Sabres @ Leafs - Nov. 16th, 7:00pm - CBC, TSN 1050

[OldTimeHockey]

For one, it's a complete guess on their parts. 2, until this team starts losing, why would a coach change a system that got them to the playoffs last year and has started them off with a 12-7-1 record?

Well, for one, despite the winning record, they really haven't been the better team in many of their games so far. A good coach would recognize that (which, granted, Carlyle has) and do something about it. Secondly, they've lost 4 of their last 6 games, and have scored more than 1 actual goal once in that stretch - a pretty clear indicator that something has to be done, and that, considering the warning signs, that something should have been done already. So, it could very well be argued that they already have started losing. Thirdly, Carlyle has openly recognized that what they're trying to do defensively isn't working, and yet, he hasn't appeared to have tried to change their approach - in some worlds, that would be considered insanity.

Rome wasn't built in a day...I mean, I hope he's trying to build something and change what's happening....I hope.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The "lack of defensive ability" has very little to do with their defensive woes. It's that the system Carlyle is employing is not the right fit for the type of players the Leafs have. Many teams have had success defensively without having any clear defensive talent. Look at the Wild, who were successful with the trap for years - they just didn't have the offensive talent to pair with it. Or the Lightning, who took a suspect roster and questionable goaltending to the Conference Final playing the 1-3-1. Or the Devils in 2012 - not exactly a roster brimming with talent, but, coached well enough to play a solid defensive game every night. There are a number of potential defensive systems this team could be using, and a few of them could very well work out much better than the one Carlyle has stubbornly stuck to.

Hey, I'm not saying his ways are perfect. Like I've said, it's painful to watch. Heck, I watched about 5 minutes of the 3rd Saturday night and I just about threw my remote through the TV.

In the case of everyone calling out Carlyle I take more issue with people thinking that Wilson's system would lead to better results.

For one, it's a complete guess on their parts. 2, until this team starts losing, why would a coach change a system that got them to the playoffs last year and has started them off with a 12-7-1 record?

I just don't see how this issue is this black and white. The team has played horrible, horrible hockey this year; being 12-7-1 is just a testament to their goaltending. So why can't they try to correct the things that are wrong?

Their combined SV% is .940 this year. Under Wilson it was around .900. Under Maurice is was about the same. Quinn's last year in Toronto it was barely .900 (until Aubin had that magical run at the end). Goaltending is literally the reason for Toronto's (marginal) success this year and last. People are speaking out because they can physically see how awful this team is playing. Why settle for a 12-7-1 team which plays crap hockey and wins 99% of the time on game-saving goaltending when they can work with a better system and potentially improve the results?

I agree that it's not that black and white. I also don't think it's as black and white as every one is painting it regarding the coaching philosophy being the reason this team is playing so poorly.Do we really believe this team is all that much better than what they have played?

I have seen absolutely nothing to point in that direction.

 

[bustaheims]

Rome wasn't built in a day...I mean, I hope he's trying to build something and change what's happening....I hope.

Unfortunately for Carlyle and the Leafs, they don't have the same amount of time as the Romans did. We're 1/4 of the way through the season. We should at least be seeing some sort of positive progress in these areas, and I'd be hard pressed to say that we have.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

So they're just a mentally fragile team that collapses for no reason? That's a million times worse and they should have blown up the team already.

They aren't lacking in talent.

That's just putting words in my mouth. Part of a team growing and recognizing their identity results in pains and set backs. Examples of that are game 7 last year and to a lesser degree, most of the 3rd period.

This team plays with a fear to lose. That usually results in losing.



Listen, I'm not willing to absolve Carlyle of all the blame when it comes to the play of the team, but I'm also not willing to say it's something as simple as "the coaches system".

