Game 61 - Sharks @ Leafs- Feb 23rd, 2012 - 7:00 PM EST - TSN, AM640

[brothert]

I think a coach has at least a 60-40 control on the success of the team versus the players.

Sir Alex what his secret was to being a successful manager.  The answer was "Pick good players for your starting XI"

I think this statement is true throughout all of sport.  It also applies to hockey although the GM and Coach are separate roles.  Burke has the responsibility to bring in players but Wilson has the responsibility to manage how and when they are played.  Ferguson changes his team based on what opponent he's going to play and how the individuals have been playing prior to the weekly selections.  He's benched his stars when he needed and he's given loyalty to struggling players as well.  Ovechkin's been benched, so have a number of stars.  Phaneuf is due one.  Komisarek benched in favour of Aulie as an emerg call up??? I would say that team management by both Burke and Wilson has been poor this year.

 

[Kin]

Sure, but the question still remains: To what extent is it the coach and to what extent is it the players? I wouldn't put it at 50/50.

I don't think there's a real answer there because the issue of how a player plays, and therefore how we read his quality, is inextricably linked to how he's coached. Take Schenn. Is Schenn a questionable player? Or has Schenn been poorly coached? It's hard to get a good read on something like that. I think it's a ton easier for great players to make-up for so-so coaching than the reverse but I don't know that I'd attach a sort of constant split to how much influence a coach has on his team's success. People have mentioned Dave Tippett as a guy who probably deserves the lion's share of the credit for his team's performance but that's probably less true when, say, you look at the 2001 Avalanche.

I think it's probably safer to just say that a coach has a significant role in a team's success and can be judged accordingly. In regards to your specific questions here, I don't think you need to argue that Eakins would be a terrific coach in order to favour a change. I think that when it comes to coaching, change for change's sake can work. I think the coaching changes we've seen in the league this year are good examples of that.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Remember when Pat Quinn was fired for not making the playoffs? Was it really his fault?

Am I hearing you right?  You believe Wilson isn't at fault?

Answer the question. Why didn't Pat Quinn make the playoffs in 05/06?

Players got tired of him.  He had made it for 6 straight seasons and they tuned him out.  Coaches have a shelf life.

So Belfour decided to tune him out after 2 seasons and had the worst season of his career?

 

[bustaheims]

Sure, but the question still remains: To what extent is it the coach and to what extent is it the players? I wouldn't put it at 50/50.

70 coach
30 players

Yeah, it's almost certainly the opposite of that. The players are the ones that actually have to execute the game plan, have a direct impact on the game, etc. The coach really just deals with the strategy, and, often, even when the strategy is sound, the execution fails - and that's all on the players.

 

[Stronger Than All]

Playoff bound????

The east is still a joke. Despite all these losses the Leafs are a 2-3 game win streak from being in a good playoff spot again. Saturday's game against the Caps should be a win, they're worse than us right now and are playing back to back.

So, Guaranteed Caps win? 

kidding aside, we really need to NOT be slump busters for the Caps.

 

[Zee]

Remember when Pat Quinn was fired for not making the playoffs? Was it really his fault?

Am I hearing you right?  You believe Wilson isn't at fault?

Answer the question. Why didn't Pat Quinn make the playoffs in 05/06?

Players got tired of him.  He had made it for 6 straight seasons and they tuned him out.  Coaches have a shelf life.

So Belfour decided to tune him out after 2 seasons and had the worst season of his career?

Belfour was getting older and was hurt off and on that season too so that had an effect.  But overall the team didn't respond to Quinn as well as in previous seasons.  They nearly made it in despite all that with 90 points.  He was a good coach, his time was just over.

 

[Bender]

Dave Tippet can squeeze water out of a rock. That's certainly higher than 50/50.

Sent from my MacBook Wheel.

Mike Smith also has retarded good goaltending numbers. I don't think he's sheltered by a defensive system, though, from what I've seen so far.

 

[ZBBM]

This is hilarious.  Wilson hasn't done jack in 4 years and there are still people on here turning themselves inside out trying to defend him.

