The Berube-Matthews Problem May Have Been About Fit, Not Effort

Craig Berube isn't backing away from the way he coached the Toronto Maple Leafs. And that's probably fair. On the FAN Hockey Show, Berube defended his emphasis on a 200-foot game and explained why he sometimes used Auston Matthews in defensive-zone situations against the opposition's best players. His argument was pretty straightforward: your best players have to defend, too.

That's hard to argue with in principle. But there may be another way to look at what happened to Matthews under Berube. Maybe the problem wasn't that Berube wanted too much from his best player. Maybe the problem was that he wanted something different.

Matthews is both an elite offensive player and a strong defensive one.

Matthews is an unusual hockey player. He can score from just about anywhere, but his greatest value comes from pressuring the opposition. Give him the puck in dangerous areas and let him attack, and suddenly defenders have a very difficult problem to solve.

Berube's system seemed to emphasize responsibility, north-south hockey, and getting the puck deep. That makes plenty of sense for a playoff team. It also makes sense when you're trying to build a team that can survive difficult games in April. But there is a difference between asking Matthews to become a better two-way player and asking him to spend more of his game playing a style that doesn't necessarily maximize his offensive gifts.

And that's where the conversation gets interesting.

Matthews’ scoring dropped under Berube. Was there a link?

Matthews' scoring dropped during Berube's two seasons behind the Toronto bench. Berube pointed to injuries, roster changes and his own coaching decisions as some of the reasons for the team's struggles. Those are fair considerations. Still, it seems reasonable to wonder whether the system itself was part of the equation.

Not because Matthews couldn't play it. Because maybe he shouldn't have had to play quite so much of it. There's a distinction there. One coaching challenge is finding a structure that allows a star to remain a star while still making sure the team can defend. Sometimes the job is to build a structure that allows the star to be the star while still making sure the team can defend.

That's not an argument for giving Matthews a free pass defensively. It is an argument for asking where his minutes create the greatest value.

Can new head coach Jim Hiller bring a different result?

And this may explain why the early discussion around new coach Jim Hiller is so interesting. The Maple Leafs don't seem to be talking as much about forcing everybody into the same north-south template. There seems to be more emphasis on reading the game, reacting to what is happening, and letting players use their hockey sense.

For Matthews, that could matter. Perhaps the next step isn't making him more responsible. Perhaps it's giving him enough freedom to think like Auston Matthews again.

Berube's approach wasn't necessarily unreasonable. In fact, it was a pretty logical hockey philosophy. But hockey isn't played on a chalkboard. Sometimes a system can be perfectly understandable and still not be the best fit for a particular player.

And maybe that was the real Matthews-Berube issue in Toronto. Not effort. Not commitment. Not whether Matthews was willing to play 200 feet.

Just fit.