Carlyle Extended/Randy's Revenge

[mr grieves]

I'm still not 100% sold that the current players garnish better results with any coach at the helm.

I think it's fair for someone to look at the inordinately high number of shots against and the relative talent on the blue line and be pretty confident that a coach with a stronger defensive track record should be able to positively affect that somehow. The extent to which that, in and of itself, would result in significantly better results is something I'm uncertain of.

Well, it also matters what sort of 'significantly better' you're aiming for. Playoffs seems, at this point, a reasonable request.

 

[mr grieves]

But to what you said, I have absolutely no objection to the premise that Carlyle's system is incapable of creating a Stanley Cup contender out of players that aren't as good as what he had in 06-07.

princepw can explain his point. But what I said is that Carlyle's system seems incapable of creating an even somewhat competitive playoff team out of players that aren't as good as what he had in 06-07. And that makes him not the right coach for this team.

 

[Kin]

Well, it also matters what sort of 'significantly better' you're aiming for. Playoffs seems, at this point, a reasonable request.

Making the playoffs might very well be a reasonable standard in terms of the talent on the team(although I'd disagree that making the playoffs year in and year out would be something to expect from this group) and is a legitimate way to judge the relative success of their coach provided that getting one of those last playoff spots is what you really want to be watching but I think what you're misinterpreting there is that the "significantly better" I'm referring to there is really about the effect on the results any change would have. While I'm pretty confident that a team could get a different result, the extent to which it would be better is something I'm not sure of.

 

[Kin]

But what I said is that Carlyle's system seems incapable of creating an even somewhat competitive playoff team out of players that aren't as good as what he had in 06-07.

That seems pretty on its face incorrect given that Carlyle has made the playoffs since 06-07 pretty consistently despite teams that weren't as good. In 08-09 he took a team that got 91 points in the regular season to the playoffs where they then knocked off a Sharks team that had 117 points and took the eventual Western Conference Champs to a game 7. In 10-11, without Niedermayer or Pronger, he got the Ducks to 99 points and a playoff berth. Heck, he got last year's Maple Leafs to the playoffs where they were "somewhat" competitive with a pretty good Bruins team.

So if your point was that, it seems iffy. If it was that you want to call him a failure because the Leafs didn't make the playoffs this year then go to town. I'm after the windmill a little to the right.

 

[mr grieves]

So if your point was that, it seems iffy. If it was that you want to call him a failure because the Leafs didn't make the playoffs this year then go to town. I'm after the windmill a little to the right.

It's really not that elusive a point. We could run through the charts and numbers and excerpts from Mirtle, Arthur, and the rest. But really. He's 70-62-16 with the team. That's a .527 over about 150 games. That's an 86 point pace. Coaches like that get canned all the time.

 

[ZBBM]

I've been gone the last 4 days and so haven't really commented on this yet.  After letting it sink in I still find the decision to retain him, let alone extend him, just incredible.  If Shanahan let himself be persuaded by Nonis that this was the right thing to do, then that implicates not just Shanny but Leiweke too as far as I'm concerned ? hiring Shanahan was a huge mistake.  Not a single one of them in the management chain is competent.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I'm still not 100% sold that the current players garnish better results with any coach at the helm.

The extent to which that, in and of itself, would result in significantly better results is something I'm uncertain of.

I completely agree.

 

[nutman]

After spending some time sitting back and being bitter about the choice to bring back RC, I think I will give it a chance. RC has a better record then anything that is out there, and lets be reasonable and not bring up coaches that are not free to sign at this point.

I thing with the right player moves and, the fact that the guys now have the message that the coach is here to stay, they may just have to start buying into the System. I would love to see the Leafs bring in Gilmore as one of the assistant coaches, He has a coaching background and, also has the Leaf player background to be very affective.

The two big moves I am hoping for is, a deal to rid us of Deon and, his cement boots, as well as bringing back Kamorov. I would also like to see some of the kids brought up, we have enough defense prospects to build a very good home grown defense if done right. I am not a fan of bringing in any more crap from other teams when we have players in our system that can do the job. (getting rid of Orr and, Mcclaran are a given).

So, I will give RC half the season to  prove he and his system are what we need, and if we are getting out played every game as we did this past season, then I will fire up the get rid of Randy wagon. Now all we can do is watch and see the players and,  coaches they bring in to try and right the ship.

 

[Kin]

He's 70-62-16 with the team. That's a .527 over about 150 games. That's an 86 point pace. Coaches like that get canned all the time.

Sure, except I don't think too many honest evaluations of him are going to include the 18 games he coached in 11-12 of a Ron Wilson team that had already mailed the season in. Remove that from the equation and it's an 89 point pace which still isn't a consistent playoff level but being as he's coached the team two years and gotten them into the playoffs once I don't think either of us needed to bust out the calculators to establish that the Leafs haven't been a consistent playoff team during his tenure here.

But, as I said, while consistent appearances in the playoffs might be the bar you want to set as far as success/failure, I'm not interested in that as an outcome or how I'm judging the club going forward.

