Carlyle Extended/Randy's Revenge

[freer]

Candidates:

Internally - Sprott/Horachek/Dineen/Other
Externally - Paul MacLean/Torts/Bylsma/R. Wilson/B. Sutter/Crawford/Eakins/Keenan/Boucher/Other

The Leafs have dipped into the junior ranks a bit lately too. Dale Hunter and Sheldon Keefe both have obvious ties to the Leafs front office. But both of them probably wouldn't move during the season.

Anyone would be better then what we have. Babcock is not coming here. He is going to sign in DET IMO

 

[rdowdall]

Candidates:

Internally - Sprott/Horachek/Dineen/Other
Externally - Paul MacLean/Torts/Bylsma/R. Wilson/B. Sutter/Crawford/Eakins/Keenan/Boucher/Other

The Leafs have dipped into the junior ranks a bit lately too. Dale Hunter and Sheldon Keefe both have obvious ties to the Leafs front office. But both of them probably wouldn't move during the season.

Anyone would be better then what we have. Babcock is not coming here. He is going to sign in DET IMO

I'm sure those same sentiments were made when Ron Wilson was here....

 

[Corn Flake]

Candidates:

Internally - Sprott/Horachek/Dineen/Other
Externally - Paul MacLean/Torts/Bylsma/R. Wilson/B. Sutter/Crawford/Eakins/Keenan/Boucher/Other

The Leafs have dipped into the junior ranks a bit lately too. Dale Hunter and Sheldon Keefe both have obvious ties to the Leafs front office. But both of them probably wouldn't move during the season.

Anyone would be better then what we have. Babcock is not coming here. He is going to sign in DET IMO

if he is then why hasn't he already?

 

[Peter D.]

I'm all for punting Carlyle now, slapping the interim tag on Horachek, riding the season out however way it may go, and then picking from what could be a deep class of coaching candidates.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm less concerned about the replacement, because I don't think they should be bringing in the long-term guy until the summer, when there's a wider range of available options (that includes coaches in the junior leagues, assistant coaches on NHL teams, etc). I think promoting Spott or Horachek (or, both as associates) on an interim basis is the way to go. I know the trend seems to be to bring in the full-time replacement right away with mid-season, but, unless you have a guy already in the organization, I think that's a mistake.

Exactly how I see it. Why rush into a replacement? But he's got to be let go so an interim coach can try some things out.

 

[Kin]

You said "his record with the Ducks is absolutely evidence that he's a good coach" So because ANH won more hes a good coach, but then you follow up with "I think that the effect that a coach has on winning and losing is wildly overstated" So which was it the coach or the talent?

Well, there's nothing mutually exclusive there. I think that talent is the single biggest determining factor in whether or not a team is any good, sure, but I also believe that bad coaching can trip a good team. I really genuinely think it's impossible for someone who is a bad hockey coach to win a Stanley Cup but, again, "good hockey coach" is, for me, an incredibly low bar. That's basic for someone at this level. Something I think applies more or less to 95% of everyone who coaches in the NHL. I think there are few odd coaches who can't deal with pro egos and I think there are a few who are genuinely better than everyone else but I think the vast, vast majority of them fit into the nebulous middle where they don't have much of an effect on whether or not a team loses absent the sort of intangible stuff that isn't really interesting to discuss because, as you say, we can't apply any rigorous scientific testing to it(like, say, how much credit can you give a coach for a player developing into the player he eventually becomes).

Im not asking everyone to defend RC. Im asking for those people who are defending him to explain what it is they see...why are they hopeful? What do they think we need? What is it they feel RC provides that another coach doesn't. You know a discussion. Not demands. No one is going to jail, nor will I beat anyone up for not answering me.

I think that discussion has more or less been being had, in one form or another, on these forums roughly all the time for the last few years so I don't really think you're after anything that hasn't been hashed and re-hashed over and over again. Put simply, the people who like Carlyle will point to the team's making the playoffs and pushing a significantly better Boston team to seven games and tend not to put a ton of stock in the possession numbers, whether in general or in how it's attributable to Carlyle. You're not going to get much more than that because what I think you're really looking for is someone to discuss Carlyle's record on your terms which puts a lot of stock in the shot totals and the people who "defend" Carlyle aren't going to play in that arena.

And seriously Nik name calling? common man

I in no way called you a name.

 

[freer]

Candidates:

Internally - Sprott/Horachek/Dineen/Other
Externally - Paul MacLean/Torts/Bylsma/R. Wilson/B. Sutter/Crawford/Eakins/Keenan/Boucher/Other

The Leafs have dipped into the junior ranks a bit lately too. Dale Hunter and Sheldon Keefe both have obvious ties to the Leafs front office. But both of them probably wouldn't move during the season.

