Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Tigger]

Carlyle will be fired. Somebody's head is getting lopped off for this and if it isn't RC it would have to be the next life form up the food chain.

I get the dramatic effect of the losing skid and such but getting their head lopped off for what, being a bubble playoff team? It shouldn't be that surprising, yucky maybe, but not surprising.

I doubt Carlyle or Nonis are fired this offseason, Nonis with more breathing room of the two.

Leafs are more than a bubble team. They had a lineup to at least make it into the second round of the playoffs.  Their team play and system sucked.

No they aren't, they're a Toews, Sharp and Keith away from being anything.

 

[Tigger]

No, we should accept being a bubble team and being laughed at by the media for expecting anything more.

We always want them to do well, we can't help it, and we can't help being frustrated by a lack of success. Somewhere, in there, we have to accept what they actually are...

 

[93forever]

Carlyle will be fired. Somebody's head is getting lopped off for this and if it isn't RC it would have to be the next life form up the food chain.

I get the dramatic effect of the losing skid and such but getting their head lopped off for what, being a bubble playoff team? It shouldn't be that surprising, yucky maybe, but not surprising.

I doubt Carlyle or Nonis are fired this offseason, Nonis with more breathing room of the two.

Leafs are more than a bubble team. They had a lineup to at least make it into the second round of the playoffs.  Their team play and system sucked.

No they aren't, they're a Toews, Sharp and Keith away from being anything.

I guess it depends on the definition of bubble team.  I picture a bubble team as one that barely makes it into the playoffs.  Before the collapse the Leafs were 2nd in their division and could have easily taken out their first round opponent.  With a bit of luck, they could have had an easy 2nd round opponent, and they do match well against the Bruins. 

What was disappointing was watching Carlyle not make any adjustments in style or system.  Not one player was able to step up and put the team on his shoulders, there is a lack of organizational success within the team, and yes, I do agree with you 100% the team lacks top tier talent. 















 

 

[mc]

Carlyle will be fired. Somebody's head is getting lopped off for this and if it isn't RC it would have to be the next life form up the food chain.

I get the dramatic effect of the losing skid and such but getting their head lopped off for what, being a bubble playoff team? It shouldn't be that surprising, yucky maybe, but not surprising.

I doubt Carlyle or Nonis are fired this offseason, Nonis with more breathing room of the two.

Leafs are more than a bubble team. They had a lineup to at least make it into the second round of the playoffs.  Their team play and system sucked.

No they aren't, they're a Toews, Sharp and Keith away from being anything.

I guess it depends on the definition of bubble team.  I picture a bubble team as one that barely makes it into the playoffs.  Before the collapse the Leafs were 2nd in their division and could have easily taken out their first round opponent.  With a bit of luck, they could have had an easy 2nd round opponent, and they do match well against the Bruins. 

What was disappointing was watching Carlyle not make any adjustments in style or system.  Not one player was able to step up and put the team on his shoulders, there is a lack of organizational success within the team, and yes, I do agree with you 100% the team lacks top tier talent. 

Why the white space after every post?

 

[lamajama]

If they don't fire him I would like to know on what statistical basis they feel him keeping his job is warranted.

 

[Kin]

1 regulation time win in 19 games or so.  An 8 game losing streak.  Goalies facing 40+ shots most games.  Personally, I would have fired his backside already.

Ok, but I'm not talking about personal preference. I'm saying that I don't think he'll be fired. If someone else does...we disagree is all.

 

[Kin]

I guess it depends on the definition of bubble team.  I picture a bubble team as one that barely makes it into the playoffs.  Before the collapse the Leafs were 2nd in their division and could have easily taken out their first round opponent.  With a bit of luck, they could have had an easy 2nd round opponent, and they do match well against the Bruins.

Except that's just not true. If the Leafs had finished second in the division their first round opponent would probably be one of Tampa, Montreal or Detroit. None of those are easy series and none of those are teams the Leafs are demonstrably better than.

 

[Rebel_1812]

No, we should accept being a bubble team and being laughed at by the media for expecting anything more.

