Eakins to Edmonton confirmed

[L K]

I count eight teams. That's eight times in 210 chances that an over 11% shooting percentage has been maintained. 4% of teams have done it. If the Leafs had their 28th-in-league shots on goal and a more average 9% SH%, which chances are they WILL next season, that's 32 fewer goals. From a +12 to a -20. Teams like that don't make the playoffs -- by a lot.

And all of that functions on the basis that a team that isn't scoring actually keeps playing the same way rather than trying to generate more scoring chances.

 

[mr grieves]

I count eight teams. That's eight times in 210 chances that an over 11% shooting percentage has been maintained. 4% of teams have done it. If the Leafs had their 28th-in-league shots on goal and a more average 9% SH%, which chances are they WILL next season, that's 32 fewer goals. From a +12 to a -20. Teams like that don't make the playoffs -- by a lot.

And all of that functions on the basis that a team that isn't scoring actually keeps playing the same way rather than trying to generate more scoring chances.

Perhaps true. My only point is that it happens very rarely, and isn't a recipe for long-term success.

When the offense started to dry up and the team rode Kessel for the last several weeks of the season, I saw few signs that RC was looking to get the team to play much differently, to generate more scoring chances. So, it's not clear to me that he saw much of a problem that his team wasn't getting enough scoring chances.

 

[TML fan]

What boggles my mind is that in game 2, the team seemingly just flipped a switch and played an entirely different brand of hockey.

The only thing I can think of is that they just abandoned Carlyle's system entirely, and just played hockey.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

What boggles my mind is that in game 2, the team seemingly just flipped a switch and played an entirely different brand of hockey.

The only thing I can think of is that they just abandoned Carlyle's system entirely, and just played hockey.

Or the other way around.

Carlyle wanted them to play a certain way and it didn't click for the first 2 games (nerves what have you).

That seems just as plausible to me.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Eakins' Marlies teams were, for the most part, very good defensively.  Will be interesting to see if he can bring that to the Oilers.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Good luck to Dallas Eakins in Edmonton.

If he proves his worth, we'll all have bemoaned his departure.

(?sigh?)

 

[mr grieves]

What boggles my mind is that in game 2, the team seemingly just flipped a switch and played an entirely different brand of hockey.

The only thing I can think of is that they just abandoned Carlyle's system entirely, and just played hockey.

Or the other way around.

Carlyle wanted them to play a certain way and it didn't click for the first 2 games (nerves what have you).

That seems just as plausible to me.

Except that the brand of hockey they were playing game 2 and after looked almost nothing like what Carlyle had them playing for most of the season.

Maybe he wanted them to play that certain way for 49 games and couldn't get it going until the 50th? That sounds rather implausible.

More likely is Carlyle eventually hit on the sort of hockey this roster's good at in order to make them match better against the Bruins. I hope the success against the Bruins helped him to realize it's a good way to play the year round.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The fact that some assume that the reason this team played the style they did, despite being able to play a better style, is nuts.

This team was shaped to take advantage of their core skills. As a coach, you give your team the best chance to win based on the teams talents or lack there of. With a weak defense and a huge question in goal, playing as defensive as possible was the only way this team could win games. If anything, I applaud Carlyle for implementing this system.

 

[TML fan]

The fact that some assume that the reason this team played the style they did, despite being able to play a better style, is nuts.

This team was shaped to take advantage of their core skills. As a coach, you give your team the best chance to win based on the teams talents or lack there of. With a weak defense and a huge question in goal, playing as defensive as possible was the only way this team could win games. If anything, I applaud Carlyle for implementing this system.

Except that's not what they did in the playoffs. It's like someone figured out that, if you have the puck, the other team can't score on you.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The fact that some assume that the reason this team played the style they did, despite being able to play a better style, is nuts.

This team was shaped to take advantage of their core skills. As a coach, you give your team the best chance to win based on the teams talents or lack there of. With a weak defense and a huge question in goal, playing as defensive as possible was the only way this team could win games. If anything, I applaud Carlyle for implementing this system.

What evidence is there that they played a defensive system?  It certainly didn't appear that way to me anyways.  They were among the worst in shots against, and among the worst in shots for/against ratio.  Those aren't hallmarks of playing as defensive as possible, IMO.  Even with a team not loaded with defensive stars, a coach could implement a team-wide defensive style, but I don't see where Carlyle did that.  He got improved goaltending and an improved penalty kill from past seasons, but otherwise I didn't see a whole lot different in the overall style.

 

[Jalili]

Although the team has some pretty big holes right now, this could be a really good opportunity for Eakins.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The fact that some assume that the reason this team played the style they did, despite being able to play a better style, is nuts.

