Horachek's impact on the team

[herman]

Ditto what bustaheims is saying.

I don't know if I can credit Carlyle with the offensive numbers because they came about from forwards cheating on offense at the expense of defense, using their inherent skills.

The same caveat of sample size applies to the Horachek-Leafs' offense as well, as they're learning one very critical and very stunted aspect of their game play.

 

[Highlander]

agreed with Busta and Herman. Redleaf, what if Leaf brass had not pulled the trigger on Carlyle and he remained till the end of the season, a complete and painful waste .  Under Horacheck we get to see what can happen with exactly the same crew when they buy into a coach and his systems.  Yes it is a small sample size but we see that we do have a good basic core of players and we just need to add a few more pieces to the puzzle. Would I like to see the Leafs in the post season, of course. Broken hearted if they don't? No, as I see they are finally on the right path with Dubois, Hunter, Shanaplan and the others

 

[pnjunction]

agreed with Busta and Herman. Redleaf, what if Leaf brass had not pulled the trigger on Carlyle and he remained till the end of the season, a complete and painful waste .  Under Horacheck we get to see what can happen with exactly the same crew when they buy into a coach and his systems.

We can also look at who is not buying in to this better style of hockey before the end of the season or even the trade deadline.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Here's another reason why we should hope that Horachek can get their possession numbers looking better: http://deadspin.com/this-wonderful-graphic-proves-that-in-the-nhl-puck-pos-470045959

 

[Redleaf]

agreed with Busta and Herman. Redleaf, what if Leaf brass had not pulled the trigger on Carlyle and he remained till the end of the season, a complete and painful waste .  Under Horacheck we get to see what can happen with exactly the same crew when they buy into a coach and his systems.  Yes it is a small sample size but we see that we do have a good basic core of players and we just need to add a few more pieces to the puzzle. Would I like to see the Leafs in the post season, of course. Broken hearted if they don't? No, as I see they are finally on the right path with Dubois, Hunter, Shanaplan and the others

I'm not arguing that the numbers haven't gotten better. I'm just holding off on saying this club has turned a corner until I see if they can remain consistent the rest of the way. I have my doubts that they will.

On the other point, if Carlyle had remained, we may have gotten one hell of a draft pick at year's end.  8)

 

[herman]

On the other point, if Carlyle had remained, we may have gotten one hell of a draft pick at year's end.  8)

I was semi-hoping for this going into the season, but based on the reports following the firing, I do believe keeping him would've done more damage to our developing players than the potential gains from a high pick.

 

[cabber24]

I love the idea of the leadership meetings. Getting the players involved in the decision making process is the best way to get them to buy in and to get them to lean on others to do the same.

I don't know about including Bernier in the meetings though... after that Nelson Mandela mishap... guys a brick. I still cringe even thinking about that.

Yeah, I'm sure he's really out of place with Phaneuf and the other Nobel laureates.

The Leafs should purchase a couple subscriptions to Lumosity, get those brain waves going. I would also send Phaneuf to an eye doctor.

 

[cabber24]

From Siegel:

?You?ve just got to get comfortable playing that way,? Horachek said of a stingier brand of hockey following a 2-0 defeat, just the third time the Leafs have been shutout this season. ?You?re going to be in more games and you?re going to take advantage of teams that don?t play that way more often because you?re playing harder. Really, it comes down to we?re working harder, we?re giving up less chances and sometimes it may feel like it?s harder [to play that way], but it?s making strides.?

Team president Brendan Shanahan circled possession and team defence as the two troubling pillars he was looking to see improved under Horachek?s direction. The earliest indications are positive on both fronts.

The Leafs have given up an average of 22 shots in Horachek?s three games behind the bench, holding the opposition to two goals or fewer in each of the past two. They?ve resembled a more structured body, stood toe to toe in that possession game, and been less prone to extended stretches in the defensive zone. They?ve also put significantly less weight on the shoulders of Jonathan Bernier.

[...]

James van Riemsdyk described Horachek as a more of an easygoing personality behind the bench as compared to the often fiery and tightly wound Carlyle.

?More of a calmness back there,? van Riemsdyk said. ?We know what we need to do and he?s great about teaching and showing guys the right way to do things and, when we make mistakes, showing it in a way that is constructive and I think guys are responding well to that.?

Horachek has offered a different perspective than Carlyle, who guided van Riemsdyk for the first 168 games of his ongoing Toronto tenure.

?Pete?s done a good job of communicating that with us and we?ve done a good job so far of buying into that," van Riemsdyk continued.  "And we just need to do that consistently and we?ll have some success. As far as communicating and knowing what to expect and being approachable, he?s great with all that. There?s definitely a different environment and feel that we have right now in the room.?