But if we are a bubble team we should be well below the cap.  We are capped out.  So if talent equals dollars under the new cba we should have one of the best teams in the league.  If we spent money on those without talent, well that is inefficient use of cap space and f's up any chance to correct the problem.

 

[Leaflifer]

No, we should accept being a bubble team and being laughed at by the media for expecting anything more.

But if we are a bubble team we should be well below the cap.  We are capped out.  So if talent equals dollars under the new cba we should have one of the best teams in the league.  If we spent money on those without talent, well that is inefficient use of cap space and f's up any chance to correct the problem.

For whatever reason we are annually pegged as a bubble team, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a team that has bottomed out (and the leafs have previous to the last 3 or 4 seasons) to improve slowly.

It's too easy to look at it from a statistical standpoint and say, "The Leafs are going to continue on this directionless journey into perpetual abyss that is the NHL basement." I know 10 Canuck fans who can make that prediction, and they don't even watch the Canucks regularly, nevermind the Leafs.

One has to think that one of these years there will be a step in the right direction.

I'm almost starting to believe the tinfoil hat wearing crowd, that there is something inherently wrong with this market...that it breeds less than mediocrity.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Carlyle will be fired. Somebody's head is getting lopped off for this and if it isn't RC it would have to be the next life form up the food chain.

I get the dramatic effect of the losing skid and such but getting their head lopped off for what, being a bubble playoff team? It shouldn't be that surprising, yucky maybe, but not surprising.

I doubt Carlyle or Nonis are fired this offseason, Nonis with more breathing room of the two.

Leafs are more than a bubble team. They had a lineup to at least make it into the second round of the playoffs.  Their team play and system sucked.

No they aren't, they're a Toews, Sharp and Keith away from being anything.

I'm fairly sure 3 players of that ilk probably make you a Cup contender or slightly below it.  You don't need 3 players of that ilk to be a playoff team.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

No, we should accept being a bubble team and being laughed at by the media for expecting anything more.

But if we are a bubble team we should be well below the cap.  We are capped out.  So if talent equals dollars under the new cba we should have one of the best teams in the league.  If we spent money on those without talent, well that is inefficient use of cap space and f's up any chance to correct the problem.

For whatever reason we are annually pegged as a bubble team, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a team that has bottomed out (and the leafs have previous to the last 3 or 4 seasons) to improve slowly.

It's too easy to look at it from a statistical standpoint and say, "The Leafs are going to continue on this directionless journey into perpetual abyss that is the NHL basement." I know 10 Canuck fans who can make that prediction, and they don't even watch the Canucks regularly, nevermind the Leafs.

One has to think that one of these years there will be a step in the right direction.

I'm almost starting to believe the tinfoil hat wearing crowd, that there is something inherently wrong with this market...that it breeds less than mediocrity.

I do not think the problem is with the market, but with those who were operating the organization.  Examples:

- using a head-hunting firm to hire both Burke and Coangelo.  The result was the Raptors made the playoffs only once (I believe) during their tenure as GMs.  The Leafs...
- Burke came in with bravado indicating the type of team he wanted to develop, but the result was completely opposite.
- Wilson barely had a .500 coaching record with the Leafs.  He gets an extension, the team sinks and he gets fired a few months after receiving the extension.
- MLSE hires a green GM in Ferguson.  No explanations needed here.
- under Carlyle the Leafs went a long stretch with only 1 win in regulation time.  There would have been enough time to replace him with someone else who could have a good look at the existing players, make a few changes and perhaps add some life into the team and prepare for the summer draft.

It is as if the organization has no idea how to win, and to have what it takes to win and any past plans set by coaches or GMs only resulted in prolonged failure.

What the organization needs is someone (Nonis?) to step up and make the coach accountable to winning and success, to develop a system for the players that will achieve that objective, to have the players accountable to that system and to remove those who refuse to play or are not capable of playing within that system.  If the coach cannot develop a system that breeds success, there should be no hesitation to terminate that coach.  Players have to be brought in who knows the sacrifices that have to be made to achieve success and who have achieved success and to instill that mindset into the other players on the team.  Up until now it has basically been 'lets do something because it seems like a good thing to do' without actually thinking about the short and long term implications of these decisions. 