Anyone would be better then what we have. Babcock is not coming here. He is going to sign in DET IMO

if he is then why hasn't he already?

Because DET is a classy team, which wouldn't have any need to rush him.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm all for punting Carlyle now, slapping the interim tag on Horachek, riding the season out however way it may go, and then picking from what could be a deep class of coaching candidates.

I would go this route as well.  Horachek has the added bonus of seemingly having had a positive influence on Florida when he took over there in an interim role.

 

[MetalRaven]

You said "his record with the Ducks is absolutely evidence that he's a good coach" So because ANH won more hes a good coach, but then you follow up with "I think that the effect that a coach has on winning and losing is wildly overstated" So which was it the coach or the talent?

Well, there's nothing mutually exclusive there. I think that talent is the single biggest determining factor in whether or not a team is any good, sure, but I also believe that bad coaching can trip a good team. I really genuinely think it's impossible for someone who is a bad hockey coach to win a Stanley Cup but, again, "good hockey coach" is, for me, an incredibly low bar. That's basic for someone at this level. Something I think applies more or less to 95% of everyone who coaches in the NHL. I think there are few odd coaches who can't deal with pro egos and I think there are a few who are genuinely better than everyone else but I think the vast, vast majority of them fit into the nebulous middle where they don't have much of an effect on whether or not a team loses absent the sort of intangible stuff that isn't really interesting to discuss because, as you say, we can't apply any rigorous scientific testing to it(like, say, how much credit can you give a coach for a player developing into the player he eventually becomes).

Im not asking everyone to defend RC. Im asking for those people who are defending him to explain what it is they see...why are they hopeful? What do they think we need? What is it they feel RC provides that another coach doesn't. You know a discussion. Not demands. No one is going to jail, nor will I beat anyone up for not answering me.

I think that discussion has more or less been being had, in one form or another, on these forums roughly all the time for the last few years so I don't really think you're after anything that hasn't been hashed and re-hashed over and over again. Put simply, the people who like Carlyle will point to the team's making the playoffs and pushing a significantly better Boston team to seven games and tend not to put a ton of stock in the possession numbers, whether in general or in how it's attributable to Carlyle. You're not going to get much more than that because what I think you're really looking for is someone to discuss Carlyle's record on your terms which puts a lot of stock in the shot totals and the people who "defend" Carlyle aren't going to play in that arena.

And seriously Nik name calling? common man

I in no way called you a name.

Have you seen the eyebrows on that guy?

I just figured Id get someone who could say like "I think the rush system is very good" or "I think hes a great defensive coach with just crappy defensemen right now" "hes good with prospects" anything of the like.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The only coach that I would jump on right now is Bylsma. If the Leafs don't feel like he's their guy then by all means wait until the summer and see who pops up.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Well, for cap reasons alone, there may need to be some pretty significant moves made to change up the roster, but, in terms of improvement, I'm not convinced the cuts have to be as deep as some. I think a lot of what's ailing the team can be improved through a change in tactics that includes a significant change in the way lines are constructed. Obviously, filling the couple of obvious major holes in the lineup would go a long way, but, I think there's a lot more good than bad on the roster right now.

Well, and this is where we get back to me being in broken record mode where I agree that a new coach could get better results than what we're seeing now I don't for a second believe that this is the core of a group that can really be one of the better teams in the league which, ultimately, is the goal.

This! Over and Over and Over again.

 

[rdowdall]

As Nik points out, if the coach doesn't really have an impact on the outcome of the games, then firing Carlyle is not really going to bring about any sort of real change.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

This! Over and Over and Over again.

Even if that's true, the 'core' has proven themselves on past teams capable of being part of successful teams when they are properly surrounded.  I posted earlier in the season how Phaneuf has had something like 9 different partners since he's been in Toronto, with only Beauchemin and Franson being arguably above AHL level.  Maybe this iteration can't win as it is, but maybe it can if management had surrounded them better.  I don't believe for a second that Mats Sundin couldn't be a core player on a Championship team - but he wasn't.  The list goes on.  The reality is that this isn't basketball and individual players can only impact so much because they don't play the same amount per game to have that impact.

If you believe Carlyle isn't a good coach then it doesn't really matter whether this core can or cannot win - there are pieces on this team that you will want to see remain Leafs long-term and if Carlyle is not a good coach you don't want them learning and developing under him long-term.  I've yet to really see an argument made that he's a good coach.  He won a Cup almost 8 years ago now, and his results in recent memory have been underwhelming to terrible.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

You said "his record with the Ducks is absolutely evidence that he's a good coach" So because ANH won more hes a good coach, but then you follow up with "I think that the effect that a coach has on winning and losing is wildly overstated" So which was it the coach or the talent?

