Carlyle fired

[GhostofPotvin29]

Some pretty telling words from Roman Polak (who, as the article points out, has spent most of his career on a winning team in St. Louis).

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-need-to-bridge-divided-dressing-room/

Take it from no-nonsense defenceman Roman Polak, who had spent his entire NHL career in St. Louis before a trade to Toronto last summer. He didn?t flinch when asked why the Leafs haven?t played with enough defensive structure.

?Because it?s hard work,? Polak said before Wednesday?s 6-2 loss to Washington. ?It?s always tough to do something you know you don?t like to do. I think we have lots of guys that just want to play offence.?

...

All of which brings us back to the million-dollar question: Will the message sent by Carlyle?s firing and a stronger voice for Horachek be enough to accomplish it?

?It?s tough to say,? said Polak. ?I don?t know. As a coach, you can do whatever you want, but the guys have to listen too. It?s not just the coach?s fault; it?s the guys, too, because they have to listen and they have to understand what the coach wants from them.

?If they don?t, it doesn?t matter what kind of coach you have.?

Some new voices are starting to speak up. Will the others hear them?

Kessel was on a winning team in Boston.  Phaneuf was on a winning team in Calgary.  At least winning as much as the Blues have ever won, neither had missed the playoffs before being traded to the Leafs.

 

[Joe S.]

It works for Glen Heally, who's still bitter with fans who snubbed his <.900 save percentage as a goalie.

he just played in the wrong era. If you played in the 80s that gets you in the HOF.

And what he's really bitter about is that the Leafs didn't take his interest in the position of GM seriously.

That's true - that is when he snapped.

He used to be kinda funny...

 

[bustaheims]

That's true - that is when he snapped.

He used to be kinda funny...

Yeah. At the very least, he was more even-handed and less obviously anti-Leaf.

 

[ZBBM]

Some pretty telling words from Roman Polak (who, as the article points out, has spent most of his career on a winning team in St. Louis).

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-need-to-bridge-divided-dressing-room/

Take it from no-nonsense defenceman Roman Polak, who had spent his entire NHL career in St. Louis before a trade to Toronto last summer. He didn?t flinch when asked why the Leafs haven?t played with enough defensive structure.

?Because it?s hard work,? Polak said before Wednesday?s 6-2 loss to Washington. ?It?s always tough to do something you know you don?t like to do. I think we have lots of guys that just want to play offence.?

...

All of which brings us back to the million-dollar question: Will the message sent by Carlyle?s firing and a stronger voice for Horachek be enough to accomplish it?

?It?s tough to say,? said Polak. ?I don?t know. As a coach, you can do whatever you want, but the guys have to listen too. It?s not just the coach?s fault; it?s the guys, too, because they have to listen and they have to understand what the coach wants from them.

?If they don?t, it doesn?t matter what kind of coach you have.?

Some new voices are starting to speak up. Will the others hear them?

Kessel was on a winning team in Boston.  Phaneuf was on a winning team in Calgary.  At least winning as much as the Blues have ever won, neither had missed the playoffs before being traded to the Leafs.

Polak is correct.

 

[Leaflifer]

Yes, Polak is merely pointing out what has been clear for quite some time. Even the Wings/Leafs TV sitcom was indicative of a team divided IMO (the player's lounge scenes).

I'm now firmly in the camp that Kessel's attitude is a problem for this team. I suspected as much before, but there's just too much evidence coming to light that this is the case.

I put a lot of blame on leadership last year and I now realize that Phaneuf was given an almost impossible job, without any experience either. That is, to keep this team mentally on the same page as a leader.

I'm not the only one to assume Clarkson was brought in to help in this area, and Robidas as well, but you could have 3 Messier's, and still not be able to unify this team.

Jagr once said you can't win without Canadians on your team. What I think he was really saying is you need the lunchbox carrying, do as your told, work till' I'm dead, types.

Besides, everyone who works closely with a group of people day in/day out knows that one toxic person can create havoc.

I don't blame Phil for blowing up on that guy, That reporter is most certainly a POS, but it does expose his ego. I can imagine how he reacts when a coach tells him what he is doing isn't right, or, heaven forbid, another player tries to.

 

[Leaflifer]

Some pretty telling words from Roman Polak (who, as the article points out, has spent most of his career on a winning team in St. Louis).