 

[mr grieves]

But, as I said, while consistent appearances in the playoffs might be the bar you want to set as far as success/failure, I'm not interested in that as an outcome or how I'm judging the club going forward.

Well, we part ways there. They got a decent core that should be a playoff team in the east -- and they're wasting years of players' peaks neither doing what they should to make the playoffs nor moving clearly in the direction of becoming a contender. Given that the latter is not their plan, the former is outcome I think reasonable to demand of the team.

The Leafs are not interested in a rebuild, so are you looking favorably on these moves because you think they're blundering into that as their only available option?

 

[Kin]

Well, we part ways there. They got a decent core that should be a playoff team in the east -- and they're wasting years of players' peaks neither doing what they should to make the playoffs nor moving clearly in the direction of becoming a contender. Given that the latter is not their plan, the former is outcome I think reasonable to demand of the team.

Yeah, I don't. To be honest, I really think that you're failing to recognize the ways the league has changed over the years. It's not 2002 where the top teams had Forsberg-Sakic-Bourque-Blake-Roy and then the bottom teams have Mike Sillinger and Espen Knutsen leading the way. Everyone has a decent core. The parity of the bubble teams is an unavoidable fact of life and looking at anyone of them and thinking they should make the playoffs year in and year out strikes me as a pretty unreasonable expectation.

I'm sure you look at Columbus and say "Boy, the Leafs are more talented then them, they shouldn't make the playoffs while we don't" and while I don't disagree with that narrowly the reality is that fans in Washington, Ottawa and Carolina are saying the exact same things bout their teams and are just as correct. The Leafs aren't head and shoulders above any of them.

The stark reality of the parity in the modern NHL is that unless you are a real cup contender you shouldn't expect year-in and year-out playoff appearances. That's just not the way it goes anymore. That's the league the last two CBA's were specifically designed to build.

The Leafs are not interested in a rebuild, so are you looking favorably on these moves because you think they're blundering into that as their only available option?

I don't know what you mean by "these moves" but assuming it's re: the Carlyle extension then I'm not looking at it favourably.

 

[Corn Flake]

Well said, Nik.

The Leafs are part of a very large, 20'ish team "mushy middle" thanks to parity, where not much can put you in or out of the playoffs.  This fan 'outrage' over not making it, calling for the heads of everyone just doesn't seem to want to recognize that.

IMO, just because you miss doesn't mean you need to blow everything up, fire the coach, GM, jettison the core, etc.  I think you should build a solid, stable team with the right core pieces and attitude and you can become a team that manages to be in more than out, but when you are riding that line it doesn't take much to go either way.

That doesn't mean you sit still and hope you get lucky next year.. it means you don't have to blow it up every time like maybe you would in the early 00's.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The Leafs are part of a very large, 20'ish team "mushy middle" thanks to parity, where not much can put you in or out of the playoffs.  This fan 'outrage' over not making it, calling for the heads of everyone just doesn't seem to want to recognize that.

I think that stems from a good portion of fans who argued all season that the team wasn't playing even as good as a "mushy middle" team but were a 1 line team receiving elite goaltending and not much else.  I think heads are called for because it was seen that the team as a whole did not perform very well, and they walked a tightrope all season where even top 5-ish goaltending and career years from a number of players offensively couldn't get them in.  I don't think it's a bad team overall, but I think they're being made to look worse than they are on the ice by those in charge.

 

[Kin]

IMO, just because you miss doesn't mean you need to blow everything up, fire the coach, GM, jettison the core, etc.  I think you should build a solid, stable team with the right core pieces and attitude and you can become a team that manages to be in more than out, but when you are riding that line it doesn't take much to go either way.

I agree, I suppose, but it does raise the immediate question that any team that's in that middle needs to ask themselves. Namely, do we want to strive for being one of the best teams in the middle or do we need to somehow turn ourselves into one of the handful of teams that are better than that?

Because I think it's fair for someone to look at Carlyle and wonder if he's the right guy to get the most out of this Leafs team.

 

[Redleaf]

IMO, just because you miss doesn't mean you need to blow everything up, fire the coach, GM, jettison the core, etc.  I think you should build a solid, stable team with the right core pieces and attitude and you can become a team that manages to be in more than out, but when you are riding that line it doesn't take much to go either way.

I agree, I suppose, but it does raise the immediate question that any team that's in that middle needs to ask themselves. Namely, do we want to strive for being one of the best teams in the middle or do we need to somehow turn ourselves into one of the handful of teams that are better than that?

Because I think it's fair for someone to look at Carlyle and wonder if he's the right guy to get the most out of this Leafs team.

I also think its a fair observation to make, that changing coaches in this situation probably doesn't get you the desired results either. If you're like me, and have long ago determined that its more the players fault this team struggled down the stretch than the coach, than changing coaches right now just wouldn't make a big enough difference to justify the disruption.

 

[Kin]

I also think its a fair observation to make, that changing coaches in this situation probably doesn't get you the desired results either.

I don't. For starters I don't think there's a "probably" here. To the extent that there is, I think the evidence is pretty well stacked against Carlyle.