 

[freer]

No, we should accept being a bubble team and being laughed at by the media for expecting anything more.

But if we are a bubble team we should be well below the cap.  We are capped out.  So if talent equals dollars under the new cba we should have one of the best teams in the league.  If we spent money on those without talent, well that is inefficient use of cap space and f's up any chance to correct the problem.

For whatever reason we are annually pegged as a bubble team, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a team that has bottomed out (and the leafs have previous to the last 3 or 4 seasons) to improve slowly.

It's too easy to look at it from a statistical standpoint and say, "The Leafs are going to continue on this directionless journey into perpetual abyss that is the NHL basement." I know 10 Canuck fans who can make that prediction, and they don't even watch the Canucks regularly, nevermind the Leafs.

One has to think that one of these years there will be a step in the right direction.

I'm almost starting to believe the tinfoil hat wearing crowd, that there is something inherently wrong with this market...that it breeds less than mediocrity.

I do not think the problem is with the market, but with those who were operating the organization.  Examples:

- using a head-hunting firm to hire both Burke and Coangelo.  The result was the Raptors made the playoffs only once (I believe) during their tenure as GMs.  The Leafs...
- Burke came in with bravado indicating the type of team he wanted to develop, but the result was completely opposite.
- Wilson barely had a .500 coaching record with the Leafs.  He gets an extension, the team sinks and he gets fired a few months after receiving the extension.
- MLSE hires a green GM in Ferguson.  No explanations needed here.
- under Carlyle the Leafs went a long stretch with only 1 win in regulation time.  There would have been enough time to replace him with someone else who could have a good look at the existing players, make a few changes and perhaps add some life into the team and prepare for the summer draft.

It is as if the organization has no idea how to win, and to have what it takes to win and any past plans set by coaches or GMs only resulted in prolonged failure.

What the organization needs is someone (Nonis?) to step up and make the coach accountable to winning and success, to develop a system for the players that will achieve that objective, to have the players accountable to that system and to remove those who refuse to play or are not capable of playing within that system.  If the coach cannot develop a system that breeds success, there should be no hesitation to terminate that coach.  Players have to be brought in who knows the sacrifices that have to be made to achieve success and who have achieved success and to instill that mindset into the other players on the team.  Up until now it has basically been 'lets do something because it seems like a good thing to do' without actually thinking about the short and long term implications of these decisions.

That is a good theory. How are we going to get a coach in to coach, if they have the fear, that a few loses or a point (10 games with only a win or so) will be the end of their job. I wish we were like the MLB or NFL and player could be released if they did not proform to expectation.

 

[Highlander]

Gillis fired in Vancouver, hopefully Randy can keep him some company in the next week.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

No, we should accept being a bubble team and being laughed at by the media for expecting anything more.

But if we are a bubble team we should be well below the cap.  We are capped out.  So if talent equals dollars under the new cba we should have one of the best teams in the league.  If we spent money on those without talent, well that is inefficient use of cap space and f's up any chance to correct the problem.

For whatever reason we are annually pegged as a bubble team, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a team that has bottomed out (and the leafs have previous to the last 3 or 4 seasons) to improve slowly.

It's too easy to look at it from a statistical standpoint and say, "The Leafs are going to continue on this directionless journey into perpetual abyss that is the NHL basement." I know 10 Canuck fans who can make that prediction, and they don't even watch the Canucks regularly, nevermind the Leafs.

One has to think that one of these years there will be a step in the right direction.

I'm almost starting to believe the tinfoil hat wearing crowd, that there is something inherently wrong with this market...that it breeds less than mediocrity.

I do not think the problem is with the market, but with those who were operating the organization.  Examples:

- using a head-hunting firm to hire both Burke and Coangelo.  The result was the Raptors made the playoffs only once (I believe) during their tenure as GMs.  The Leafs...
- Burke came in with bravado indicating the type of team he wanted to develop, but the result was completely opposite.
- Wilson barely had a .500 coaching record with the Leafs.  He gets an extension, the team sinks and he gets fired a few months after receiving the extension.
- MLSE hires a green GM in Ferguson.  No explanations needed here.
- under Carlyle the Leafs went a long stretch with only 1 win in regulation time.  There would have been enough time to replace him with someone else who could have a good look at the existing players, make a few changes and perhaps add some life into the team and prepare for the summer draft.