Instead of futilely debating phantom percentages of who's responsible for what, why not set a simple metric of success and see if the coach attains it?  How about, oh say, being one of the 8 best teams in your division once in awhile?  In other words, achieving mediocrity.

 

[Bender]

Remember when Pat Quinn was fired for not making the playoffs? Was it really his fault?

Am I hearing you right?  You believe Wilson isn't at fault?

Answer the question. Why didn't Pat Quinn make the playoffs in 05/06?

Players got tired of him.  He had made it for 6 straight seasons and they tuned him out.  Coaches have a shelf life.

So Belfour decided to tune him out after 2 seasons and had the worst season of his career?

Belfour was getting older and was hurt off and on that season too so that had an effect.  But overall the team didn't respond to Quinn as well as in previous seasons.  They nearly made it in despite all that with 90 points.  He was a good coach, his time was just over.

How long was Scotty Bowman's shelf life?

 

[Bender]

Sure, but the question still remains: To what extent is it the coach and to what extent is it the players? I wouldn't put it at 50/50.

I don't think there's a real answer there because the issue of how a player plays, and therefore how we read his quality, is inextricably linked to how he's coached. Take Schenn. Is Schenn a questionable player? Or has Schenn been poorly coached? It's hard to get a good read on something like that. I think it's a ton easier for great players to make-up for so-so coaching than the reverse but I don't know that I'd attach a sort of constant split to how much influence a coach has on his team's success. People have mentioned Dave Tippett as a guy who probably deserves the lion's share of the credit for his team's performance but that's probably less true when, say, you look at the 2001 Avalanche.

I think it's probably safer to just say that a coach has a significant role in a team's success and can be judged accordingly. In regards to your specific questions here, I don't think you need to argue that Eakins would be a terrific coach in order to favour a change. I think that when it comes to coaching, change for change's sake can work. I think the coaching changes we've seen in the league this year are good examples of that.

I don't disagree with you. Just the general sense I get is "Bring in Eakins! He'll fix the team!" To be honest I won't be surprised if the team doesn't get that much better under his coaching.

 

[Zee]

Remember when Pat Quinn was fired for not making the playoffs? Was it really his fault?

Am I hearing you right?  You believe Wilson isn't at fault?

Answer the question. Why didn't Pat Quinn make the playoffs in 05/06?

Players got tired of him.  He had made it for 6 straight seasons and they tuned him out.  Coaches have a shelf life.

So Belfour decided to tune him out after 2 seasons and had the worst season of his career?

Belfour was getting older and was hurt off and on that season too so that had an effect.  But overall the team didn't respond to Quinn as well as in previous seasons.  They nearly made it in despite all that with 90 points.  He was a good coach, his time was just over.

How long was Scotty Bowman's shelf life?

What does this have to do with Quinn or Wilson?  Did Scotty Bowman coach his entire career with the same team?

 

[Zee]

This is hilarious.  Wilson hasn't done jack in 4 years and there are still people on here turning themselves inside out trying to defend him.

Instead of futilely debating phantom percentages of who's responsible for what, why not set a simple metric of success and see if the coach attains it?  How about, oh say, being one of the 8 best teams in your division once in awhile?  In other words, achieving mediocrity.

Not only has Wilson not done much in 4 years with the Leafs, look at his overall coaching record.  He's been to the playoffs 8 years, and missed the playoffs 9 years.  If they miss this season that's 8 in and 10 out.  That's not an overall fantastic record.  Compare to Quinn for example who was in something like 15-16 years and his teams only missed the playoffs 3-4 years.  I don't know how Wilson got this reputation as being a great coach because his overall success doesn't back it up.

 

[Mikhail Bloodnovsky]

Sure, but the question still remains: To what extent is it the coach and to what extent is it the players? I wouldn't put it at 50/50.