 

[TML fan]

The "lack of defensive ability" has very little to do with their defensive woes. It's that the system Carlyle is employing is not the right fit for the type of players the Leafs have. Many teams have had success defensively without having any clear defensive talent. Look at the Wild, who were successful with the trap for years - they just didn't have the offensive talent to pair with it. Or the Lightning, who took a suspect roster and questionable goaltending to the Conference Final playing the 1-3-1. Or the Devils in 2012 - not exactly a roster brimming with talent, but, coached well enough to play a solid defensive game every night. There are a number of potential defensive systems this team could be using, and a few of them could very well work out much better than the one Carlyle has stubbornly stuck to.

Hey, I'm not saying his ways are perfect. Like I've said, it's painful to watch. Heck, I watched about 5 minutes of the 3rd Saturday night and I just about threw my remote through the TV.

In the case of everyone calling out Carlyle I take more issue with people thinking that Wilson's system would lead to better results.

For one, it's a complete guess on their parts. 2, until this team starts losing, why would a coach change a system that got them to the playoffs last year and has started them off with a 12-7-1 record?

I just don't see how this issue is this black and white. The team has played horrible, horrible hockey this year; being 12-7-1 is just a testament to their goaltending. So why can't they try to correct the things that are wrong?

Their combined SV% is .940 this year. Under Wilson it was around .900. Under Maurice is was about the same. Quinn's last year in Toronto it was barely .900 (until Aubin had that magical run at the end). Goaltending is literally the reason for Toronto's (marginal) success this year and last. People are speaking out because they can physically see how awful this team is playing. Why settle for a 12-7-1 team which plays crap hockey and wins 99% of the time on game-saving goaltending when they can work with a better system and potentially improve the results?

I agree that it's not that black and white. I also don't think it's as black and white as every one is painting it regarding the coaching philosophy being the reason this team is playing so poorly.Do we really believe this team is all that much better than what they have played?

I have seen absolutely nothing to point in that direction.

The 2nd period against Boston? The win over Pittsburgh?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The "lack of defensive ability" has very little to do with their defensive woes. It's that the system Carlyle is employing is not the right fit for the type of players the Leafs have. Many teams have had success defensively without having any clear defensive talent. Look at the Wild, who were successful with the trap for years - they just didn't have the offensive talent to pair with it. Or the Lightning, who took a suspect roster and questionable goaltending to the Conference Final playing the 1-3-1. Or the Devils in 2012 - not exactly a roster brimming with talent, but, coached well enough to play a solid defensive game every night. There are a number of potential defensive systems this team could be using, and a few of them could very well work out much better than the one Carlyle has stubbornly stuck to.

Hey, I'm not saying his ways are perfect. Like I've said, it's painful to watch. Heck, I watched about 5 minutes of the 3rd Saturday night and I just about threw my remote through the TV.

In the case of everyone calling out Carlyle I take more issue with people thinking that Wilson's system would lead to better results.

For one, it's a complete guess on their parts. 2, until this team starts losing, why would a coach change a system that got them to the playoffs last year and has started them off with a 12-7-1 record?

I just don't see how this issue is this black and white. The team has played horrible, horrible hockey this year; being 12-7-1 is just a testament to their goaltending. So why can't they try to correct the things that are wrong?

Their combined SV% is .940 this year. Under Wilson it was around .900. Under Maurice is was about the same. Quinn's last year in Toronto it was barely .900 (until Aubin had that magical run at the end). Goaltending is literally the reason for Toronto's (marginal) success this year and last. People are speaking out because they can physically see how awful this team is playing. Why settle for a 12-7-1 team which plays crap hockey and wins 99% of the time on game-saving goaltending when they can work with a better system and potentially improve the results?

I agree that it's not that black and white. I also don't think it's as black and white as every one is painting it regarding the coaching philosophy being the reason this team is playing so poorly.Do we really believe this team is all that much better than what they have played?

I have seen absolutely nothing to point in that direction.

The 2nd period against Boston? The win over Pittsburgh?

So the stars align once or twice and suddenly that's how the team should play all the time? Even the Sabres and Panthers have had a good period or two this season.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

In the case of everyone calling out Carlyle I take more issue with people thinking that Wilson's system would lead to better results.

For one, it's a complete guess on their parts. 2, until this team starts losing, why would a coach change a system that got them to the playoffs last year and has started them off with a 12-7-1 record?

