Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[drummond]

Sometimes it is really about chemistry among the individuals in question. Nothing else. After all, we are humans and personal interactions are vital to humans.

Just looking at myself and my job. When I was coming into my current mid-managerial position I was warned by so many people that the boss I was going to work for is an extreme jerk. To everyone surprise we clicked right away and we achieved quite a lot, our team settled and we delivered. After three years he was promoted and I got anew boss whose reputation was very good as easy going guy. However, our relationship is very cold  and I know that sooner or later it would be me who would have to move on. I do exactelly as I did before, results are actually even better, but in the end it does not matter. For time being I have to adjust, shut up and keep working.

I know it is uncomparable to the Leafs but as I mentioned in the other thread. Ron Wilson liked Grabbo-Kuli-Mac line, he rewarded them with lots of ice time, they delivered which resulted into more trust and love from Wilson. Insert Carlyle. He gave more space to Kadri, Franson guys who questioned Wilson?s decisions. Kadri repeatedly praised Carlyle for talking to him. I mean you always find guys who like this coach and that coach dont.

From that line Kuli was able to adjust and does not seem to complain. When briefly paired with Kadri and Lupul last season, it was obvious that he can score. However Carlyle wants him to be defensive specialist and he committed himself into that role and actually gets better in that regard. Carlyle obviously likes that approach and I hope he and Nonis let that Kuli know.

We all know that Carlyle makes head-scratching decisions. This is how he is. But look at Lupul. Carlyle admitted that he was wrong about him and the two are perfectly fine right now.

I would not read much in Mac?s comments. That?s life Clarke. I surely miss Grabbo and I am happy for him as he is having great start with Caps. I liked MacArthur. But I see where is Carlyle going, what type of players he needs and they simply did not fit in. Time to move on.

 

[Redleaf]

Sometimes it is really about chemistry among the individuals in question. Nothing else. After all, we are humans and personal interactions are vital to humans.

Just looking at myself and my job. When I was coming into my current mid-managerial position I was warned by so many people that the boss I was going to work for is an extreme jerk. To everyone surprise we clicked right away and we achieved quite a lot, our team settled and we delivered. After three years he was promoted and I got anew boss whose reputation was very good as easy going guy. However, our relationship is very cold  and I know that sooner or later it would be me who would have to move on. I do exactelly as I did before, results are actually even better, but in the end it does not matter. For time being I have to adjust, shut up and keep working.

I know it is uncomparable to the Leafs but as I mentioned in the other thread. Ron Wilson liked Grabbo-Kuli-Mac line, he rewarded them with lots of ice time, they delivered which resulted into more trust and love from Wilson. Insert Carlyle. He gave more space to Kadri, Franson guys who questioned Wilson?s decisions. Kadri repeatedly praised Carlyle for talking to him. I mean you always find guys who like this coach and that coach dont.

From that line Kuli was able to adjust and does not seem to complain. When briefly paired with Kadri and Lupul last season, it was obvious that he can score. However Carlyle wants him to be defensive specialist and he committed himself into that role and actually gets better in that regard. Carlyle obviously likes that approach and I hope he and Nonis let that Kuli know.

We all know that Carlyle makes head-scratching decisions. This is how he is. But look at Lupul. Carlyle admitted that he was wrong about him and the two are perfectly fine right now.

I would not read much in Mac?s comments. That?s life Clarke. I surely miss Grabbo and I am happy for him as he is having great start with Caps. I liked MacArthur. But I see where is Carlyle going, what type of players he needs and they simply did not fit in. Time to move on.

Nice summation, and I agree.

 

[Corn Flake]

Many players have told stories about how they hated to play for Scotty Bowman, but that old winning and results thing made it okay in the end.  He was very demanding of his players and pushed them to their limits. He got full value out of all of them.

As for players whining about it not being fun under Carlyle.. please.  Stop being such babies.  I guess losing under Wilson was more fun??  This suggests to me why these players were unloaded. Not willing to put in what it takes to win even if it means doing things you don't like. Not every aspect of a job can be fun even if you love the job.

