Jim Hiller is under fire after a decision that left Toronto’s most talked-about rookie watching almost half a hockey game from the bench. Now NHL broadcaster Jackie Redmond, former NHL player Jay Rosehill and several hockey reporters are questioning the handling of Gavin McKenna — and whether the coach is repeating a familiar pattern from his Los Angeles Kings days.

The Toronto Maple Leafs had a 4–2 lead against the Buffalo Sabres on Thursday, October 15. By the end of the night, that advantage had disappeared in a 5–4 overtime defeat. Kirill Marchenko’s hat trick wasn’t enough. John Tavares exited following a collision. And McKenna, the 18-year-old No. 1 overall pick from the 2026 NHL Draft, never received another shift after the midway point of the second period.

The most striking number of all: 6:36. That was McKenna’s entire ice time, spread over nine shifts. He did not play in the third period or overtime. According to Sportsnet’s game report, his final shift ended with 10:20 remaining in the second period.

Jackie Redmond: “Hiller coaches like he’s trying not to lose”

NHL broadcaster Jackie Redmond delivered one of the sharpest reactions. In a post on X shared widely among hockey fans, she argued that observers familiar with Hiller’s tenure in Los Angeles would recognize his tendency to become protective of leads.

“Hiller coaches like he’s trying not to lose.” — Jackie Redmond, via X

Redmond connected that approach to the Kings’ dramatic 2025 playoff elimination against Edmonton. Her point goes beyond whether McKenna personally would have scored: what happens when a coach starts making decisions primarily to avoid giving up a goal, rather than creating the next one?

The critique lands harder because Toronto wasn’t nursing a narrow lead throughout McKenna’s absence. The Leafs eventually needed a goal, yet the gifted young forward remained glued to the bench.

Jay Rosehill disagrees — even after defending Hiller before

Former NHL forward and Leafs Morning Take co-host Jay Rosehill also took issue with the decision, emphasizing that he has defended plenty of Hiller’s previous choices.

In his X reaction, Rosehill argued that Toronto was playing well before McKenna was removed from the rotation and that reverting to defensive, cautious hockey could undermine what the team is trying to build. His most important concern was the effect on a young player’s growth.

“That’s not how this player will develop.” — Jay Rosehill, via X

Rosehill’s criticism gets to the core of Toronto’s dilemma. Developing elite prospects requires accountability, but it also requires opportunities to handle mistakes, respond to pressure and play meaningful minutes. Sitting a player for an entire third period removes the chance to do any of those things.

Reporters question the bench management

The online reaction was backed by more detailed analysis in established hockey outlets. Michael Traikos of The Hockey News called it Hiller’s first major mistake as Maple Leafs coach, arguing that the rookie’s absence became a bigger storyline than the blown lead itself. He also questioned the way the decision was communicated.

Luke Fox of Sportsnet raised the contradiction in the coach’s explanation: McKenna had been sitting too long to return, but that prolonged stretch on the bench began with choices made by the coaching staff. Fox also noted that Toronto held a 6–4 advantage in scoring chances when McKenna was on the ice — an imperfect statistic, but one that challenges the notion that his minutes were purely damaging.

Arun Srinivasan of The Leafs Nation and Scott Maxwell of Daily Faceoff separately reported on Hiller’s explanation and the unusual length of McKenna’s absence. Together, the coverage put scrutiny on the decision-making process, not just the rookie’s performance.

Read the reporting: Traikos’s opinion column, Fox at Sportsnet, Srinivasan at The Leafs Nation and Maxwell at Daily Faceoff.

What Hiller said after the loss

Hiller did not claim that McKenna was hurt, and he did not publicly put the blame on the rookie. He said that second-period penalties disrupted the forward’s usual rotation. When McKenna remained on the bench through the end of the period and the intermission, Hiller became reluctant to put a player back into a high-stakes game after such a long layoff.

“That was my decision.” — Jim Hiller

The coach also acknowledged that he should have found a way to put McKenna back on the ice early in the third period, and said he needed to speak with the rookie. The Sportsnet postgame video shows Hiller explaining the decision in his own words.