Mirtle's piece has a good graph showing some of the stark differences through 3 games: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/mirtle-leafs-defensive-game-dramatically-improved-despite-latest-loss/article22423696/

The obvious caveat being, it's only been 3 games.

EDIT: And now he's posted it as an image so I can re-post it here.

Thats a pretty large caveat.

For someone who uses sample sizes to support his arguments, I'd be cautious reading into how the team is responding under the new coach after only 3 games. I might as well add this..

Wins...

Carlyle...21
Horachek...1

EDIT: What I see with the new coach, is a team playing better defensively, but at the expense of the offense they had in spades under Carlyle.

Wins...... Smins

 

[Highlander]

PM what is a better style of hockey? The run and gun employed by the Leaf players with Carlyle or a defensive game?  Really its great when your team scores 4-6 goals a game and your tender stops 40-50 shots a night, you get on a roll and wow, this team is amazing, what a great roll we are on. And then the wall happens, no goals and your tender is worn out and can't save a beach ball and all of a sudden you are down 8-9 games in a row.  Tell you the truth, I am tired of the Leafs manic depressive approach to the game under Wilson and Carlyle. Anayltics prove that the higher possession teams win more games and championships, and wins are what are important, getting into the Cup Finals and winning is most important. Sorry PM but I have been waiting 48 years for another cup. I was 9 for the last one and a little bit boring and a lot of winning works for me. I can croak after the next cup?LOL

 

[Captain Canuck]

Well it is not a f@%#ing shooting gallery out there anymore like it was with Carlyle!
I'm impressed that Horachek has changed this instantly and the team is buying into his system by allowing fewer shots against and increasing puck possession.
Those Neutral zone trap New Jersey teams weren't exactly exciting to watch, but they won the Cup.

 

[Kin]

Those Neutral zone trap New Jersey teams weren't exactly exciting to watch, but they won the Cup.

Eh, the Devils really only won the one cup while trapping. The 2000 team that won the cup was actually second in the league in goal scoring.

 

[Tigger]

I remember a scene from one of the HBO 24/7 episodes where Carlyle is talking to the players and he asks a somewhat confusingly-worded, rhetorical question (something like "Are you a friend or enemy of complacency?") that he actually made Kadri answer. Kadri seemed pretty uncomfortable and unsure of himself, and guessed wrong. There was laughter and Kadri looked like he wanted to crawl under a rock; a few other players just looked glad they weren't called upon.

I remember it because it struck me at the time how uncomfortable everyone looked, and how poorly Carlyle handled the whole situation.  I'm glad to see a big shift in philosophy in that department, because I doubt that kind of mood was helping any.

That was Greg Cronin.

Edit to add, somewhere in that show at a meal Holland is caught saying 'win and you're in', which I think was a bit of a faux pas on his part, probably one of those little things that gets a coach looking your way.

 

[Kin]

I remember a scene from one of the HBO 24/7 episodes where Carlyle is talking to the players and he asks a somewhat confusingly-worded, rhetorical question (something like "Are you a friend or enemy of complacency?") that he actually made Kadri answer. Kadri seemed pretty uncomfortable and unsure of himself, and guessed wrong. There was laughter and Kadri looked like he wanted to crawl under a rock; a few other players just looked glad they weren't called upon.

I remember it because it struck me at the time how uncomfortable everyone looked, and how poorly Carlyle handled the whole situation.  I'm glad to see a big shift in philosophy in that department, because I doubt that kind of mood was helping any.

That was Greg Cronin.

"Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball. If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come in the night and done it, and when the key of the store-shed was lost, the whole farm was convinced that Snowball had thrown it down the well. Curiously enough, they went on believing this even after the mislaid key was found under a sack of meal."

 

[ZBBM]

I remember a scene from one of the HBO 24/7 episodes where Carlyle is talking to the players and he asks a somewhat confusingly-worded, rhetorical question (something like "Are you a friend or enemy of complacency?") that he actually made Kadri answer. Kadri seemed pretty uncomfortable and unsure of himself, and guessed wrong. There was laughter and Kadri looked like he wanted to crawl under a rock; a few other players just looked glad they weren't called upon.

I remember it because it struck me at the time how uncomfortable everyone looked, and how poorly Carlyle handled the whole situation.  I'm glad to see a big shift in philosophy in that department, because I doubt that kind of mood was helping any.

That was Greg Cronin.

"Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball. If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come in the night and done it, and when the key of the store-shed was lost, the whole farm was convinced that Snowball had thrown it down the well. Curiously enough, they went on believing this even after the mislaid key was found under a sack of meal."