 

[Corn Flake]

Often I hear of Carlyle, "It wasn't fun anymore." Welcome to having a job.

Plenty of jobs are fun, and plenty require employees to enjoy themselves to perform their best.

Really?  Plenty?

Tons and tons of jobs in the tourism sector and sports sector where you have fun at your job and if you didn't would result in poor job performance.  Having fun doesn't mean not doing your job, either.  I'm sure there could be a nice list drawn up of jobs, but those areas are off the top of my head.

Anyone in any field of work, no matter how much they love their job, are going to have days where it's not fun and it's nothing but grueling work... but the point is you put the work in to enjoy the success and get to the good parts.. like winning in hockey.


"I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'"
- Muhammad Ali

 

[Fanatic]

I'm no fan of Carlyle, but this is whining. Make less mistakes, Clarke, then you won't get yelled at so much.

Maybe if it was isolated, but this is now Ryan, Lupul, Grabovski, MacArthur that we know of recently who have all had similar criticisms of his coaching/style.  It's not whining to respond to a reporter's question about Carlyle's coaching with your honest opinion of it.  Where's the whining?

Full Article

Carlyle and Ryan didn't always see eye-to-eye during their four years together with the Ducks. Carlyle demanded that Ryan be part of the program and that's a big reason why his name always lingered in trade rumours.

Looking back on it all, though, the four-time 30-plus goal scorer appreciates the way Carlyle pushed Ryan's buttons, even if he didn't like it at the time. What has happened in the past, according to Ryan, is water under the bridge.

"There's a lot more made of that than there really is," said Ryan. "People tended to read into more than there was. It wasn't a bad relationship, it just wasn't a great one.

"He's a tough coach. I do still really owe him quite a bit for becoming the player I am. That isn't lost on me one bit."

Carlyle is considered by many to be a taskmaster. You either buy into the program or you won't play. There is no question the relationship was strained when he left the Ducks.

"He's extremely demanding and he's tough, but he's also very fair," said Ryan. "He can be a players' coach. He wants to get the best out of you, so I think I was young and didn't always understand he always had my best intentions in mind for the team.

"I probably took things a little too personally. I've gotten older and probably a little more mature."

 

[Kessel Run]

What's really interesting about all these players sharing their experiences about Carlyle is that we will get a first hand glimpse in December with 24/7. Also, I've found usually that the people who speak the loudest are those who have negative experiences, while those with good experiences are less likely to post their reviews. That could just be the case here with Carlyle.

 

[bustaheims]

What's really interesting about all these players sharing their experiences about Carlyle is that we will get a first hand glimpse in December with 24/7. Also, I've found usually that the people who speak the loudest are those who have negative experiences, while those with good experiences are less likely to post their reviews. That could just be the case here with Carlyle.

That and "player gets along well with coach" doesn't tend to make for a particularly interesting story, either.

 

[Bender]

Often I hear of Carlyle, "It wasn't fun anymore." Welcome to having a job.

Plenty of jobs are fun, and plenty require employees to enjoy themselves to perform their best.

Some jobs are fun,  but at the end of the day it's about winning. If being a hardass means you get your team into the playoffs then so be it. The individual really doesn't matter much. Notice how both he and Grabbo complained about individual use? How about we use Grabbo,  Mac and Kuli as our first line like during the Wilson years,  we saw how well that turned out.

And you know, I lost some respect for Mac after saying he checked out mentally after he was benched.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

And you know, I lost some respect for Mac after saying he checked out mentally after he was benched.

That bugged me also.

 

[Corn Flake]

What's really interesting about all these players sharing their experiences about Carlyle is that we will get a first hand glimpse in December with 24/7. Also, I've found usually that the people who speak the loudest are those who have negative experiences, while those with good experiences are less likely to post their reviews. That could just be the case here with Carlyle.