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-need-to-bridge-divided-dressing-room/

Take it from no-nonsense defenceman Roman Polak, who had spent his entire NHL career in St. Louis before a trade to Toronto last summer. He didn?t flinch when asked why the Leafs haven?t played with enough defensive structure.

?Because it?s hard work,? Polak said before Wednesday?s 6-2 loss to Washington. ?It?s always tough to do something you know you don?t like to do. I think we have lots of guys that just want to play offence.?

...

All of which brings us back to the million-dollar question: Will the message sent by Carlyle?s firing and a stronger voice for Horachek be enough to accomplish it?

?It?s tough to say,? said Polak. ?I don?t know. As a coach, you can do whatever you want, but the guys have to listen too. It?s not just the coach?s fault; it?s the guys, too, because they have to listen and they have to understand what the coach wants from them.

?If they don?t, it doesn?t matter what kind of coach you have.?

Some new voices are starting to speak up. Will the others hear them?

Kessel was on a winning team in Boston.  Phaneuf was on a winning team in Calgary.  At least winning as much as the Blues have ever won, neither had missed the playoffs before being traded to the Leafs.

I don't think those guys had as much influence on their respective team's mental game as they do here.

 

[pmrules]

Some pretty telling words from Roman Polak (who, as the article points out, has spent most of his career on a winning team in St. Louis).

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-need-to-bridge-divided-dressing-room/

Take it from no-nonsense defenceman Roman Polak, who had spent his entire NHL career in St. Louis before a trade to Toronto last summer. He didn?t flinch when asked why the Leafs haven?t played with enough defensive structure.

?Because it?s hard work,? Polak said before Wednesday?s 6-2 loss to Washington. ?It?s always tough to do something you know you don?t like to do. I think we have lots of guys that just want to play offence.?

...

All of which brings us back to the million-dollar question: Will the message sent by Carlyle?s firing and a stronger voice for Horachek be enough to accomplish it?

?It?s tough to say,? said Polak. ?I don?t know. As a coach, you can do whatever you want, but the guys have to listen too. It?s not just the coach?s fault; it?s the guys, too, because they have to listen and they have to understand what the coach wants from them.

?If they don?t, it doesn?t matter what kind of coach you have.?

Some new voices are starting to speak up. Will the others hear them?

Kessel was on a winning team in Boston.  Phaneuf was on a winning team in Calgary.  At least winning as much as the Blues have ever won, neither had missed the playoffs before being traded to the Leafs.

Well in kessel's case...it could be pointed out that that type of attitude is why he was moved in the first place.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

The DiManno one especially seemed to hint at the type of dysfunction CJ, Wysh and Marek talked about on the podcast the other day.

Just read the article (and it's DiManno so let's be honest, I skimmed it) but didn't pick out any hinting at dysfunction.  Which parts of the article hint at that?

I thought the following hinted at the same types of issues others have mentioned.

Sure, there were things that happened inside the room that I think should stay inside the room.

?Some of them can do it and some of them are just not capable of grasping it. Some have a difficult time dealing with the pressure that comes at the critical times. If there?s one thing you cannot do with this group, it seems you cannot apply more pressure to them. You?ve got to try to pick them up. It?s always about making them feel good.?
It was a constant battle, convincing the players to recognize their own reality, with all its short-comings. The disconnect in style of play, in systems, was never resolved.
?Are we good? Are we good enough?? And, in their periods of success ? 10-1-1 in mid-December: ?Are we that good?"

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The DiManno one especially seemed to hint at the type of dysfunction CJ, Wysh and Marek talked about on the podcast the other day.

Just read the article (and it's DiManno so let's be honest, I skimmed it) but didn't pick out any hinting at dysfunction.  Which parts of the article hint at that?

I thought the following hinted at the same types of issues others have mentioned.

Sure, there were things that happened inside the room that I think should stay inside the room.

?Some of them can do it and some of them are just not capable of grasping it. Some have a difficult time dealing with the pressure that comes at the critical times. If there?s one thing you cannot do with this group, it seems you cannot apply more pressure to them. You?ve got to try to pick them up. It?s always about making them feel good.?
It was a constant battle, convincing the players to recognize their own reality, with all its short-comings. The disconnect in style of play, in systems, was never resolved.
?Are we good? Are we good enough?? And, in their periods of success ? 10-1-1 in mid-December: ?Are we that good?"