Well done sir. There's a lot of truth in this re RC. And the Leafs are nothing if not Orwellian.

 

[Courtnall]

Doesn't this show how immature this core is? RC was not that bad of a coach. I guess we wait until horachek offends Phaneuf or Kessel?

 

[bustaheims]

Doesn't this show how immature this core is? RC was not that bad of a coach. I guess we wait until horachek offends Phaneuf or Kessel?

Or it just affirms that Carlyle was a bad communicator with outdated systems - systems that suffered from the same flaws in his final few seasons in Anaheim. I mean, what's the more likely scenario here - that the Leafs and Ducks are both immature groups of players that both decided to reject Carlyle in the exact same way or the Carlyle's systems and strategies suffered from the same fatal flaw while he was behind the bench for both teams? I don't know about you, but, I'm going to say that the option with the least moving parts is the most likely culprit here.

 

[freer]

Doesn't this show how immature this core is? RC was not that bad of a coach. I guess we wait until horachek offends Phaneuf or Kessel?

Or it just affirms that Carlyle was a bad communicator with outdated systems - systems that suffered from the same flaws in his final few seasons in Anaheim. I mean, what's the more likely scenario here - that the Leafs and Ducks are both immature groups of players that both decided to reject Carlyle in the exact same way or the Carlyle's systems and strategies suffered from the same fatal flaw while he was behind the bench for both teams? I don't know about you, but, I'm going to say that the option with the least moving parts is the most likely culprit here.

We will have to give it about 20 game before we can place a blame on anyone. I under the opinion that it was RC system, but to be fair to him I will wait.

 

[herman]

Doesn't this show how immature this core is? RC was not that bad of a coach. I guess we wait until horachek offends Phaneuf or Kessel?

Or it just affirms that Carlyle was a bad communicator with outdated systems - systems that suffered from the same flaws in his final few seasons in Anaheim. I mean, what's the more likely scenario here - that the Leafs and Ducks are both immature groups of players that both decided to reject Carlyle in the exact same way or the Carlyle's systems and strategies suffered from the same fatal flaw while he was behind the bench for both teams? I don't know about you, but, I'm going to say that the option with the least moving parts is the most likely culprit here.

Ding ding ding. We have plenty of sample size already (Anaheim) to demonstrate that this is true. He had the right goals in mind (puck possession, offensive zone time) but his tactics were no longer effective and he couldn't adapt to the way the game was being played.

In the end, some players were clearly bucking the system because it wasn't working on the ice and they fell back to the methodology they were familiar and successful with on offense.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Doesn't this show how immature this core is? RC was not that bad of a coach. I guess we wait until horachek offends Phaneuf or Kessel?

Or it just affirms that Carlyle was a bad communicator with outdated systems - systems that suffered from the same flaws in his final few seasons in Anaheim. I mean, what's the more likely scenario here - that the Leafs and Ducks are both immature groups of players that both decided to reject Carlyle in the exact same way or the Carlyle's systems and strategies suffered from the same fatal flaw while he was behind the bench for both teams? I don't know about you, but, I'm going to say that the option with the least moving parts is the most likely culprit here.

I'm not sure it's a good analogy, but a coach's relationship with his players is much like a marriage.  Mature or not, without good communication the relationship is doomed to failure.  I don't know what things were like in the room with RC, but the comments regarding the changes in communication with PC are certainly telling.

 

[Courtnall]

Doesn't this show how immature this core is? RC was not that bad of a coach. I guess we wait until horachek offends Phaneuf or Kessel?

Or it just affirms that Carlyle was a bad communicator with outdated systems - systems that suffered from the same flaws in his final few seasons in Anaheim. I mean, what's the more likely scenario here - that the Leafs and Ducks are both immature groups of players that both decided to reject Carlyle in the exact same way or the Carlyle's systems and strategies suffered from the same fatal flaw while he was behind the bench for both teams? I don't know about you, but, I'm going to say that the option with the least moving parts is the most likely culprit here.

I'm not sure it's a good analogy, but a coach's relationship with his players is much like a marriage.  Mature or not, without good communication the relationship is doomed to failure.  I don't know what things were like in the room with RC, but the comments regarding the changes in communication with PC are certainly telling.

I totally agree that there was a lack of communication. What bothers me is that within a weeks span they have cut the shots in half almost. You don't teach defence in a weeks time. Horachek approach of involving players seems like it's working for now, but what I'm wondering is what happens when they ask Kessel to do more then just score? Will they stop listening again? This exact scenario played out when RC came aboard. Immediate change in playing and good times for a little over a year. They d?j? vu all over again.