This team was shaped to take advantage of their core skills. As a coach, you give your team the best chance to win based on the teams talents or lack there of. With a weak defense and a huge question in goal, playing as defensive as possible was the only way this team could win games. If anything, I applaud Carlyle for implementing this system.

What evidence is there that they played a defensive system?  It certainly didn't appear that way to me anyways.  They were among the worst in shots against, and among the worst in shots for/against ratio.  Those aren't hallmarks of playing as defensive as possible, IMO.  Even with a team not loaded with defensive stars, a coach could implement a team-wide defensive style, but I don't see where Carlyle did that.  He got improved goaltending and an improved penalty kill from past seasons, but otherwise I didn't see a whole lot different in the overall style.

Regardless of what style they played, the fact remains that a coach designs a team's play based on the talent he's given.

And TML fan, I don't think the Leafs necessarily came to the realization that they were playing wrong all season long while in the playoffs. I think their 'success' in the playoffs can be viewed as a team that played very inconsistant over a 7 game series and got lucky that the team they were playing against played horrible. I saw no real change in how they played in the regular season and the playoffs.

 

[mr grieves]

The fact that some assume that the reason this team played the style they did, despite being able to play a better style, is nuts.

This team was shaped to take advantage of their core skills. As a coach, you give your team the best chance to win based on the teams talents or lack there of. With a weak defense and a huge question in goal, playing as defensive as possible was the only way this team could win games. If anything, I applaud Carlyle for implementing this system.

What evidence is there that they played a defensive system?  It certainly didn't appear that way to me anyways.  They were among the worst in shots against, and among the worst in shots for/against ratio.  Those aren't hallmarks of playing as defensive as possible, IMO.  Even with a team not loaded with defensive stars, a coach could implement a team-wide defensive style, but I don't see where Carlyle did that.  He got improved goaltending and an improved penalty kill from past seasons, but otherwise I didn't see a whole lot different in the overall style.

Regardless of what style they played, the fact remains that a coach designs a team's play based on the talent he's given.

And TML fan, I don't think the Leafs necessarily came to the realization that they were playing wrong all season long while in the playoffs. I think their 'success' in the playoffs can be viewed as a team that played very inconsistant over a 7 game series and got lucky that the team they were playing against played horrible. I saw no real change in how they played in the regular season and the playoffs.

The first sentence you wrote is meaningless. Coaches are supposed to do that, but that they do isn't intrinsic in their designing play and whether they do is something people debate on forums like these. In such a debate, the style a team plays isn't to be dismissed with a 'regardless' -- it, measured against the abilities of the roster, is precisely what you look to to sort things out.

As to the last sentence: ... really? You didn't notice the quicker transitions up ice? The team's increased speed? The broken cycles and efficient movement out of the defensive zone? The fact that the Leafs had the puck on their sticks more often than during the regular season? The times the puck was sent back to Gardiner and Franson to settle things down and organize an attack? Their ability to slow and neutralize Boston's forecheck? That the team was controlling play for stretches longer than they did during the regular season?

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

The fact that some assume that the reason this team played the style they did, despite being able to play a better style, is nuts.

This team was shaped to take advantage of their core skills. As a coach, you give your team the best chance to win based on the teams talents or lack there of. With a weak defense and a huge question in goal, playing as defensive as possible was the only way this team could win games. If anything, I applaud Carlyle for implementing this system.

Except that's not what they did in the playoffs. It's like someone figured out that, if you have the puck, the other team can't score on you.

I posted it another thread but the Leafs averaged the 6th highest GF total this year and were 16th overall in GAA while being tied with Washington for 28th (there's a few teams tied throughout the stat so I'm not sure how it shakes out) in SA/G.

I.E. they gave up a lot of shots. In the playoffs they gave up almost unbelievably 39 SA/G (that must include overtimes). It's not as if they magically tightened up and started playing stingy D.

As I said before, Carlyle came in and did something no other coach did in the past 8 or 9 seasons, put up close to the best offensive numbers (pro-rated GF) and the best defensive numbers (pro-rated GA) this team has seen in some time. The fact that many think he's some kind of an emperor with no clothes boggles my mind.

 

[hockeyfan1]

...Carlyle came in and did something no other coach did in the past 8 or 9 seasons, put up close to the best offensive numbers (pro-rated GF) and the best defensive numbers (pro-rated GA) this team has seen in some time.

Carlyle also deserves credit for figuring out how to keep Kessel away from Chara, with his version of "musical chairs".  It worked so well in the Leafs favour that it garned him the temporary "mad scientist" nickname.

Obviously something that Pittsburgh's Dan Bylsma couldn't do or think of for his much-beleagured team.