I don't think there's a real answer there because the issue of how a player plays, and therefore how we read his quality, is inextricably linked to how he's coached. Take Schenn. Is Schenn a questionable player? Or has Schenn been poorly coached? It's hard to get a good read on something like that. I think it's a ton easier for great players to make-up for so-so coaching than the reverse but I don't know that I'd attach a sort of constant split to how much influence a coach has on his team's success. People have mentioned Dave Tippett as a guy who probably deserves the lion's share of the credit for his team's performance but that's probably less true when, say, you look at the 2001 Avalanche.

I think it's probably safer to just say that a coach has a significant role in a team's success and can be judged accordingly. In regards to your specific questions here, I don't think you need to argue that Eakins would be a terrific coach in order to favour a change. I think that when it comes to coaching, change for change's sake can work. I think the coaching changes we've seen in the league this year are good examples of that.

I don't disagree with you. Just the general sense I get is "Bring in Eakins! He'll fix the team!" To be honest I won't be surprised if the team doesn't get that much better under his coaching.

I don't think anyone is saying Eakins is the holy savior but he certainly can't do any worse than Wilson.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Sure, but the question still remains: To what extent is it the coach and to what extent is it the players? I wouldn't put it at 50/50.

I don't think there's a real answer there because the issue of how a player plays, and therefore how we read his quality, is inextricably linked to how he's coached. Take Schenn. Is Schenn a questionable player? Or has Schenn been poorly coached? It's hard to get a good read on something like that. I think it's a ton easier for great players to make-up for so-so coaching than the reverse but I don't know that I'd attach a sort of constant split to how much influence a coach has on his team's success. People have mentioned Dave Tippett as a guy who probably deserves the lion's share of the credit for his team's performance but that's probably less true when, say, you look at the 2001 Avalanche.

I think it's probably safer to just say that a coach has a significant role in a team's success and can be judged accordingly. In regards to your specific questions here, I don't think you need to argue that Eakins would be a terrific coach in order to favour a change. I think that when it comes to coaching, change for change's sake can work. I think the coaching changes we've seen in the league this year are good examples of that.

I don't disagree with you. Just the general sense I get is "Bring in Eakins! He'll fix the team!" To be honest I won't be surprised if the team doesn't get that much better under his coaching.

I don't think anyone is saying Eakins is the holy savior but he certainly can't do any worse than Wilson.

Unlike Wilson, Eakins actually has a system in place and his team is near the top for goals against. They have the best penalty kill in the league, but they're not so hot on the pp. Every player that plays for Eakins raves about him......Not seeing that with Wilson. The Leafs play an up tempo game but they also need to have a defensive system in place. How many times do you see the wingers scrambling to get to the point men after they received the pass? All the time is the answer. Tell me why our forwards play so far away from the other teams point men? Coaches, personal have all changed. The One consistent thing is RW.
When we miss the playoffs and RW is fired, I want to see Eakins here. Maybe not as head coach, but he has to be at least, the assistant. I don't want to lose him to another team, like we did with Crawford many years ago, or like Montreal did with Muller.

 

[Zee]

Sure, but the question still remains: To what extent is it the coach and to what extent is it the players? I wouldn't put it at 50/50.

I don't think there's a real answer there because the issue of how a player plays, and therefore how we read his quality, is inextricably linked to how he's coached. Take Schenn. Is Schenn a questionable player? Or has Schenn been poorly coached? It's hard to get a good read on something like that. I think it's a ton easier for great players to make-up for so-so coaching than the reverse but I don't know that I'd attach a sort of constant split to how much influence a coach has on his team's success. People have mentioned Dave Tippett as a guy who probably deserves the lion's share of the credit for his team's performance but that's probably less true when, say, you look at the 2001 Avalanche.

I think it's probably safer to just say that a coach has a significant role in a team's success and can be judged accordingly. In regards to your specific questions here, I don't think you need to argue that Eakins would be a terrific coach in order to favour a change. I think that when it comes to coaching, change for change's sake can work. I think the coaching changes we've seen in the league this year are good examples of that.