It is as if the organization has no idea how to win, and to have what it takes to win and any past plans set by coaches or GMs only resulted in prolonged failure.

What the organization needs is someone (Nonis?) to step up and make the coach accountable to winning and success, to develop a system for the players that will achieve that objective, to have the players accountable to that system and to remove those who refuse to play or are not capable of playing within that system.  If the coach cannot develop a system that breeds success, there should be no hesitation to terminate that coach.  Players have to be brought in who knows the sacrifices that have to be made to achieve success and who have achieved success and to instill that mindset into the other players on the team.  Up until now it has basically been 'lets do something because it seems like a good thing to do' without actually thinking about the short and long term implications of these decisions.

That is a good theory. How are we going to get a coach in to coach, if they have the fear, that a few loses or a point (10 games with only a win or so) will be the end of their job. I wish we were like the MLB or NFL and player could be released if they did not proform to expectation.

It is not to instill fear into a coach, but rather to have an expectation of success or to achieve a level of success or to achieve a level of development while the team is in re-build mode.  If the GM has provided the coach with a decent group of players such as what the Leafs have, there should be very few losing streaks, and no prolonged streaks or lengthy periods of time in which the team is being completely dominated by other teams.  There is absolutely no excuse for that in the Leafs case.  It is an embarrassment to have a team from Columbus make the playoffs (most likely) while the Leafs will be golfing.  The mentality  within the organization has to change. 

As for players, if players cannot play at an expected level, I do not see any reason why the coach cannot simply keep those players in the press box.  It was done to Komisarek and Finger, so if it is done to well established players, even for a game or two to Clarkson as an example, that will sit in the minds of the other players who will realize they could be benched as well if they do not perform at expected levels.   

 

[freer]

No, we should accept being a bubble team and being laughed at by the media for expecting anything more.

But if we are a bubble team we should be well below the cap.  We are capped out.  So if talent equals dollars under the new cba we should have one of the best teams in the league.  If we spent money on those without talent, well that is inefficient use of cap space and f's up any chance to correct the problem.

For whatever reason we are annually pegged as a bubble team, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a team that has bottomed out (and the leafs have previous to the last 3 or 4 seasons) to improve slowly.

It's too easy to look at it from a statistical standpoint and say, "The Leafs are going to continue on this directionless journey into perpetual abyss that is the NHL basement." I know 10 Canuck fans who can make that prediction, and they don't even watch the Canucks regularly, nevermind the Leafs.

One has to think that one of these years there will be a step in the right direction.

I'm almost starting to believe the tinfoil hat wearing crowd, that there is something inherently wrong with this market...that it breeds less than mediocrity.

I do not think the problem is with the market, but with those who were operating the organization.  Examples:

- using a head-hunting firm to hire both Burke and Coangelo.  The result was the Raptors made the playoffs only once (I believe) during their tenure as GMs.  The Leafs...
- Burke came in with bravado indicating the type of team he wanted to develop, but the result was completely opposite.
- Wilson barely had a .500 coaching record with the Leafs.  He gets an extension, the team sinks and he gets fired a few months after receiving the extension.
- MLSE hires a green GM in Ferguson.  No explanations needed here.
- under Carlyle the Leafs went a long stretch with only 1 win in regulation time.  There would have been enough time to replace him with someone else who could have a good look at the existing players, make a few changes and perhaps add some life into the team and prepare for the summer draft.

It is as if the organization has no idea how to win, and to have what it takes to win and any past plans set by coaches or GMs only resulted in prolonged failure.

