Going Forward

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I'm sure Carlyle didn't stand for it either. I think this whole idea of Babcock not putting up with things is a fallacy. What's more important is whether an individual player responds to the coaching.

I think the difference is that Babcock may actually make it appears as though there's some accountability. Carlyle certainly didn't with anyone other than Kadri or Gardiner. Carlyle didn't stand for it, I'm sure, but he also didn't seem to do anything significant about it - definitely nothing that was effective.

Well put Busta, you said what I was trying to and as usual much more succinctly.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think the difference is that Babcock may actually make it appears as though there's some accountability. Carlyle certainly didn't with anyone other than Kadri or Gardiner. Carlyle didn't stand for it, I'm sure, but he also didn't seem to do anything significant about it - definitely nothing that was effective.

Randy's defensive "system" was basically designed to make wingers look like idiots too.

 

[bustaheims]

Randy's defensive "system" was basically designed to make wingers look like idiots too.

Basically made everyone look like idiots, really. I honestly don't think I can say any Leaf passed the defensive play eye test while he was here. Some had decent possession numbers, but none looked good at even strength.

 

[Redleaf]

I'm sure Carlyle didn't stand for it either. I think this whole idea of Babcock not putting up with things is a fallacy. What's more important is whether an individual player responds to the coaching.

I think the difference is that Babcock may actually make it appears as though there's some accountability. Carlyle certainly didn't with anyone other than Kadri or Gardiner. Carlyle didn't stand for it, I'm sure, but he also didn't seem to do anything significant about it - definitely nothing that was effective.

I think Carlyle was stuck between a rock and a hard place in that regard. Bench Kessel and you not only lose your best offesive weapon, you also risk Phil starting to effect the relationships between the players and coach. Especially if it was true that he was very well liked in the locker room. Getting rid of Phil was really the only option to remedy the situation.

 

[bustaheims]

I think Carlyle was stuck between a rock and a hard place in that regard. Bench Kessel and you not only lose your best offesive weapon, you also risk Phil starting to effect the relationships between the players and coach. Especially if it was true that he was very well liked in the locker room. Getting rid of Phil was really the only option to remedy the situation.

Kessel was hardly at the top of the list of guys that needed to have a message sent to them. Start with Bozak. He's a high profile enough member of the team to start to get the message across. Or bench Franson after he had games where he was a defensive nightmare. There were lots of options for Carlyle. He just refused to use them on anyone that had been in the league for more than a couple seasons.

 

[herman]

I think Carlyle was stuck between a rock and a hard place in that regard. Bench Kessel and you not only lose your best offesive weapon, you also risk Phil starting to effect the relationships between the players and coach. Especially if it was true that he was very well liked in the locker room. Getting rid of Phil was really the only option to remedy the situation.

Kessel was hardly at the top of the list of guys that needed to have a message sent to them. Start with Bozak. He's a high profile enough member of the team to start to get the message across. Or bench Franson after he had games where he was a defensive nightmare. There were lots of options for Carlyle. He just refused to use them on anyone that had been in the league for more than a couple seasons.

It wasn't even a matter of benching. It looked like Carlyle was tuned out because what he was preaching was illogical and self-defeating. There was no usable defensive breakout, so everyone was gassed in the D zone and it seemed like the forwards believed that the only way they could salvage a shift was to blow the zone early for an odd-man rush.

 

[Kin]

I'm sure Carlyle didn't stand for it either. I think this whole idea of Babcock not putting up with things is a fallacy. What's more important is whether an individual player responds to the coaching.

I think the difference is that Babcock may actually make it appears as though there's some accountability. Carlyle certainly didn't with anyone other than Kadri or Gardiner. Carlyle didn't stand for it, I'm sure, but he also didn't seem to do anything significant about it - definitely nothing that was effective.

It's also easier to make those kinds of choices when the outcomes of the games mean less to you.

 

[bustaheims]

It's also easier to make those kinds of choices when the outcomes of the games mean less to you.

That's very true, but, on the flipside, it's more important to make those choices when the games mean more to you.

 

[Kin]

It's also easier to make those kinds of choices when the outcomes of the games mean less to you.

That's very true, but, on the flipside, it's more important to make those choices when the games mean more to you.

Only if you believe that benching players is a one-size fits all solution for poor play or even just that its cumulative effect is a net positive. Otherwise you're just doing it so that it appears as though you're doing something.

 

[bustaheims]

Only if you believe that benching players is a one-size fits all solution for poor play or even just that its cumulative effect is a net positive. Otherwise you're just doing it so that it appears as though you're doing something.

Well, I think, when you're in a position where your job may be in jeopardy, taking any reasonable action that could improve your fortunes could be seen as worthwhile. Obviously benchings aren't going to work for every player, but it likely works for some players. Same goes for seeing higher profile members of the team being benched. It's not going to motivate everyone, but it could be enough motivation for someone.