In my case, it seems logical that with a better overall roster and FAR better goaltending, the team would perform better under Wilson.  I'm going by what I remember seeing with my own eyes and some stats.  I remember countless times on this forum lamenting that I felt the Leafs outplayed another team during games only to be let down by the goaltending - weak wrist shots going in, etc.  So just by the eyesight test I thought those Leafs teams were visually more competitive, if lacking finish on the roster.

With respect to stats, since no one tracks zone time anymore I have to use the possession proxies to help determine it, and the last 2 seasons under Carlyle the Leafs are dead last in the league in those measurements (CF% or Corsi For %, Corsi has been found to be a good proxy for zone time/possession).  This suggests that the team spends the overwhelming majority of the games a) in their own zone, and b) without the puck.  Therefore they are relying on their goaltending and special teams to an unreasonable degree.  It is good to be good in those areas of course, but something like 80% of the game is even-strength so if you're getting killed in that area it's hard to sustain that success long term.

So, my theory is under Wilson the Leafs spent more time in the opposition's end, less time in their own end, didn't get killed in the shot count and with the goaltending Carlyle has had I think would have led to better results than we are seeing.

Obviously it's impossible to say for sure or compare exactly with so many variables but it seems logical to me.

 

[TML fan]

So they're just a mentally fragile team that collapses for no reason? That's a million times worse and they should have blown up the team already.

They aren't lacking in talent.

That's just putting words in my mouth. Part of a team growing and recognizing their identity results in pains and set backs. Examples of that are game 7 last year and to a lesser degree, most of the 3rd period.

This team plays with a fear to lose. That usually results in losing.



Listen, I'm not willing to absolve Carlyle of all the blame when it comes to the play of the team, but I'm also not willing to say it's something as simple as "the coaches system".

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking a question. Why are they prone to collapsing? Where does the fear of losing come from? Why are they afraid of losing a game they have a 3 goal lead in with 10 minutes to go? Why not just play to win?

I agree that they play to not lose. That's precisely why they do. It's also a by product of a system that is designed to not lose you games.

That's why it really is that simple. Carlyle's system is flawed and the product on the ice is a direct result of it. I can't "prove" that playing a more offensive game will make the team better, but I think if you really analyze how the majority of the playoff games went last year, and look at the few examples of it this year, you would arrive at the conclusion that the Leafs are a better team when they attack. Carlyle wants the Leafs to play with the puck more, but the way he deploys them defensively contradicts what he wants them to do offensively, hence why I said the team looks lost.

 

[TML fan]

The "lack of defensive ability" has very little to do with their defensive woes. It's that the system Carlyle is employing is not the right fit for the type of players the Leafs have. Many teams have had success defensively without having any clear defensive talent. Look at the Wild, who were successful with the trap for years - they just didn't have the offensive talent to pair with it. Or the Lightning, who took a suspect roster and questionable goaltending to the Conference Final playing the 1-3-1. Or the Devils in 2012 - not exactly a roster brimming with talent, but, coached well enough to play a solid defensive game every night. There are a number of potential defensive systems this team could be using, and a few of them could very well work out much better than the one Carlyle has stubbornly stuck to.

Hey, I'm not saying his ways are perfect. Like I've said, it's painful to watch. Heck, I watched about 5 minutes of the 3rd Saturday night and I just about threw my remote through the TV.

In the case of everyone calling out Carlyle I take more issue with people thinking that Wilson's system would lead to better results.

For one, it's a complete guess on their parts. 2, until this team starts losing, why would a coach change a system that got them to the playoffs last year and has started them off with a 12-7-1 record?

I just don't see how this issue is this black and white. The team has played horrible, horrible hockey this year; being 12-7-1 is just a testament to their goaltending. So why can't they try to correct the things that are wrong?

Their combined SV% is .940 this year. Under Wilson it was around .900. Under Maurice is was about the same. Quinn's last year in Toronto it was barely .900 (until Aubin had that magical run at the end). Goaltending is literally the reason for Toronto's (marginal) success this year and last. People are speaking out because they can physically see how awful this team is playing. Why settle for a 12-7-1 team which plays crap hockey and wins 99% of the time on game-saving goaltending when they can work with a better system and potentially improve the results?