That and "player gets along well with coach" doesn't tend to make for a particularly interesting story, either.

BREAKING: Everything is fine. Leafs players and coaches are getting along great. More at 11.

Yeeaaaah doesn't quite grab the reader.

 

[Kin]

Yeah, I don't know what it says about effectiveness really. MacArthur's reference to "other ways to do things" made me think of Reichel under Quinn. As the talent around him was upgraded, Reichel moved down the lineup. But he was still pretty effective in his role and the team had a pretty bottom 6 center. I don't know if he would've been that if Quinn were less of player's coach. But, if Quinn were less of a player's coach, I don't know that it would matter, in the end, if your fourth line center likes you very much. After all, Randy's got his Cup.

The concept of team chemistry or whatever you want to call it is one I go back and forth on. I know it's something more analytic sports fans tend to be skeptical about but then I sometimes think that we'd never dismiss the importance of the quality of human interaction in any other sort of profession so why pro sports?

Ultimately though I feel like the financial incentive is so great to be in the NHL that most guys are going to be giving it their all regardless of who they get along with. Again, I'm sure that because Carlyle is an abrasive guy he might not handle these situations perfectly but I wouldn't buy the argument that it's a serious issue with him as a coach.

 

[mr grieves]

The concept of team chemistry or whatever you want to call it is one I go back and forth on. I know it's something more analytic sports fans tend to be skeptical about but then I sometimes think that we'd never dismiss the importance of the quality of human interaction in any other sort of profession so why pro sports?

I'd agree, especially considering team sports are a corporate enterprise. How individuals come together to do something seems important in such enterprises. So I'd like to think that bigger, more diffuse sort of chemistry -- team chemistry -- probably counts for something. Players confident in their roles on a team, or inspired by their coach, or motivated by the way they feel a part of their team, or whatever can, I'd like to think, have an observable, though maybe not measurable, positive effect on the outcomes of games. When I'm receptive to those thoughts, I mostly think of the heroic performances of role players, and mostly on Leafs teams of playoffs past.

Ultimately though I feel like the financial incentive is so great to be in the NHL that most guys are going to be giving it their all regardless of who they get along with. Again, I'm sure that because Carlyle is an abrasive guy he might not handle these situations perfectly but I wouldn't buy the argument that it's a serious issue with him as a coach.

I wonder if there's a distinction worth making between "giving it your all" and "fitting into the coach's system." I don't think Grabovski and MacArthur weren't trying hard, but I don't think either was very comfortable with his role. And there wasn't really any financial incentive for either to squeeze himself into a conservative defensive system (MacArthur and Grabo will score more points with their new teams and end up making more money) -- the motivation to do that would have to come from elsewhere.

Still, since the guys who'd be most aggrieved are on their way to being peripheral to the team, I don't think it ends up costing the team much in wins and losses. So, yeah, probably not a serious issue with him as a coach.

 

[Kin]

I'd agree, especially considering team sports are a corporate enterprise. How individuals come together to do something seems important in such enterprises. So I'd like to think that bigger, more diffuse sort of chemistry -- team chemistry -- probably counts for something.

Sure, although I think the more relevant question might be what bad chemistry costs you and I think the answer there is pretty negligible. I think that if you assemble a really talented group they'll do well regardless of how often they go out to dinner together.

I wonder if there's a distinction worth making between "giving it your all" and "fitting into the coach's system." I don't think Grabovski and MacArthur weren't trying hard, but I don't think either was very comfortable with his role.

But that's sort of my point. I think both guys were trying hard because there's always a huge financial incentive to try hard. If Mac or Grabo had proved effective under Carlyle they could have gone into free agency, if indeed the Leafs were still as keen to not bring them back, saying "I've established that I'm X as an offensive player and I just showed my versatility to boot". The tension we see comes from the fact that they wound up on the outside of things and that Carlyle, I'm sure, occasionally isn't the most diplomatic of guys.

