rookie playing in his first couple games is not gospel truth. Again, I'm not saying the line is working well, but we gotta chill out a bit. Tavares and Nylander have been steady top 50 league wide players for over a decade. McKenna is literally a child and learning how to play in the NHL.

Using 3 games to conclusively say they're bad is the same as using TLK's half dozen games at the World Championships as proof he is one of the top centres in the game. He nearly led the tournament in goals and had better results than most of the players on Canada's Olympic team, therefore it must be true. Sounds a bit silly to make that statement right?

[u/Ok_Elevator4215 → u/Sirrebral99]

What was the point of asking for a link if you're just going to say it's too early anyways? Was it just in hopes I didn't have actual proof? And it's not just the numbers, watching the games you can very easily see they're one of the worst lines in the league. Both the number and eye test reach the same conclusion.

Anyways, my problem is the line doesn't even work in theory. I don't know what you're expecting to happen, none of them are good defensively and they can't retrieve pucks. Assuming they develop chemistry, they still won't have the puck most of the time to use that chemistry.

I like using the example of Knies and Mathews cause they didn't work that well together but it at least made sense to try and force chemistry because in theory, the combination works well. Compare that to something like Cody Ceci playing with Rielly and you don't really need to see the games to determine it's a bad idea, it doesn't work in theory and there's no reason to waste games hoping it will magically work out.

We don't need games to know certain things just don't work together. This line combination is one of those things. Your best case scenario is you get the line equivalent of Daniel Sprong, extremely skilled offensively but too bad defensively to actually contribute meaningfully when on the ice.

[u/Sirrebral99 → u/Ok_Elevator4215]

I appreciate you sharing the link and already acknowledged the line isn't working well. I'm focused on the sample size because that's something that is being glossed over way too much. If that stat line was still there after 20 or even 15 games, yeah that's terrible. There's so much variance in small sample sizes it makes stats mean a lot less. That's why you have to give them a grain of salt until more track record is established.

Paul Cotter (on Vancouver) is tied for the league lead in goals, with 4G in 4 games. That's an 84 goal pace! He's going to win the Rocket this year. The stats are true, I even have the link: NHL Stats | NHL.com

... we all know this isn't true right? That's why sample size matters.

[u/Ok_Elevator4215 → u/Sirrebral99]

I understand sample size matters, but this isn't my only argument. It's my supporting argument to the main point that they do not work together at all. We can see it visually, and we can see it in theory. I've been saying this line is terrible for months, well before it was official, when people did their mock lineups.

This sample size argument is great and all but we could use this for everything. "Oh we put fourth liners on our first line and it's terrible? Well, it's a small sample give them time" there is a huge combination of lines you can make with an NHL lineup. You cannot test them all with a large sample size. It's the coaches job to efficiently eliminate possible combinations that will not work and move off of them quickly.

At what point can we just acknowledge it doesn't, and will never, work. It makes ZERO sense. We don't need a large sample size to know things won't work in some cases, this is one of them. There has to be something to reasonably work towards chemistry wise. With Knies + Mathews it was having a power forward with solid hands and awareness to feed one of the best goal scorers in the league. With this second line it's what? Hope they're so good they never lose the puck so they don't need to retrieve it? Hope two old dogs suddenly learn new defensive tricks or the 160 pound 18 year old rookie becomes a puck hound? Seriously, whats the endgame of this line and tell me how it isn't Daniel Sprong-esque.

[u/Sirrebral99 → u/Ok_Elevator4215]

I get your opinion is the line is cooked, and this probably formed well before the season as you mentioned its been a few months you've thought it won't work. Its currently not working and that's pretty clear. There also exists a possibility that McKenna starts to figure it out, JT gets closer to his over 15 year career average as a solid 2C option and the line finds it. We'll see.

Let's check back in a few months

[u/Ok_Elevator4215 → u/Sirrebral99]

What is there for Mckenna to figure out though? They never have the puck. Unless you expect him to develop into a defensive puck hound, or start doing everything himself like Mcdavid on the rush, what do you expect him to do about it? What are we finding? This is what I'm confused about. I just have no clue what "it" is.

[u/Sirrebral99 → u/Ok_Elevator4215]

"They never have the puck" through 3 games so far, they might get better. Might get worse or stay the same.

"... develop into a defensive puck hound" through 3 games so far, he could develop better defensive retrievals. He's only 18.

"start doing everything himself like McDavid" through 3 games so far he hasn't, but he could. He's a phenom of a prospect. He's only 18 and played 3 games.

There's a lot of definite statements here for a season that is less than a week old, and for every year up until the current one it would still be preseason.

[u/Ok_Elevator4215 → u/Sirrebral99]

I'm going with the decade sample size we have with JT and Nylander and the multiple years and scouting report samples of Mckenna. The veterans have been liabilities defensively for years, Mckenna's main factor keeping him from being generational was his defence and off puck ability (and not a C). So you have three guys with a proven track record of being poor defensively, two of whom are known to be actively bad at retrieving pucks and the other being on the wrong side of thirty and too slow to meaningfully make up for the other 2's weakness in that area.

We know what they are and what they aren't. Mckenna will not be developing his defensive game that far in his rookie season. JT and Nylander will not be magically becoming solid defensive players. My opinion isn't based off the 3 games only, that's just further proof, my opinion is based of the decades of knowledge we have on these guys.

So again, what exactly are we REALISTICALLY working to with this line? I would love to be told how this isn't Daniel Sprong as a line but I've yet to see any compelling argument other than "they'll figure it out, they're good hockey players". So tell me what exactly they will figure out please.

[u/Sirrebral99 → u/Ok_Elevator4215]

Its pretty clear you've made your mind up already, I don't think there's much that could be said to change it. And that's okay.

You know who else has all of that data? Plus a lot more than is available to the public, plus a lifetime of professional experience? Jim Hiller. And he decided to try the line together. He just said in his comments at practice today that he wants to be patient with the group, but it's not indefinite if issues continue. Again, lets take a page from the coach of the team who actually knows these players beyond their HockeyDB page and have an ounce of patience. And if the issues continue, they make changes. As the coach said he intends to.

[u/Ok_Elevator4215 → u/Sirrebral99]

You don't need to change my mind, you can just tell me what they are working towards with the fit. But so far I don't hear another perspective on why the line may be good, I just hear it's early so we must keep trying it. No real reasons.

[u/RemindMeBot → u/Sirrebral99]

I will be messaging you in 2 months on 2026-12-05 17:57:55 UTC to remind you of this link

1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of !RemindMe 1 day, use u/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.

---

Info	Custom	Your Reminders	Feedback