Nylander and Berube Spoke Different Hockey Languages

One of the stranger things about William Nylander’s 2025-26 season was that it was sometimes difficult to understand what we were watching. Here was a player who finished with 79 points in 65 games, produced at nearly a 100-point pace, and remained one of the most dangerous offensive players on the Toronto Maple Leafs. And yet there were nights when he looked disengaged, frustrated or simply out of sync with what the team seemed to want from him.

Was Nylander Really the Problem?

It is tempting to explain that as a problem with Nylander. Maybe he wasn't competing hard enough. Maybe he wasn't buying into Craig Berube's demands. Maybe he was simply being William Nylander. But there is another possibility that is worth considering: perhaps Nylander and Berube were sometimes asking the game to be played in two different ways. A coach sees the game from the bench and has a particular structure he wants his players to follow. A player sees it from the ice, where timing, space and opportunity can look very different. For a player as instinctive as Nylander, being repeatedly asked to do something he doesn't believe will work can create a rather awkward situation.

That might explain some of the confusing moments we saw last season. Nylander wasn't a young player trying to figure out NHL hockey. He was a veteran who had spent years learning exactly how he creates offence. His greatest gifts are his ability to carry the puck, his speed, his knack for finding space, and his knack for making something happen when the play breaks down. If the instructions coming from the bench didn't fit those instincts, perhaps what looked like stubbornness from the outside was sometimes disagreement with the hockey logic being asked of him.

In retrospect, Berube noted that he would have coached differently.

Berube himself later suggested that he would have handled his star players differently. One of his regrets was that he had given them too much freedom. That is an interesting admission because it points in the opposite direction. Perhaps the answer wasn't simply that Nylander needed to be made to conform. Perhaps the better coaching question was how to give a player like Nylander enough structure to help the team without taking away the qualities that make him special.

That is what makes Jim Hiller’s arrival interesting. A coaching change doesn't guarantee that Nylander suddenly becomes more consistent. But it does provide a chance to reset the relationship between player and coach. The best coaches don't simply make talented players obey. They figure out what those players do exceptionally well and build a system that uses those strengths for the team.

Were Berube and Nylander speaking different hockey languages?

Maybe that was the real problem in Toronto last season. Not that Nylander wouldn't listen. Not that Berube couldn't coach him. Maybe they simply weren't speaking the same hockey language. And perhaps Hiller can translate just a little bit better.