I agree that it's not that black and white. I also don't think it's as black and white as every one is painting it regarding the coaching philosophy being the reason this team is playing so poorly.Do we really believe this team is all that much better than what they have played?

I have seen absolutely nothing to point in that direction.

The 2nd period against Boston? The win over Pittsburgh?

So the stars align once or twice and suddenly that's how the team should play all the time? Even the Sabres and Panthers have had a good period or two this season.

Now who's being dismissive?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Obviously it's impossible to say for sure or compare exactly with so many variables but it seems logical to me.

Again, like I've said, I don't like what I see out of this team either. I just don't think my expectations are as high as everyone else. I just don't think they're very good regardless of the coach.

As for my issues with the Wilson vs Carlyle stuff.....Was there not very similar threads saying Wilson wasn't the right guy for the job?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

As for my issues with the Wilson vs Carlyle stuff.....Was there not very similar threads saying Wilson wasn't the right guy for the job?

Well I don't think this is the place to come for unanimity.  Different things are more important or less important to people and it will reflect their view of the game, how it should be played, and how it should be coached.  Unless a team is 82-0 I think you'll always find people who think the coach/player/GM is doing something wrong.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

As for my issues with the Wilson vs Carlyle stuff.....Was there not very similar threads saying Wilson wasn't the right guy for the job?

Well I don't think this is the place to come for unanimity.  Different things are more important or less important to people and it will reflect their view of the game, how it should be played, and how it should be coached.  Unless a team is 82-0 I think you'll always find people who think the coach/player/GM is doing something wrong.

Who's asking for everyone to agree?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

As for my issues with the Wilson vs Carlyle stuff.....Was there not very similar threads saying Wilson wasn't the right guy for the job?

Well I don't think this is the place to come for unanimity.  Different things are more important or less important to people and it will reflect their view of the game, how it should be played, and how it should be coached.  Unless a team is 82-0 I think you'll always find people who think the coach/player/GM is doing something wrong.

Who's asking for everyone to agree?

Your post appears to be saying "well there were a lot of people who didn't like Wilson too" and I don't know why other than to imply that since there were people who didn't like Wilson either what's the point of comparing them?  My response was basically there's always going to be people upset with a coach so what does that have to do with anything?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

As for my issues with the Wilson vs Carlyle stuff.....Was there not very similar threads saying Wilson wasn't the right guy for the job?

Well I don't think this is the place to come for unanimity.  Different things are more important or less important to people and it will reflect their view of the game, how it should be played, and how it should be coached.  Unless a team is 82-0 I think you'll always find people who think the coach/player/GM is doing something wrong.

Who's asking for everyone to agree?

Your post appears to be saying "well there were a lot of people who didn't like Wilson too" and I don't know why other than to imply that since there were people who didn't like Wilson either what's the point of comparing them?  My response was basically there's always going to be people upset with a coach so what does that have to do with anything?

And that's my point as well Potvin. All I'm saying is I don't think either coach would make make that much of a difference with this team. I mean, it may look different on the ice, but I think the end result would be pretty similar.

I agree that the conversations will always be there saying basically the same thing about the coaches. I guess I just generally side with the coaches in a lot of cases like this and I'm sure I probably sided with Wilson 4 years ago too.

 

[Kin]

Not that I think they're playing well necessarily, but the SV% under Wilson and Maurice had a lot to do with:

a) sub-par goalies
b) sub-par defence (a symptom of their coaching?)
c) a less successful PK


I mean credit where it's due. The Goalie SV% is helped by a very good PK. The Goalies are a lot better than under Wilson and Maurice, that is undeniable.