Well, there's nothing mutually exclusive there. I think that talent is the single biggest determining factor in whether or not a team is any good, sure, but I also believe that bad coaching can trip a good team. I really genuinely think it's impossible for someone who is a bad hockey coach to win a Stanley Cup but, again, "good hockey coach" is, for me, an incredibly low bar. That's basic for someone at this level. Something I think applies more or less to 95% of everyone who coaches in the NHL. I think there are few odd coaches who can't deal with pro egos and I think there are a few who are genuinely better than everyone else but I think the vast, vast majority of them fit into the nebulous middle where they don't have much of an effect on whether or not a team loses absent the sort of intangible stuff that isn't really interesting to discuss because, as you say, we can't apply any rigorous scientific testing to it(like, say, how much credit can you give a coach for a player developing into the player he eventually becomes).

Im not asking everyone to defend RC. Im asking for those people who are defending him to explain what it is they see...why are they hopeful? What do they think we need? What is it they feel RC provides that another coach doesn't. You know a discussion. Not demands. No one is going to jail, nor will I beat anyone up for not answering me.

I think that discussion has more or less been being had, in one form or another, on these forums roughly all the time for the last few years so I don't really think you're after anything that hasn't been hashed and re-hashed over and over again. Put simply, the people who like Carlyle will point to the team's making the playoffs and pushing a significantly better Boston team to seven games and tend not to put a ton of stock in the possession numbers, whether in general or in how it's attributable to Carlyle. You're not going to get much more than that because what I think you're really looking for is someone to discuss Carlyle's record on your terms which puts a lot of stock in the shot totals and the people who "defend" Carlyle aren't going to play in that arena.

And seriously Nik name calling? common man

I in no way called you a name.

Have you seen the eyebrows on that guy?

I just figured Id get someone who could say like "I think the rush system is very good" or "I think hes a great defensive coach with just crappy defensemen right now" "hes good with prospects" anything of the like.

I don't think you'll have a lot of people saying those things because I don't think anyone believes it to be the truth.

I for one may be seen as a defender of Carlyle, but not once have I stated that he should stick with the team. All I've stated is that a coach is only as good as his team. Something that you've stated above. Busta is correct. Firing the coach may very well be the first step in correcting this team. The only issue I take is with those that feel it's the only step needed to correct this team.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The only issue I take is with those that feel it's the only step needed to correct this team.

If that's the case then you have an issue with people that don't exist, and I don't think we can really help you with that.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

It might seem that way, but maybe that's only because many view it as the first step that should be taken in order to get a better understanding of the team.  I think some media have stated it too, that Carlyle going should be the easiest step in trying to 'fix' the roster because after that it gets much murkier and unclear what should be done.

And also, this is a Carlyle thread so there will be a pretty singular focus in here.

 

[Kin]

As Nik points out, if the coach doesn't really have an impact on the outcome of the games, then firing Carlyle is not really going to bring about any sort of real change.

For the record, I don't entirely think that's true. I fully think that a coach being fired can lead to a sudden sharp increase in performance. I don't think, long term, it can make a big difference in how well a team does and if that's what you mean by "real change" then fair point but I think firing a coach can result in short-term differences.

 

[ZBBM]

Well, my bold prediction looks like it's going down in flames.  Shanahan ? grrrr.

 

[bustaheims]

It might seem that way, but maybe that's only because many view it as the first step that should be taken in order to get a better understanding of the team.  I think some media have stated it too, that Carlyle going should be the easiest step in trying to 'fix' the roster because after that it gets much murkier and unclear what should be done.

This. Also, I think a lot of us focused on Carlyle because we see removing him as important first step, and we're getting pretty anxious about getting this process underway. The more time the team has to evaluate the players under a different coach, the better. That being said, holding on to Carlyle for a bit and continuing to play in a way that's likely to see them bottom out in the standings is not the worst thing in the world, either. This year's draft class is exceptional, and getting as high a pick as possible (as well as actually being a position where the team actually sells off assets at the deadline to add more picks) could serve for a nice addition to the foundation of the roster going forward. As much as I want Carlyle gone ASAP, as long as he's not coaching the team next season, I'll be satisfied.

 

[Kin]

I for one may be seen as a defender of Carlyle, but not once have I stated that he should stick with the team. All I've stated is that a coach is only as good as his team. Something that you've stated above. Busta is correct. Firing the coach may very well be the first step in correcting this team. The only issue I take is with those that feel it's the only step needed to correct this team.

I don't think I've seen many people say that but I do think what we've seen is a lot of people wildly overestimate the players on this team and the extent to which their performance this year can be attributed to Carlyle's coaching vs. their own flaws being exposed. There's a ton we can draw from what we've seen about the things that certain players just can and can't do and really call into question their ability to fill the roles that, realistically, they'd need to if this team is going to win a cup without a full scale rebuild.