I watched every game of that series. What I'm saying is that the Bruins series wasn't an accurate representation of what the Leafs would have had to overcome to win the next three rounds. Those other opponents would have feasted on the weaker matchups that Toronto defense, their goaltending and their depth offered up.You said the issue was defense and goaltending when that hasn't been an issue for years. The Leafs lost because they couldn't score more than 2 goals a game. End of discussion. Had nothing to do with what you said. 4% PP.
If you even watched the series, the Leafs were absolutely lights out defensively. Suffocated the Bruins especially end of the series. Held them to 1 shot in back to back elimination games in the first period. Lost game 7 by 1 goal in OT.
There is not a team out there who is winning the cup winning every game 2-1 no matter how elite they are defensively. Sure they need to be able to win some games that way (and the Leafs do as well), but not every single game. The margin for error is too thin.
Leafs failure is having 50% of the cap being in offensive talent and the past several seasons the offense has been the weak link.
Is the Leafs' top end offense underperforming in the playoffs a key issue? Sure. But they had a game won by an elite Matthews game in that series. They won one with a big game from Nylander, too. Tavares driving the net in OT resulted in the Knies winner. Those guys are still coming up in big moments.
You look at the number of guys who played every game in that series and came up with zeros and it's a sign that the depth isn't pulling its weight. Zeroes from the D, too aside from a McCabe goal. I'm not pinpointing any single part of that roster. I'm saying that it's depth as a whole just isn't good enough. You take Marner out of that equation and they're a significantly weaker roster. Who cares if Saros is the goalie? They still aren't deep enough.