I don't disagree with you. Just the general sense I get is "Bring in Eakins! He'll fix the team!" To be honest I won't be surprised if the team doesn't get that much better under his coaching.

I don't think anyone is saying Eakins is the holy savior but he certainly can't do any worse than Wilson.

Unlike Wilson, Eakins actually has a system in place and his team is near the top for goals against. They have the best penalty kill in the league, but they're not so hot on the pp. Every player that plays for Eakins raves about him......Not seeing that with Wilson. The Leafs play an up tempo game but they also need to have a defensive system in place. How many times do you see the wingers scrambling to get to the point men after they received the pass? All the time is the answer. Tell me why our forwards play so far away from the other teams point men? Coaches, personal have all changed. The One consistent thing is RW.
When we miss the playoffs and RW is fired, I want to see Eakins here. Maybe not as head coach, but he has to be at least, the assistant. I don't want to lose him to another team, like we did with Crawford many years ago, or like Montreal did with Muller.

I like the Eakins option because he's young and he's worked with all the guys on the Marlies.  If they like him down there, they'll like him up here as well.  I think Wilson at the approaching age of 60 and the changing nature of the game is falling behind in his coaching strategies.  Eakins is getting the most out of his lineup even when the Marlies are losing players due to call up, including goalies.  That bodes well in terms of an overall system because he can utilize new players and plug them into his system.

Who knows, Eakins could be a complete failure at the NHL level, but we'll never know until he gets a shot.  He can't do much worse than no playoffs in 4 years, which is the current gold standard for coaching in Toronto.

 

[Bender]

I think its crazy that you could suggest a coach in the league for 20 years doesn't play any kind of system, let alone that assistants play a big role in it as well.

Bring on Eakins, but with our roster as it stands I think wed still be dogfighting it. We need upgrades on our players in practically every position.

 

[Mikhail Bloodnovsky]

I think its crazy that you could suggest a coach in the league for 20 years doesn't play any kind of system, let alone that assistants play a big role in it as well.

Bring on Eakins, but with our roster as it stands I think wed still be dogfighting it. We need upgrades on our players in practically every position.

Then the failure lies squarely with Burke and his staff then. He completely turned over the roster since he got here.

 

[Guilt Trip]

I think its crazy that you could suggest a coach in the league for 20 years doesn't play any kind of system, let alone that assistants play a big role in it as well.

Bring on Eakins, but with our roster as it stands I think wed still be dogfighting it. We need upgrades on our players in practically every position.

Systems are the head coaches call because it's his head on the block. This roster is good enough to make the playoffs and if they don't, it lies with RW for failing to get the players to play a system that can make them successful over long stretches.
Yes, The team is young and will have growing pains like we've seen but you can't keep turning over the roster without trying a new coach first.

 

[Bender]

I think its crazy that you could suggest a coach in the league for 20 years doesn't play any kind of system, let alone that assistants play a big role in it as well.

Bring on Eakins, but with our roster as it stands I think wed still be dogfighting it. We need upgrades on our players in practically every position.

Then the failure lies squarely with Burke and his staff then. He completely turned over the roster since he got here.

Burke never said that he iced a contender. He's said on multiple times that the pieces weren't in place to compete until this year. Herein lies the main failure: Goaltending. They should've brought in a vet earlier, and the season could've been saved if we brought in high calibre goaltending even though it would cost us.

 

[Guilt Trip]

I think its crazy that you could suggest a coach in the league for 20 years doesn't play any kind of system, let alone that assistants play a big role in it as well.

Bring on Eakins, but with our roster as it stands I think wed still be dogfighting it. We need upgrades on our players in practically every position.

Then the failure lies squarely with Burke and his staff then. He completely turned over the roster since he got here.

Burke never said that he iced a contender. He's said on multiple times that the pieces weren't in place to compete until this year. Herein lies the main failure: Goaltending. They should've brought in a vet earlier, and the season could've been saved if we brought in high calibre goaltending even though it would cost us.

and if Reimer didn't get hurt........ifs and buts.....