What the organization needs is someone (Nonis?) to step up and make the coach accountable to winning and success, to develop a system for the players that will achieve that objective, to have the players accountable to that system and to remove those who refuse to play or are not capable of playing within that system.  If the coach cannot develop a system that breeds success, there should be no hesitation to terminate that coach.  Players have to be brought in who knows the sacrifices that have to be made to achieve success and who have achieved success and to instill that mindset into the other players on the team.  Up until now it has basically been 'lets do something because it seems like a good thing to do' without actually thinking about the short and long term implications of these decisions.

That is a good theory. How are we going to get a coach in to coach, if they have the fear, that a few loses or a point (10 games with only a win or so) will be the end of their job. I wish we were like the MLB or NFL and player could be released if they did not proform to expectation.

It is not to instill fear into a coach, but rather to have an expectation of success or to achieve a level of success or to achieve a level of development while the team is in re-build mode.  If the GM has provided the coach with a decent group of players such as what the Leafs have, there should be very few losing streaks, and no prolonged streaks or lengthy periods of time in which the team is being completely dominated by other teams.  There is absolutely no excuse for that in the Leafs case.  It is an embarrassment to have a team from Columbus make the playoffs (most likely) while the Leafs will be golfing.  The mentality  within the organization has to change. 

As for players, if players cannot play at an expected level, I do not see any reason why the coach cannot simply keep those players in the press box.  It was done to Komisarek and Finger, so if it is done to well established players, even for a game or two to Clarkson as an example, that will sit in the minds of the other players who will realize they could be benched as well if they do not perform at expected levels.   

Komisarek and Finger were placed in the minors for other reason the cap issue. They have changed the rules on that so it is not beneficial for a team to bury a player in the minors other then you dont have to dress him of the big team.

 

[Coco-puffs]

I wasn't sure if I should start a new thread for this, or if it just fit best here, but this article discusses which "fighters" are worthy of regular playing time in the NHL.

http://www.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/story/?id=448723

Of course, some of the guys on that list aren't really "fighters" such as Iginla, Lucic, and Simmonds.  There just tough guys who are willing to fight but are deservedly top 6 players. 

The rest are probably better suited for 3rd/4th line duties.  Or in the case of the last two guys on the list (and 2 of the 3 above them)- shouldn't be in the NHL but are because their coach/GM overvalues their ability to fight. 

 

[Tigger]

Carlyle will be fired. Somebody's head is getting lopped off for this and if it isn't RC it would have to be the next life form up the food chain.

I get the dramatic effect of the losing skid and such but getting their head lopped off for what, being a bubble playoff team? It shouldn't be that surprising, yucky maybe, but not surprising.

I doubt Carlyle or Nonis are fired this offseason, Nonis with more breathing room of the two.

Leafs are more than a bubble team. They had a lineup to at least make it into the second round of the playoffs.  Their team play and system sucked.

No they aren't, they're a Toews, Sharp and Keith away from being anything.

I'm fairly sure 3 players of that ilk probably make you a Cup contender or slightly below it.  You don't need 3 players of that ilk to be a playoff team.

Sure, likely the equivalent of a Kane, Hossa and Seabrook with some goaltending could make you a bubble team.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

No, we should accept being a bubble team and being laughed at by the media for expecting anything more.

But if we are a bubble team we should be well below the cap.  We are capped out.  So if talent equals dollars under the new cba we should have one of the best teams in the league.  If we spent money on those without talent, well that is inefficient use of cap space and f's up any chance to correct the problem.

For whatever reason we are annually pegged as a bubble team, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a team that has bottomed out (and the leafs have previous to the last 3 or 4 seasons) to improve slowly.

It's too easy to look at it from a statistical standpoint and say, "The Leafs are going to continue on this directionless journey into perpetual abyss that is the NHL basement." I know 10 Canuck fans who can make that prediction, and they don't even watch the Canucks regularly, nevermind the Leafs.

One has to think that one of these years there will be a step in the right direction.

I'm almost starting to believe the tinfoil hat wearing crowd, that there is something inherently wrong with this market...that it breeds less than mediocrity.