I still don't see what points to "dysfunction in the room."  I would imagine each room in the league has it's challenges and is unique and the coach must figure how to best deal with it.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Some pretty telling words from Roman Polak (who, as the article points out, has spent most of his career on a winning team in St. Louis).

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-need-to-bridge-divided-dressing-room/

Take it from no-nonsense defenceman Roman Polak, who had spent his entire NHL career in St. Louis before a trade to Toronto last summer. He didn?t flinch when asked why the Leafs haven?t played with enough defensive structure.

?Because it?s hard work,? Polak said before Wednesday?s 6-2 loss to Washington. ?It?s always tough to do something you know you don?t like to do. I think we have lots of guys that just want to play offence.?

...

All of which brings us back to the million-dollar question: Will the message sent by Carlyle?s firing and a stronger voice for Horachek be enough to accomplish it?

?It?s tough to say,? said Polak. ?I don?t know. As a coach, you can do whatever you want, but the guys have to listen too. It?s not just the coach?s fault; it?s the guys, too, because they have to listen and they have to understand what the coach wants from them.

?If they don?t, it doesn?t matter what kind of coach you have.?

Some new voices are starting to speak up. Will the others hear them?

Kessel was on a winning team in Boston.  Phaneuf was on a winning team in Calgary.  At least winning as much as the Blues have ever won, neither had missed the playoffs before being traded to the Leafs.

I don't think those guys had as much influence on their respective team's mental game as they do here.

What makes you think Polak had much influence on St. Louis'?  I have no idea if he did or not.

EDIT: I should clarify that I brought up Phaneuf/Kessel because the author was getting at the fact that Polak's words should be given more weight because he's come from a winning organization.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Perhaps the general consensus over the past few days, plus his mention of not being able to convince the players of the reality of things, maybe I'm reading more into it than is there, but it seems like he alluded to more than just the general everyday to and fro of an NHL locker room.

 

[bustaheims]

Sure, there were things that happened inside the room that I think should stay inside the room.

?Some of them can do it and some of them are just not capable of grasping it. Some have a difficult time dealing with the pressure that comes at the critical times. If there?s one thing you cannot do with this group, it seems you cannot apply more pressure to them. You?ve got to try to pick them up. It?s always about making them feel good.?
It was a constant battle, convincing the players to recognize their own reality, with all its short-comings. The disconnect in style of play, in systems, was never resolved.
?Are we good? Are we good enough?? And, in their periods of success ? 10-1-1 in mid-December: ?Are we that good?"

To me, that comes across more like Carlyle having communication issues (which is something his former players have commented on, as well) more than anything else. It sounds like he didn't know how to communicate with them. Just because his attempts to apply more pressure to the players didn't work doesn't mean it's not possible or a sign of dysfunction. It really shouldn't be shocking that a coach who has a reputation of not communicating well with his players had trouble communicating messages to his players.

 

[Kin]

Well in kessel's case...it could be pointed out that that type of attitude is why he was moved in the first place.

Phaneuf too. Let's not forget that when he got traded here there was a sense of shock that the Flames would be moving on from him and then we did get rumours that he was sort of on the outs with the leadership of the team.

But maybe more to the point, in Boston and in Calgary Phaneuf and Kessel weren't really part of those team's leadership structures and those teams did have two of the most respected captains in the NHL. So even if they did fit in well there, and there's as you say good evidence to suggest they didn't, it's not quite the same as those guys trying to fill leadership roles elsewhere.

 

[herman]

Sure, there were things that happened inside the room that I think should stay inside the room.

?Some of them can do it and some of them are just not capable of grasping it. Some have a difficult time dealing with the pressure that comes at the critical times. If there?s one thing you cannot do with this group, it seems you cannot apply more pressure to them. You?ve got to try to pick them up. It?s always about making them feel good.?
It was a constant battle, convincing the players to recognize their own reality, with all its short-comings. The disconnect in style of play, in systems, was never resolved.
?Are we good? Are we good enough?? And, in their periods of success ? 10-1-1 in mid-December: ?Are we that good?"

To me, that comes across more like Carlyle having communication issues (which is something his former players have commented on, as well) more than anything else. It sounds like he didn't know how to communicate with them. Just because his attempts to apply more pressure to the players didn't work doesn't mean it's not possible or a sign of dysfunction. It really shouldn't be shocking that a coach who has a reputation of not communicating well with his players had trouble communicating messages to his players.