I think the problem with that argument, particularly in how it's being applied here to a perceived flaw in Carlyle's approach, is that it sort of assumes that there's no effect who the coach is on how the goaltender's play. A lot of talk in this thread has been about how Wilson was given "lousy" goaltenders but the truth is that a lot of the goaltenders Wilson had to work with are players who've had much higher save percentages either before or after Wilson or, in JS Giguere's case, both. It's easy in hindsight to say that because Gustavsson didn't perform under Wilson that he clearly wasn't much of a goaltender but he was a prospect that a lot of people here were excited about. Reimer played poorly for Wilson. So did Scrivens. Even Vesa Toskala posted a NHL calibre .904 under Maurice, then under Wilson had successive years at .891 and .874, then a .918 in the 6 games he played with Calgary.

At some point I think you kind of have to see a pattern there. The problem wasn't "the talent".

 

[Bender]

In the case of everyone calling out Carlyle I take more issue with people thinking that Wilson's system would lead to better results.

For one, it's a complete guess on their parts. 2, until this team starts losing, why would a coach change a system that got them to the playoffs last year and has started them off with a 12-7-1 record?

In my case, it seems logical that with a better overall roster and FAR better goaltending, the team would perform better under Wilson.  I'm going by what I remember seeing with my own eyes and some stats.  I remember countless times on this forum lamenting that I felt the Leafs outplayed another team during games only to be let down by the goaltending - weak wrist shots going in, etc.  So just by the eyesight test I thought those Leafs teams were visually more competitive, if lacking finish on the roster.

With respect to stats, since no one tracks zone time anymore I have to use the possession proxies to help determine it, and the last 2 seasons under Carlyle the Leafs are dead last in the league in those measurements (CF% or Corsi For %, Corsi has been found to be a good proxy for zone time/possession).  This suggests that the team spends the overwhelming majority of the games a) in their own zone, and b) without the puck.  Therefore they are relying on their goaltending and special teams to an unreasonable degree.  It is good to be good in those areas of course, but something like 80% of the game is even-strength so if you're getting killed in that area it's hard to sustain that success long term.

So, my theory is under Wilson the Leafs spent more time in the opposition's end, less time in their own end, didn't get killed in the shot count and with the goaltending Carlyle has had I think would have led to better results than we are seeing.

Obviously it's impossible to say for sure or compare exactly with so many variables but it seems logical to me.

Yeah but the Leafs were also let down by not scoring, even though they had over 30 shots per game routinely.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

In the case of everyone calling out Carlyle I take more issue with people thinking that Wilson's system would lead to better results.

For one, it's a complete guess on their parts. 2, until this team starts losing, why would a coach change a system that got them to the playoffs last year and has started them off with a 12-7-1 record?

In my case, it seems logical that with a better overall roster and FAR better goaltending, the team would perform better under Wilson.  I'm going by what I remember seeing with my own eyes and some stats.  I remember countless times on this forum lamenting that I felt the Leafs outplayed another team during games only to be let down by the goaltending - weak wrist shots going in, etc.  So just by the eyesight test I thought those Leafs teams were visually more competitive, if lacking finish on the roster.

With respect to stats, since no one tracks zone time anymore I have to use the possession proxies to help determine it, and the last 2 seasons under Carlyle the Leafs are dead last in the league in those measurements (CF% or Corsi For %, Corsi has been found to be a good proxy for zone time/possession).  This suggests that the team spends the overwhelming majority of the games a) in their own zone, and b) without the puck.  Therefore they are relying on their goaltending and special teams to an unreasonable degree.  It is good to be good in those areas of course, but something like 80% of the game is even-strength so if you're getting killed in that area it's hard to sustain that success long term.

So, my theory is under Wilson the Leafs spent more time in the opposition's end, less time in their own end, didn't get killed in the shot count and with the goaltending Carlyle has had I think would have led to better results than we are seeing.

Obviously it's impossible to say for sure or compare exactly with so many variables but it seems logical to me.

Yeah but the Leafs were also let down by not scoring, even though they had over 30 shots per game routinely.

Well that goes to the quality of the players you have, which is why a good argument can be made that the team now is above average at finishing.  Guys like Kessel have typically had strong SH%.  I think you can have a team play well but still fall short if the team lacks offensive skill overall.