I do not think the problem is with the market, but with those who were operating the organization.  Examples:

- using a head-hunting firm to hire both Burke and Coangelo.  The result was the Raptors made the playoffs only once (I believe) during their tenure as GMs.  The Leafs...
- Burke came in with bravado indicating the type of team he wanted to develop, but the result was completely opposite.
- Wilson barely had a .500 coaching record with the Leafs.  He gets an extension, the team sinks and he gets fired a few months after receiving the extension.
- MLSE hires a green GM in Ferguson.  No explanations needed here.
- under Carlyle the Leafs went a long stretch with only 1 win in regulation time.  There would have been enough time to replace him with someone else who could have a good look at the existing players, make a few changes and perhaps add some life into the team and prepare for the summer draft.

It is as if the organization has no idea how to win, and to have what it takes to win and any past plans set by coaches or GMs only resulted in prolonged failure.

What the organization needs is someone (Nonis?) to step up and make the coach accountable to winning and success, to develop a system for the players that will achieve that objective, to have the players accountable to that system and to remove those who refuse to play or are not capable of playing within that system.  If the coach cannot develop a system that breeds success, there should be no hesitation to terminate that coach.  Players have to be brought in who knows the sacrifices that have to be made to achieve success and who have achieved success and to instill that mindset into the other players on the team.  Up until now it has basically been 'lets do something because it seems like a good thing to do' without actually thinking about the short and long term implications of these decisions.

That is a good theory. How are we going to get a coach in to coach, if they have the fear, that a few loses or a point (10 games with only a win or so) will be the end of their job. I wish we were like the MLB or NFL and player could be released if they did not proform to expectation.

It is not to instill fear into a coach, but rather to have an expectation of success or to achieve a level of success or to achieve a level of development while the team is in re-build mode.  If the GM has provided the coach with a decent group of players such as what the Leafs have, there should be very few losing streaks, and no prolonged streaks or lengthy periods of time in which the team is being completely dominated by other teams.  There is absolutely no excuse for that in the Leafs case.  It is an embarrassment to have a team from Columbus make the playoffs (most likely) while the Leafs will be golfing.  The mentality  within the organization has to change. 

As for players, if players cannot play at an expected level, I do not see any reason why the coach cannot simply keep those players in the press box.  It was done to Komisarek and Finger, so if it is done to well established players, even for a game or two to Clarkson as an example, that will sit in the minds of the other players who will realize they could be benched as well if they do not perform at expected levels.   

Komisarek and Finger were placed in the minors for other reason the cap issue. They have changed the rules on that so it is not beneficial for a team to bury a player in the minors other then you dont have to dress him of the big team.

Finger and Komisarek were benched/sent down because they basically sucked and couldn't play a lick of defence.  I just don't think Carlyle made the players accountable for their play and is the main reason for this fiasco.  I do not know what Carlyle said or did to piss off the players, but something had to have occurred because there is no reasonable explanation for this total collapse considering the players are definitely capable of playing much better than what they are playing now. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

This not good.

Explanation:

Fenwick is the number of unblocked shot attempts by a team or player. It's the same as corsi, but excludes shots that are blocked. It's used because over many games it's a slightly better proxy for possession than corsi. It's not used exclusively instead of corsi mainly because over smaller sample sizes, the larger corsi number is more accurate in reflecting puck possession.

Also because it is possible that blocked shots are a skill and not random.  The "close" part refers to only situations where a game is within 1 goal either way (i.e. 1-0, 2-1 etc) - used to try and limit the impact of "score effects", in other words the tendency of teams trailing by multiple goals to rack up shots on teams up by a few who let their foot off the gas.

The trend is similar for 'corsi' and probably for simply shots on goal/against.

 

[BrownRolo]

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/peter-deboer-to-coach-toronto-maple-leafs--say-it-ain-t-so--lou-215805162.html#more-id

DeBoer, 45, is believed to be in the final season of a three-year contract with the Devils. The thought out of Toronto is that the puck-possession game DeBoer prefers and his ability to bring out the most in David Clarkson (both in Kitchener in the OHL and with the Devils) and Nazem Kadri (Kitchener) would make him the right man to take over the Maple Leafs. Of course, DeBoer also has Ontario roots, so the job could be intriguing to him, as well.