1993 Leafs

I read an article on sportsnet regarding whether Canadian hockey fans consider reaching but losing in the conference finals a "success". The article discusses the Leafs' runs of the early 90's extensively. I wrote this in the comments section on the story, but thought I'd share it here as well.

The Leafs' 1993 run isn't memorable just because the Leafs got to the conference final. That run is memorable because of the quality of the games played and the drama associated with each round.

Round 1: Leafs fall behind 2-0 to Detroit before coming back and winning a dramatic game 7 in OT at the Joe on a goal by the dimunitive Nikolai Borchevsky.

Round 2: Leafs vs. Cujo - The Gilmour double OT goal from behind the net is one of the most memorable in Leafs history and set the scene for a hard fought back and forth series. With the exception of a lop-sided game 7 dominted by the Leafs, it was a close and intense series.

Round 3: Leafs vs. Gretzky/Fraser - The series was marred by the Game 6 controversy and for the third straight series, the Leafs went 7 games; this time against the greatest player in hockey history leading the charge on the other side. It was a classic showdown that unfortunately ended with a Kings victory. On top of all this, Montreal was waiting in the wings to play the victor. The thought of a Leafs-Habs final made the LA series that much more dramatic.

So like I said - it's not that we as Leafs fan are happy the Leafs only made it to the conference finals. The season was not a "success" because we made it to the final four. 1993 was just a special year filled with quality hockey and lots of excitement; that's why it's so well remembered (and why those games are still re-played so frequently on Leafs TV).

Ask yourself this: If Leafs fans were content with an appearance in the conference finals an didn't care about not winning the cup that year, then why is Kerry Fraser still so despised by Leafs nation for the Gretzky non-call in Game 6?

In case anyone ever questions my authority on all things blue & white...

Beat that if you can!

Why cheer for a team just because it's Canadian?

I was listening to Prime Time Sports on the way home from work last week and it was one of the rare occasions where I agreed with what Bobcat had to say. The question was who are you cheering for in the playoffs if your team is out? The panel seemed to suggest that, as a Canadian, you should be cheering for another Canadian team to win the cup. I think this is a ridiculous suggestion. As a fan of the Leafs, there is no chance in hell that I would ever cheer for the Sens or the Habs in the playoffs. The last thing I want is to see either of those teams hoisting Lord Stanley's mug. As for the Canucks, they're thousands of miles away. Wouldn't it make more sense for me to cheer for the Sabres who are an hour drive away?

Here's the thing - this isn't the olympics. Picking a "favourite" in the playoffs has nothing to do with national pride. Look down the rosters fo the Canadian teams and you'll see a lot of non-Canadians.

Personally, I'd like to see a team like LA, Colorado or Phoenix make a strong run. I'd particularly like to see Colorado move on because of Darcy Tucker...my 2nd favourite Leaf of all time.

Head Shots

I'm going to step outside of Leafland for a minute and consider the league wide issue of head shots. First, I do feel bad for Savard. However, in fairness to Cooke, he did not use his elbow and Savard's head was down. Quite frankly, at the time of the hit, I don't think it was an illegal hit and, in turn, I don't think it's fair to punish Cooke for the hit. Punishing Cooke for the Savard hit makes about as much sense as retroactively punishing Scott Stevens for every hit where he hit a forward with his head down at the blue line.

I also just read that league has created a new rule to address the issue, which provides as follows:

"A lateral, back pressure or blindside hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and or the principal point of contact is not permitted."

TSN's current poll says "Is the proposed rule change enough?" and its headline is "The Solution?", insinuating that the league hasn't done enough. Personally, I think the league has taken a huge stride by banning blindside hits to the head. Like I said above, you should only punish someone for breaking a rule and Matt Cooke didn't break any rules at the time of the incident. However, with the new rule, if anyone does the same thing Cooke did to Savard, there is a rule to turn to, which will : (a) allow referees to assess a penalty; and (b) provide a basis for further league sanction deemed necessary.

So has the league done enough? Yes. Blindside hits to the head are now illegal and offenders will be punished. What more do you want?

Just Another Leafs Blog

So here's the deal...I, like so many others, am a die-hard and very opinionated Toronto Maple Leafs fan. I am a frequent reader of all things Leaf-related on Sportsnet, TSN, the Fan590, etc. More often than not, I disagree with the opinions and analysis available on these sites and, while they offer the opportunity to comment, those comments just get lost in the mix. So, I'm just going to post my opinions here and hope people read it.

I'm not an NHL insider, so you won't get any rumours here other than the occassional and unsubstantiated rumours that I read about elsewhere; I'm not a member of the media, so you won't get any interviews with Leafs players and personnel; and I'm not promising that you'll find anything particularly original on here - just my opinion.