That acknowledgment matters. But it does not completely resolve the criticism. The issue is not whether a rookie must play every shift. The issue is how a talented forward went from a routine stretch without shifts to being unavailable for the remainder of the game, even as Toronto watched its lead evaporate.

Why the Los Angeles comparison matters

This is not the first time Hiller’s management of a bench has been debated. In the 2025 Stanley Cup Playoffs, Los Angeles jumped out to a 2–0 series lead over Edmonton before losing four straight games. The NHL’s Game 6 recap confirms the reversal.

The Kings’ elimination triggered arguments over deployment, the use of depth players and key in-game decisions. The Los Angeles Times examined how the series slipped away.

There are important limits to that comparison. Edmonton had an explosive power play and made adjustments of its own. One controversial coaching move did not single-handedly lose a six-game series. Still, the shared theme — a coach being accused of becoming too conservative when the pressure rises — explains why the McKenna controversy immediately resonated outside Toronto.

The defense of Hiller: His record, his reasoning and an admission

The backlash is real, but Hiller deserves to have his strongest arguments heard. First, he has a history of getting results. The 2024–25 Kings finished 48–25–9 with 105 points. When Ken Holland took over as Los Angeles general manager in May 2025, he publicly praised Hiller’s work and emphasized the club’s structure, special teams and effort. NHL.com reported Holland’s endorsement.

Second, McKenna is still an 18-year-old rookie learning the defensive responsibilities of an NHL system. In Sportsnet’s review of the Buffalo game, Fox noted a neutral-zone sequence before a Jack Quinn goal in which McKenna was beaten during the transition. Those mistakes are legitimate coaching concerns. It is not unreasonable for Hiller to shelter some situations while the youngster adjusts.

Third, Hiller accepted responsibility rather than deflecting it onto his player. That does not make the decision correct, but it matters when judging his response.

There is a distinction worth making: historical praise for Hiller is not a current endorsement of benching McKenna. We have not identified a prominent, attributable postgame defense arguing that sitting McKenna for the entire third period and overtime was clearly the right choice. The stronger defense is that caution with young players has a hockey rationale, even if it was applied poorly here.

Auston Matthews backs his young teammate

Maple Leafs captain Auston Matthews also addressed the situation after the game. Rather than escalating the coach-versus-rookie debate, he made clear that the dressing room supports McKenna.

“We’ve all got his back.” — Auston Matthews

Matthews suggested that an uncomfortable game could make McKenna even hungrier next time. That was support for the player, not a public verdict that Hiller made the right call. The captain’s approach leaves space for the coach and rookie to work through what happened without turning one bad night into a lasting fracture.

Could the benching hurt McKenna’s development?

That is ultimately the question with the longest shelf life. McKenna entered the Sabres matchup with a four-game point streak and had already shown flashes of the offensive skill that made him the draft’s top choice. He will have defensive lessons to learn, and those lessons might sometimes require fewer minutes.

But for a prospect expected to become a foundational player, late-game situations can be particularly valuable. Teams cannot teach offensive creativity under pressure while eliminating every opportunity to attempt it.

There is no honest way to claim that McKenna would have prevented Buffalo’s comeback. Toronto had breakdowns throughout the lineup, lost a veteran centre to injury and was outshot 11–4 in the third period, according to the game recap. Buffalo deserves credit for the comeback, too.

But the decision left Toronto with one fewer offensive option precisely when the Leafs needed someone to change the flow of the game.

HockeyGamedayTV’s take: The next game is Hiller’s real test

The Leafs have a choice: let this become a defining narrative about the coach, or make it a small teaching moment in a long season. Hiller has already admitted he should have used McKenna differently. What he does next will carry more weight than any postgame explanation.

If McKenna returns to a consistent role and Toronto balances defensive responsibility with offensive ambition, this controversy may fade quickly. If he continues to disappear during pivotal moments, the comparisons to Los Angeles will only grow louder.

Was Hiller right to be cautious with McKenna, or did Toronto go too far in protecting a lead — and eventually pay for it? Join the debate in the comments.