Agreed. Carlyle generally got the "what" to do part right, but he never seemed to realize that elaborating on "how" was also important. The disconnect was that Carlyle was brought up a certain way (and excelled), but wasn't able to adapt to the way the players need to learn these days, nor was he much interested in teaching.

 

[rdowdall]

Sure, there were things that happened inside the room that I think should stay inside the room.

?Some of them can do it and some of them are just not capable of grasping it. Some have a difficult time dealing with the pressure that comes at the critical times. If there?s one thing you cannot do with this group, it seems you cannot apply more pressure to them. You?ve got to try to pick them up. It?s always about making them feel good.?
It was a constant battle, convincing the players to recognize their own reality, with all its short-comings. The disconnect in style of play, in systems, was never resolved.
?Are we good? Are we good enough?? And, in their periods of success ? 10-1-1 in mid-December: ?Are we that good?"

To me, that comes across more like Carlyle having communication issues (which is something his former players have commented on, as well) more than anything else. It sounds like he didn't know how to communicate with them. Just because his attempts to apply more pressure to the players didn't work doesn't mean it's not possible or a sign of dysfunction. It really shouldn't be shocking that a coach who has a reputation of not communicating well with his players had trouble communicating messages to his players.

Yeah, but when Wilson was fired, it was the same thing.  Remember Kadri's comments about Wilson?  I think that when you fire a coach, there is a lot of damage control that goes on from an organization.  In the Leafs case though, I agree with the sentiment that this is the tip of the iceberg. 

 

[hockeyfan1]

Sure, there were things that happened inside the room that I think should stay inside the room.

?Some of them can do it and some of them are just not capable of grasping it. Some have a difficult time dealing with the pressure that comes at the critical times. If there?s one thing you cannot do with this group, it seems you cannot apply more pressure to them. You?ve got to try to pick them up. It?s always about making them feel good.?
It was a constant battle, convincing the players to recognize their own reality, with all its short-comings. The disconnect in style of play, in systems, was never resolved.
?Are we good? Are we good enough?? And, in their periods of success ? 10-1-1 in mid-December: ?Are we that good?"

To me, that comes across more like Carlyle having communication issues (which is something his former players have commented on, as well) more than anything else. It sounds like he didn't know how to communicate with them. Just because his attempts to apply more pressure to the players didn't work doesn't mean it's not possible or a sign of dysfunction. It really shouldn't be shocking that a coach who has a reputation of not communicating well with his players had trouble communicating messages to his players.

Agreed. Carlyle generally got the "what" to do part right, but he never seemed to realize that elaborating on "how" was also important. The disconnect was that Carlyle was brought up a certain way (and excelled), but wasn't able to adapt to the way the players need to learn these days, nor was he much interested in teaching.

lt's well in keeping with what Polak said':
...always tough to do something you know you don?t like to do. I think we have lots of guys that just want to play offence.?

And....

It?s not just the coach?s fault; it?s the guys, too, because they have to listen and they have to understand what the coach wants from them.

?If they don?t, it doesn?t matter what kind of coach you have.?

As I also mentioned in another post, Carlyle had his shortcomings as a ooach (poor communicator, not seeming to understand today's player/athlete, etc,).
While we can blame Randy, not all of the weight of blame falls on his shoulders, the players to a certain extent, are responsible, too.  Hence, Polak.

 

[Leaflifer]

Some pretty telling words from Roman Polak (who, as the article points out, has spent most of his career on a winning team in St. Louis).

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-need-to-bridge-divided-dressing-room/

Take it from no-nonsense defenceman Roman Polak, who had spent his entire NHL career in St. Louis before a trade to Toronto last summer. He didn?t flinch when asked why the Leafs haven?t played with enough defensive structure.

?Because it?s hard work,? Polak said before Wednesday?s 6-2 loss to Washington. ?It?s always tough to do something you know you don?t like to do. I think we have lots of guys that just want to play offence.?

...

All of which brings us back to the million-dollar question: Will the message sent by Carlyle?s firing and a stronger voice for Horachek be enough to accomplish it?

?It?s tough to say,? said Polak. ?I don?t know. As a coach, you can do whatever you want, but the guys have to listen too. It?s not just the coach?s fault; it?s the guys, too, because they have to listen and they have to understand what the coach wants from them.