But even if Grabo and Mac hated Carlyle there's still a big difference between that and a regular joe hating their boss. If I'm running a HR department and I know people hate their boss I'm worried they'll leave, even if they have to take a job with worse pay or whatever. If I'm running the Leafs, I'm not worried that either guy would quit the NHL to do something else. It's too lucrative.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

And you know, I lost some respect for Mac after saying he checked out mentally after he was benched.

That bugged me also.

Not me, he came back and had some big playoff goals for the team.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

How about we use Grabbo,  Mac and Kuli as our first line like during the Wilson years,  we saw how well that turned out.

Yeah we did, they put up excellent numbers.  You could pick any non-playoff team and insult their point producers for not making the playoffs with that logic.  It's not black and white, you can be a very good player on a poor team and not have their failures be your fault.

You could use Mats Sundin, Doug Gilmour, and Wendel Clark as your 1st line but if you're getting .902 SV%/.900 SV%/.891 SV% you're not making the playoffs.

 

[Bender]

How about we use Grabbo,  Mac and Kuli as our first line like during the Wilson years,  we saw how well that turned out.

Yeah we did, they put up excellent numbers.  You could pick any non-playoff team and insult their point producers for not making the playoffs with that logic.  It's not black and white, you can be a very good player on a poor team and not have their failures be your fault.

You could use Mats Sundin, Doug Gilmour, and Wendel Clark as your 1st line but if you're getting .902 SV%/.900 SV%/.891 SV% you're not making the playoffs.

Quite frankly I'm not interested in defending players when others, for the most part, supplanted them and then whine about it not being fun anymore.

Kadri was ready and played better than Grabbo given the opportunity and Bozak isn't moving from Kessel.

If he can't adapt then too bad. Kulemin was kept on the team regardless of poor point totals.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

How about we use Grabbo,  Mac and Kuli as our first line like during the Wilson years,  we saw how well that turned out.

Yeah we did, they put up excellent numbers.  You could pick any non-playoff team and insult their point producers for not making the playoffs with that logic.  It's not black and white, you can be a very good player on a poor team and not have their failures be your fault.

You could use Mats Sundin, Doug Gilmour, and Wendel Clark as your 1st line but if you're getting .902 SV%/.900 SV%/.891 SV% you're not making the playoffs.

Quite frankly I'm not interested in defending players when others, for the most part, supplanted them and then whine about it not being fun anymore.

Kadri was ready and played better than Grabbo given the opportunity and Bozak isn't moving from Kessel.

If he can't adapt then too bad. Kulemin was kept on the team regardless of poor point totals.

Kulemin brings more to the table than MacArthur and Grabovski.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

How about we use Grabbo,  Mac and Kuli as our first line like during the Wilson years,  we saw how well that turned out.

Yeah we did, they put up excellent numbers.  You could pick any non-playoff team and insult their point producers for not making the playoffs with that logic.  It's not black and white, you can be a very good player on a poor team and not have their failures be your fault.

You could use Mats Sundin, Doug Gilmour, and Wendel Clark as your 1st line but if you're getting .902 SV%/.900 SV%/.891 SV% you're not making the playoffs.

Quite frankly I'm not interested in defending players when others, for the most part, supplanted them and then whine about it not being fun anymore.

Kadri was ready and played better than Grabbo given the opportunity and Bozak isn't moving from Kessel.

If he can't adapt then too bad. Kulemin was kept on the team regardless of poor point totals.

Adapt to what?  He put up comparable numbers to his other seasons offensively.

And that's fine, I was just responding to what you said.

 

[princedpw]

and Bozak isn't moving from Kessel.

My guess is that most people you are arguing with think that's the stupid part.

 

[Tigger]

It's pretty normal for a coach to try to make a team 'his' and, given the recent exchange between players and coach through the media, you can see who was up to snuff and who wasn't to that end. Every coach eventually meets his shelf life, it happened to Pat Burns and it'll happen to Randy, again, it's not much of a mystery.

Personally, I think Randy is playing this particular issue like a fiddle.