Craig Berube’s Message and His Decisions Didn’t Match

Curious Decision Two: Why Not Play the Fourth Line More?

The second curious decision was the absence of the fourth line. Calle Jarnkrok, Scott Laughton, and Steven Lorentz are guys built for energy, forechecking, and chaos. They barely saw the ice. None of the three logged ten minutes. Laughton scored, then sat.

In a game that screamed for pace and push, leaving them out was puzzling. These are the players you rely on when you need to spark something. Not using them sent a weird message.

Curious Decision Three: Where Was the Second-Period Momentum in Period Three?

Third, the third period itself. The Maple Leafs got a solid ten-minute stretch in the second, looked like they could take control, and then nothing. When momentum wasn’t carried over, no adjustments were made. The team took only five shots on goal in a one-goal home game against a tired opponent.

The moment demanded action, but nothing came of it. Shots weren’t prioritized, rebounds weren’t chased, bodies weren’t in front—simple urgency was missing. Get bodies there and outwork a team that had every reason to fade on a tough back-to-back.

The Bottom Line for the Maple Leafs

The irony here is hard to ignore. Berube talked about standards for the players, but the decisions from the bench didn’t exactly align with that message. Goaltending timing, line usage, and in-game response are standards, too. If the expectation is to recognize moments, push when the game is there to be taken, and execute under pressure, the same should apply to the coach.

Friday night was a case where message and decisions didn’t align—the Maple Leafs were asked to be better, but the coach’s choices left questions hanging. And in a season where every point counts, that kind of mismatch can make all the difference.