Unofficial 2013-2014 Armchair GM Thread

[Champ Kind]

What's a little embellishment between friends?

A significant misrepresentation of one side's argument.

Oh, you.  I'm kidding around a bit here!

Anyway, I think it's within the scope of what I was saying.  Replace "Instant Success" with "Failing Less Spectacularly" and I draw the same conclusion.  At any rate, the semantics weren't integral to the argument.

 

[Kin]

If you have to stretch that far to make a point, you don't actually have a point.

Do you genuinely see a wide gulf between that and the people who are claiming that replacing the coach in and of itself will have a significant change in the team's fortunes? Or is "instant" the hangup here and the idea is that AWAB actually meant that people think that hiring a new coach will somehow change the way time works?

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

If you have to stretch that far to make a point, you don't actually have a point.

Do you genuinely see a wide gulf between that and the people who are claiming that replacing the coach in and of itself will have a significant change in the team's fortunes? Or is "instant" the hangup here and the idea is that AWAB actually meant that people think that hiring a new coach will somehow change the way time works?

Honestly, I don't know what people are claiming and don't claim to know.  I'm only referring to the mediocre example he provided and presumed that if that's either the best or the only example he could come up with, then it's really not a well-supported assertion.

 

[Kin]

Honestly, I don't know what people are claiming and don't claim to know.  I'm only referring to the mediocre example he provided and presumed that if that's either the best or the only example he could come up with, then it's really not a well-supported assertion.

Even then, it's a post that states pretty conclusively that a different coach will unavoidably have a better result. We're kind of slumming it after that.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I could make the argument that they've done the same thing under two coaches already.

Would be a very tough argument for you to make unfortunately.

I know I'm walking into something I won't be able to effectively argue, but why?  Without getting into granular details, a general look at this team would suggest that it has a propensity to become derailed at inopportune moments.  I base this on performance over the past three or four years, which has spanned different coaching staffs.  So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

Well, for one the roster has had a number of significant changes from the last coach to this coach, so that would be one significant hurdle to jump to say "they" have done the same thing under two coaches.  It's two different rosters and while there are significant holdovers there are significant differences in the rosters as well.

It's not a matter of changing the coach = instant success, but moreso that it would be hard for a coach to be worse, possession-wise (and by relation, shots for/against wise) than Carlyle has been (and it's been documented that this isn't just a Carlyle-Toronto specific occurrence but happened in Anaheim too) and that most people feel this is a better roster than the one his predecessor had.  To get less or the same out of it is troubling, and a lot of the indicators have been trending downward since he arrived.  He hasn't shown the ability to come close to getting the team to play a better game, so I don't see the benefits in keeping a coach who has seen similar sorts of results for years in a row now.

I agree with what you've said.  And for the record, I also believe that the Leafs need to change their coach.  What I was responding to was the assertion from Andy that "this team" does not fail so spectacularly under a different coach.  I'm simply pointing out that that may be true, but it may not be, too.

As Busta correctly points out, I think that a new coach will improve the Leafs performance next year.  But real improvement will require personnel changes, too.

I..uh...quick, one of us insult the other!  You scallywag!  We can't have a short debate where each side more or less agrees with one another!

 

[Champ Kind]

I could make the argument that they've done the same thing under two coaches already.

Would be a very tough argument for you to make unfortunately.

I know I'm walking into something I won't be able to effectively argue, but why?  Without getting into granular details, a general look at this team would suggest that it has a propensity to become derailed at inopportune moments.  I base this on performance over the past three or four years, which has spanned different coaching staffs.  So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

Well, for one the roster has had a number of significant changes from the last coach to this coach, so that would be one significant hurdle to jump to say "they" have done the same thing under two coaches.  It's two different rosters and while there are significant holdovers there are significant differences in the rosters as well.

It's not a matter of changing the coach = instant success, but moreso that it would be hard for a coach to be worse, possession-wise (and by relation, shots for/against wise) than Carlyle has been (and it's been documented that this isn't just a Carlyle-Toronto specific occurrence but happened in Anaheim too) and that most people feel this is a better roster than the one his predecessor had.  To get less or the same out of it is troubling, and a lot of the indicators have been trending downward since he arrived.  He hasn't shown the ability to come close to getting the team to play a better game, so I don't see the benefits in keeping a coach who has seen similar sorts of results for years in a row now.

I agree with what you've said.  And for the record, I also believe that the Leafs need to change their coach.  What I was responding to was the assertion from Andy that "this team" does not fail so spectacularly under a different coach.  I'm simply pointing out that that may be true, but it may not be, too.

As Busta correctly points out, I think that a new coach will improve the Leafs performance next year.  But real improvement will require personnel changes, too.

I..uh...quick, one of us insult the other!  You scallywag!  We can't have a short debate where each side more or less agrees with one another!

Oh, to heck with you!

Cheers, Potvin. 

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Honestly, I don't know what people are claiming and don't claim to know.  I'm only referring to the mediocre example he provided and presumed that if that's either the best or the only example he could come up with, then it's really not a well-supported assertion.

Even then, it's a post that states pretty conclusively that a different coach will unavoidably have a better result. We're kind of slumming it after that.

I think you mean "a different coach plus 7 roster changes".

 

[Kin]

I think you mean "a different coach plus 7 roster changes".

No, I think I'm pretty good on the wording there. Unless, of course, you took Carlyle's idiocy and lack of decency to be more of a toaster-related criticism.

 

[Highlander]

Buy some shares in Cuisenart as Randy is getting a farewell Toaster. Yes get rid of him and 4-6 roster changes.

 

[Bullfrog]

Honestly, I don't know what people are claiming and don't claim to know.  I'm only referring to the mediocre example he provided and presumed that if that's either the best or the only example he could come up with, then it's really not a well-supported assertion.