 

[Corn Flake]

IMO, just because you miss doesn't mean you need to blow everything up, fire the coach, GM, jettison the core, etc.  I think you should build a solid, stable team with the right core pieces and attitude and you can become a team that manages to be in more than out, but when you are riding that line it doesn't take much to go either way.

I agree, I suppose, but it does raise the immediate question that any team that's in that middle needs to ask themselves. Namely, do we want to strive for being one of the best teams in the middle or do we need to somehow turn ourselves into one of the handful of teams that are better than that?

Because I think it's fair for someone to look at Carlyle and wonder if he's the right guy to get the most out of this Leafs team.

And that is a very fair question. Personally, I don't think he is the guy either, and after sitting back and watching the post-Carlyle announcement carnage fly back and forth, I'm thinking that Shanahan doesn't believe it either. At least, not long term.

I'm just not going to run around calling Shanny & co "stupid morons" or any of the other million expletives used to describe them because they kept "worst coach ever" Randy Carlyle.

I am sure Shanahan is wondering the same thing - how do you get a team from finishing in the lower half of the mushy middle to the top of the mush, and then to the status of a true contender?  He would most certainly conclude it is not just that a different coach would have made the difference and that a lot of different changes need to be made.  It's not like the best coach on the planet would have had this team contending. 

 

[mr grieves]

Well, we part ways there. They got a decent core that should be a playoff team in the east -- and they're wasting years of players' peaks neither doing what they should to make the playoffs nor moving clearly in the direction of becoming a contender. Given that the latter is not their plan, the former is outcome I think reasonable to demand of the team.

Yeah, I don't. To be honest, I really think that you're failing to recognize the ways the league has changed over the years. It's not 2002 where the top teams had Forsberg-Sakic-Bourque-Blake-Roy and then the bottom teams have Mike Sillinger and Espen Knutsen leading the way. Everyone has a decent core. The parity of the bubble teams is an unavoidable fact of life and looking at anyone of them and thinking they should make the playoffs year in and year out strikes me as a pretty unreasonable expectation.

I don't disagree in general. But if you are in that mushy middle, and you have a year where your core is healthy and performs pretty well -- career years for several -- and you're getting top-5 in the league goaltending, you should make it. If you don't, the difference isn't with the solid core (which a lot of folks have, sure) but on the margins, where capped out teams with a decent core compete: with how much the coach is getting out of the roster, with the system the team's playing, with the complementary players you've surrounded the core with.

The Leafs are not interested in a rebuild, so are you looking favorably on these moves because you think they're blundering into that as their only available option?

I don't know what you mean by "these moves" but assuming it's re: the Carlyle extension then I'm not looking at it favourably.

I was mistaken then. The argument, as I (mis)understood it, against being particularly disappointed with the coach or the moves of complementary players was that the key players just aren't good enough to make it, so why bother bringing in a new coach if the results won't be much better and the youth that a new coach might develop is fundamentally not good enough to be a contender.

 

[Redleaf]

I also think its a fair observation to make, that changing coaches in this situation probably doesn't get you the desired results either.

I don't. For starters I don't think there's a "probably" here. To the extent that there is, I think the evidence is pretty well stacked against Carlyle.

Sure, from where we sit now, Carlyle looks like a lame duck coach, waiting for the first prolonged losing streak of next season to get turfed. But, with the right mix of guys brought in via trade, brought up from the Marlies, and with no Olympic distractions, perhaps a new captain, more familiarity with the coach, (not to mention just plain growth and maturity as a team) And let's not forget league PARITY.

Things can change for the good just as quickly as fall apart. Despite popular belief that keeping Carlyle assures us of another disastrous season, it doesn't mean that things can't vastly improve under his leadership either. In fact, the more capitulation I see from Leaf fans regarding Carlyle and this team, the more I'm convinced that keeping him might not be such a bad idea after all. Either way, expectations for next year are certainly tempered. Things can only get better from here.

 

[Kin]

I don't disagree in general. But if you are in that mushy middle, and you have a year where your core is healthy and performs pretty well -- career years for several -- and you're getting top-5 in the league goaltending, you should make it.

I guess...except the Leafs didn't get top 5 in the league goaltending. They ranked 9th in the league in save percentage. Bernier ranked 4th in save percentage just within the division.

And that's one of the problems with being reductive about the thousands of things that go into what makes for a successful NHL season. Sure, Kessel and JVR had good years but someone could just as easily look at the season and say that it was one where basically none of the Leafs' defensemen had good years, where the position they were weakest at to begin the year is also the one where they got hit the hardest by injury and where their #1 goalie got hurt at a crucial part of the season. Those things add up to a team that was going to be in tough to make a playoff spot and, well, they didn't.

I was mistaken then. The argument, as I (mis)understood it, against being particularly disappointed with the coach or the moves of complementary players was that the key players just aren't good enough to make it, so why bother bringing in a new coach if the results won't be much better and the youth that a new coach might develop is fundamentally not good enough to be a contender.

I don't know if that's an entirely accurate description of my position either but I think it says something about how strident and devoid of nuance an argument has if "why bother" is taken as reacting favourably in opposition.