?If they don?t, it doesn?t matter what kind of coach you have.?

Some new voices are starting to speak up. Will the others hear them?

Kessel was on a winning team in Boston.  Phaneuf was on a winning team in Calgary.  At least winning as much as the Blues have ever won, neither had missed the playoffs before being traded to the Leafs.

I don't think those guys had as much influence on their respective team's mental game as they do here.

What makes you think Polak had much influence on St. Louis'?  I have no idea if he did or not.

EDIT: I should clarify that I brought up Phaneuf/Kessel because the author was getting at the fact that Polak's words should be given more weight because he's come from a winning organization.

Ok...but if was just Polak saying this, I wouldn't have gave it a second thought.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Some pretty telling words from Roman Polak (who, as the article points out, has spent most of his career on a winning team in St. Louis).

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-need-to-bridge-divided-dressing-room/

Take it from no-nonsense defenceman Roman Polak, who had spent his entire NHL career in St. Louis before a trade to Toronto last summer. He didn?t flinch when asked why the Leafs haven?t played with enough defensive structure.

?Because it?s hard work,? Polak said before Wednesday?s 6-2 loss to Washington. ?It?s always tough to do something you know you don?t like to do. I think we have lots of guys that just want to play offence.?

...

All of which brings us back to the million-dollar question: Will the message sent by Carlyle?s firing and a stronger voice for Horachek be enough to accomplish it?

?It?s tough to say,? said Polak. ?I don?t know. As a coach, you can do whatever you want, but the guys have to listen too. It?s not just the coach?s fault; it?s the guys, too, because they have to listen and they have to understand what the coach wants from them.

?If they don?t, it doesn?t matter what kind of coach you have.?

Some new voices are starting to speak up. Will the others hear them?

Kessel was on a winning team in Boston.  Phaneuf was on a winning team in Calgary.  At least winning as much as the Blues have ever won, neither had missed the playoffs before being traded to the Leafs.

I don't think those guys had as much influence on their respective team's mental game as they do here.

What makes you think Polak had much influence on St. Louis'?  I have no idea if he did or not.

EDIT: I should clarify that I brought up Phaneuf/Kessel because the author was getting at the fact that Polak's words should be given more weight because he's come from a winning organization.

Ok...but if was just Polak saying this, I wouldn't have gave it a second thought.

It's not really a novel concept.  Carlyle was saying it for 3 years that they have to work, 'compete', defensively.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

One of the 590 morning guys joked this morning that the 3 teams (Toronto, New Jersey and Edmonton) that most prominently hired analytics guys this summer have ironically all fired their coaches, as if the analytics did the teams no good.  If anything, I think Carlyle's firing in particular wasn't despite attention to analytics by the team and in the city, but rather because of it.  I feel pretty strongly that in years past, a coach in his team's position (borderline playoff team, a little above .500, not particularly falling short of general expectations) wouldn't have been fired, and I'm not even sure that there'd even be all that much discussion about firing him at this point of the season either.  It's justified in very many ways, but I think most of those ways weren't much part of the discussion even just a few years ago.

 

[bustaheims]

One of the 590 morning guys joked this morning that the 3 teams (Toronto, New Jersey and Edmonton) that most prominently hired analytics guys this summer have ironically all fired their coaches, as if the analytics did the teams no good.  If anything, I think Carlyle's firing in particular wasn't despite attention to analytics by the team and in the city, but rather because of it.  I feel pretty strongly that in years past, a coach in his team's position (borderline playoff team, a little above .500, not particularly falling short of general expectations) wouldn't have been fired, and I'm not even sure that there'd even be all that much discussion about firing him at this point of the season either.  It's justified in very many ways, but I think most of those ways weren't much part of the discussion even just a few years ago.

It's also a complete misunderstanding of how analytics impacts the team. Analytics isn't going to help at all if the decision makers and/or the coaching staff aren't listening and adapting based what the analysts are telling them. A poor possession team that keeps the same coach, who still puts what is basically the same poor possession system into place is going to remain a poor possession team, regardless of how much money they throw at analytics experts. It was never going to be a quick impact type thing. It's much more akin to scouting. It can take years for the full impact of an analytics department to be realized. The more vocal resistance to these advanced stats and analytics can't seem to (or refuse to) wrap their heads around that concept.