Even then, it's a post that states pretty conclusively that a different coach will unavoidably have a better result. We're kind of slumming it after that.

While that may be true, "better than Carlyle" does not equal success. I think we're reading the same boards, you just seem to be reading more into what people are saying than, well, what they're actually saying.

Someone saying "a coaching change will make things better" isn't the same as saying "a coaching change will make this team more successful and the roster doesn't need improving." It's fun, we can hate the coach AND the players!

 

[Kin]

While that may be true, "better than Carlyle" does not equal success. I think we're reading the same boards, you just seem to be reading more into what people are saying than, well, what they're actually saying.

I've seen people flat out say that replacing Carlyle will result in a significant improvement for the club. To me, there's not a wide enough bridge between what the Leafs did and "success" in it's most frequently used context(16 points, I think, or 8 games) to reconcile that with what you're saying now.

So, again, if you think that the comments regarding bringing in a new coach amount to "Replacing Carlyle will make the team marginally better" then I either you're willfully ignoring what's being said in order to try and present it as being more reasonable than it is or we're just reading different posts.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm not sure I've been in a more pointless argument.  :-\ However, there's a third option between willfully ignoring or reading different posts. It could be that we simply understand or interpret the posts differently. That doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong.

Anyway, as I said, this is a pointless argument.

More importantly than what I think others are saying, I'm saying that I believe a coaching change will most likely result in improvement to the team. It's not guaranteed of course, nothing is, but the fact that the team was even in the playoff picture despite being the 2nd worst possession team in the league and despite using only three forwards lines regularly and despite giving up the most shots in recent history leads me to believe that a different (and assumed better) coach will mean success.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm not sure I've been in a more pointless argument.  :-\ However, there's a third option between willfully ignoring or reading different posts. It could be that we simply understand or interpret the posts differently. That doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong.

Anyway, as I said, this is a pointless argument.

Continue arguing it for, I don't know, 6 or 7 more pages.  Some multi-paragraph responses would be good too.  Lots of commas to drive home your level of exasperation.

 

[Kin]

I'm not sure I've been in a more pointless argument.  :-\ However, there's a third option between willfully ignoring or reading different posts. It could be that we simply understand or interpret the posts differently. That doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong.

Anyway, as I said, this is a pointless argument.

So, just so I have this straight, you make a claim about what nobody on the entire board has said, I say I've seen different, you tell me I'm wrong and then you express frustration about being in a pointless argument?

Whatever.

 

[Kin]

Continue arguing it for, I don't know, 6 or 7 more pages.  Some multi-paragraph responses would be good too.  Lots of commas to drive home your level of exasperation.

Or say the exact same thing a thousand different times in one sentence. Make sure to include lots of links to all of the people you read who feel the exact same way. Then, at some point, break to argue which person finished last and has to eat the cookie.

 

[Bullfrog]

It could be that we simply understand or interpret the posts differently. That doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong...

So, just so I have this straight, you make a claim about what nobody on the entire board has said, I say I've seen different, you tell me I'm wrong and then you express frustration about being in a pointless argument?

Whatever.

??? I wouldn't presume to tell you what you have or haven't seen or read.

I do think you're wrong if you assume that the majority of people who advocate for Carlyle's removal do so with the belief the coaching is the only problem with the team.

 

[Kin]

I wouldn't presume to tell you what you have or haven't seen or read.

Really? You're going to quibble over the difference between telling me I'm wrong and saying "you just seem to be reading more into what people are saying than, well, what they're actually saying."

Alright.

I do think you're wrong if you assume that the majority of people who advocate for Carlyle's removal do so with the belief the coaching is the only problem with the team.

Which I don't. I think people are saying that removing Carlyle in and of itself will result in an immediate and significant improvement in the club and its futures to the point where we'd be happy with the team and their performance. I can think people are saying that while also accepting that they probably think trading Bozak for Crosby would help out too.

 

[Bullfrog]

You're right, I did say that. I tried to temper it subsequently by saying it's more of a difference in interpretation which is probably a better way of saying it.

I do lean more towards Busta's view though:

Well, at least, nobody advocating for a change in the coach has. A different coach could equal a fairly rapid improvement, but, that's about as far as any of us are willing to go.

Further though, I would say that a coaching change will lead to improvement. In fact, I'd say coaching change = instant improvement without much hesitation. Coaching was a major contributor to the lack of success this season. Can a new coach make significant improvement, so that they are "successful"? I surely hope so. I think success would equal making the playoffs and having a legit chance at winning the first round.

 

[Highlander]

Possession is the problem with the team, as posted in the Carlyle thread, the last 6 Stanley Cup winners have had an average of 54.8% so it is pretty clear the new coaching candidate must have a track record of plus 50% possession teams.
Hell Vignault with the Rangers has them up around 54% and with the King in the nets this puts them as a darkhorse for the cup.

 

[Kin]

Further though, I would say that a coaching change will lead to improvement. In fact, I'd say coaching change = instant improvement without much hesitation. Coaching was a major contributor to the lack of success this season. Can a new coach make significant improvement, so that they are "successful"? I surely hope so. I think success would equal making the playoffs and having a legit chance at winning the first round.

That's fine. Honestly, at this point, I genuinely wouldn't care if popular opinion was that firing Carlyle and hiring a team of hockey bloggers would result in an 82-0 season. I've stated how I feel about the coaching situation and, unlike some others, don't feel the need to have that be the single, solitary point of conversation I engage in. My comment to you wasn't a defense of Carlyle or another futile stab at discussing the relative importance of coaching. It was a comment on the tenor of the conversation surrounding the issue. No more, no less.