I applaud Carlyle's efforts in bringing and instillIng a true sense of teamwork in many areas & aspects of the team's make-up through the season leading up to the playoffs.  While not perfect by any means, the Leafs surprised many when those aspects came into vogue in the quest for success in the playoffs, against a team (Boston) which had presented itself as a challenge to best prior to.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The fact that some assume that the reason this team played the style they did, despite being able to play a better style, is nuts.

This team was shaped to take advantage of their core skills. As a coach, you give your team the best chance to win based on the teams talents or lack there of. With a weak defense and a huge question in goal, playing as defensive as possible was the only way this team could win games. If anything, I applaud Carlyle for implementing this system.

What evidence is there that they played a defensive system?  It certainly didn't appear that way to me anyways.  They were among the worst in shots against, and among the worst in shots for/against ratio.  Those aren't hallmarks of playing as defensive as possible, IMO.  Even with a team not loaded with defensive stars, a coach could implement a team-wide defensive style, but I don't see where Carlyle did that.  He got improved goaltending and an improved penalty kill from past seasons, but otherwise I didn't see a whole lot different in the overall style.

Regardless of what style they played, the fact remains that a coach designs a team's play based on the talent he's given.

And TML fan, I don't think the Leafs necessarily came to the realization that they were playing wrong all season long while in the playoffs. I think their 'success' in the playoffs can be viewed as a team that played very inconsistant over a 7 game series and got lucky that the team they were playing against played horrible. I saw no real change in how they played in the regular season and the playoffs.

The first sentence you wrote is meaningless. Coaches are supposed to do that, but that they do isn't intrinsic in their designing play and whether they do is something people debate on forums like these. In such a debate, the style a team plays isn't to be dismissed with a 'regardless' -- it, measured against the abilities of the roster, is precisely what you look to to sort things out.

As to the last sentence: ... really? You didn't notice the quicker transitions up ice? The team's increased speed? The broken cycles and efficient movement out of the defensive zone? The fact that the Leafs had the puck on their sticks more often than during the regular season? The times the puck was sent back to Gardiner and Franson to settle things down and organize an attack? Their ability to slow and neutralize Boston's forecheck? That the team was controlling play for stretches longer than they did during the regular season?

It's not meaningless, it's exactly how you coach hockey. Sure you tinker with the game plan from night to night, but essentially, a team is built to play a certain game based on said team's skills.

As for the improvement with the transition, the team's speed, etc;....I don't think you notice any of that wonderfulness if Boston wasn't playing so terrible. Let's be honest, the Leafs are not in Boston's league and that 1st round does nothing to change that notion. In my opinion, like I've said above, the Bruin's played really crappy and Toronto played as inconsistantly as they did for most of the season.

Did they play better than the final 10 games of the season where they struggled to get 20 shots a game? Yes, very much so. But they played the same style earlier in the season when they were the most successful.

 

[mr grieves]

I posted it another thread but the Leafs averaged the 6th highest GF total this year and were 16th overall in GAA while being tied with Washington for 28th (there's a few teams tied throughout the stat so I'm not sure how it shakes out) in SA/G.

I.E. they gave up a lot of shots. In the playoffs they gave up almost unbelievably 39 SA/G (that must include overtimes). It's not as if they magically tightened up and started playing stingy D.

As I said before, Carlyle came in and did something no other coach did in the past 8 or 9 seasons, put up close to the best offensive numbers (pro-rated GF) and the best defensive numbers (pro-rated GA) this team has seen in some time. The fact that many think he's some kind of an emperor with no clothes boggles my mind.

Except it's not the GF, GA, and SA/G that I was talking about. There's always some dispute about how much of what happens on the ice, especially with respect on offensive production, can be credited to coaching. But I'm more confident in saying RC had something to do with SF/G than I am with GF. The latter's a product of shooting percentages, and they're pretty variable. SF/G is more a product of a team playing a system that gets pucks on net.

In other words, I find it harder to credit RC with the team's 11.5% SH% than to blame him for whatever he had them doing that they were 28th in the league -- among Nashville, Dallas, Columbus, Edmonton, Calgary, and Tampa Bay -- in SF/G.

 

[mr grieves]

Carlyle also deserves credit for figuring out how to keep Kessel away from Chara, with his version of "musical chairs".  It worked so well in the Leafs favour that it garned him the temporary "mad scientist" nickname.

Obviously something that Pittsburgh's Dan Bylsma couldn't do or think of for his much-beleagured team.

Sure. And that was one of the pleasures of watching playoff hockey again. Tactical coaching becomes pretty significant when you're playing a 1/10th of a season (or in this case, 1/5th) against single opponent.

RC's work in the playoffs was a pleasure to watch.

 

[caver]

With one notable exception...

 

[OldTimeHockey]

With one notable exception...

This I can completely agree with.