 

[Kin]

Well, I think, when you're in a position where your job may be in jeopardy, taking any reasonable action that could improve your fortunes could be seen as worthwhile. Obviously benchings aren't going to work for every player, but it likely works for some players. Same goes for seeing higher profile members of the team being benched. It's not going to motivate everyone, but it could be enough motivation for someone.

Sure, but I don't think we're talking about this from the perspective of thinking that Carlyle didn't do enough to save his job but rather that he didn't take actions that would get the best results from the team.

And to be clear, I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with the idea, just saying that I honestly don't know if the potential motivation you might get would outweigh the negative effect of using less-good players.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Man, I'm really going to miss the days of arguing over terrible coaching methods. Unless of course Babcock doesn't put Kadri on the top powerplay unit or something.

 

[Bullfrog]

I think Carlyle was stuck between a rock and a hard place in that regard. Bench Kessel and you not only lose your best offesive weapon, you also risk Phil starting to effect the relationships between the players and coach. Especially if it was true that he was very well liked in the locker room. Getting rid of Phil was really the only option to remedy the situation.

Kessel was hardly at the top of the list of guys that needed to have a message sent to them. Start with Bozak. He's a high profile enough member of the team to start to get the message across. Or bench Franson after he had games where he was a defensive nightmare. There were lots of options for Carlyle. He just refused to use them on anyone that had been in the league for more than a couple seasons.

It wasn't even a matter of benching. It looked like Carlyle was tuned out because what he was preaching was illogical and self-defeating. There was no usable defensive breakout, so everyone was gassed in the D zone and it seemed like the forwards believed that the only way they could salvage a shift was to blow the zone early for an odd-man rush.

That was painful to watch. With the forwards -- Bozak and Lupul even -- they genuinely looked confused to me.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Man, I'm really going to miss the days of arguing over terrible coaching methods. Unless of course Babcock doesn't put Kadri on the top powerplay unit or something.

I though these comments by Marner were interesting, just in reference to having systems in place, at least somewhat successful ones. I wonder how many of the Leafs' regulars were thinking the same thing.

Part of the immersion of the 69 players who began training camp on Thursday has been to watch tapes of Babcock?s successful Detroit Red Wings teams.

?He?s trying to teach us the systems as quickly as possible so we are ready to go in the pre-season games,? Leafs rookie Mitch Marner said. ?Watching all the clips, I didn?t know (the Wings) were that good of a systems team. It?s unbelievable.

 

[hockeyfan1]

I think Carlyle was stuck between a rock and a hard place in that regard. Bench Kessel and you not only lose your best offesive weapon, you also risk Phil starting to effect the relationships between the players and coach. Especially if it was true that he was very well liked in the locker room. Getting rid of Phil was really the only option to remedy the situation.

Kessel was hardly at the top of the list of guys that needed to have a message sent to them. Start with Bozak. He's a high profile enough member of the team to start to get the message across. Or bench Franson after he had games where he was a defensive nightmare. There were lots of options for Carlyle. He just refused to use them on anyone that had been in the league for more than a couple seasons.

It wasn't even a matter of benching. It looked like Carlyle was tuned out because what he was preaching was illogical and self-defeating. There was no usable defensive breakout, so everyone was gassed in the D zone and it seemed like the forwards believed that the only way they could salvage a shift was to blow the zone early for an odd-man rush.

Kessel was never a 'defensive' player nor like Bozak.  Never had been, was, or even will be (with his current team Pittsburgh).

On any other top-contending team, Kessel would not have been so criticized for his lack of back-checking or lack of defensive-mindedness when without the puck.  Many top teams -- I'm thinking Anaheim here, or the Rangers, for instance -- would have been content to have him for what he is, a pure scorer, nonetheless.  Because those teams have players who play defensive without the puck (two-way players), and have different than systems than the Leafs, etc., expecting Kessel to play likewise would not have been expected.

Those who say that Kessel's "attitude" was a bad influence on the team may be both right and wrong.  A coach, let's say a Bowman type, would never have tolerated a lackadaisical style of play from a player like that. Coaches such as Bowman believed in excellent work ethics and demanded player character be up to par. 

Babcock couid be in the same league. 

Carlyle not so much.  As mentioned, Carlyle did nothing differently in the face of negativity emanating from his player(s), due to his flawed system, in the first place. That shows that by not doing anything, a certain player's ways of thinking & playing may effect the rest of the team in so doing the same, etc.  When coach & players do not see eye to eye on the same level, respect, cooperation, etc. begins to deteriorate.

I wish Kessel all the best going forward with his current team Pittsburgh.  I'm a little excited at the prospect of watching Penguins highlights this season.

 

[Bates]

Lupe's Troops promo has been renamed Leafs Troops. Should I read anything into that or just a new way of doing things for the Leafs??

 

[herman]

Lupe's Troops promo has been renamed Leafs Troops. Should I read anything into that or just a new way of doing things for the Leafs??

They're saying it's an emphasis on putting the team at the forefront. I think it's future-proofing.