Carlyle Extended/Randy's Revenge

[Bullfrog]

I think it's helpful to consider the coach as just one member of the team. Each player is an important part and can contribute to wins and losses and the same goes for the coach. The coach's job is to get the players ready for the game and to adjust to circumstances as the game goes on. The players have to execute.

When I played competitive sports in my late teens (obviously not completely comparable to professional sports), once the game started, the coach became almost irrelevant. The coach was most helpful in calming the team down, encouraging an offensive attack, pointing out things the players may not have noticed, etc.

Whenever we talk about a player being bad or good at the NHL level, we're obviously talking in context. A bad NHLer is still one of the top 1500 players in the world. Same with a bad coach; there's only 30 head coaches in the NHL. Carlyle is a top coach, but he's simply not getting it done with this team. Maybe he can't because the team isn't good enough, but it seems clear to me through looking at the stats and by simply watching the game that he can't take this roster to the next level and that he's partly responsible for their terrible play.

Whether a new coach will be better or not is unknown. What is known is that Carlyle's not getting it down. Because of that, I think he needs to go and now. I see no benefit to keeping him around.

 

[TML fan]

The talent argument just isn't washing anymore. Just look at the talent disparity in the WJHC. Denmark was no match for Canada but they could at least organize a breakout play. The Leafs look like a peewee house league team against even the worst ranked teams in the league. Put aside statistics for 2 seconds and just watch the game. Watch the other team. Look at how organized they look compared to the Leafs. The players have just flat out stopped listening to the coaching staff and it's probably because what he's asking them to do is straight up BS. I'm sure Randy is a super swell guy but he's a lousy coach and he needs to go. Improving the talent of a team with a broken system is like bailing a sinking boat with a spoon. It'll work for a bit, but she's still gonna sink.

Or, you could have the wrong way around. That makes a lot more sense.

Soooo....the Leafs are losing to peewee house league teams?

 

[Kin]

Sorry you are correct Laviolette then...same point. Name changes point remains. Many coaches were able to do it once then never again.

Well, no. Because if someone said that Laviolette was a coach that could help a team won the Stanley Cup and the only thing that they took into consideration was the year he did win the Cup it would be kind of nuts for them to not consider the year he took a pretty mediocre Flyers team to within a game of a second cup a few years later. I think you're essentially creating a straw man here where someone is saying Carlyle's quality can be judged only by the 06-07 success and that literally nothing else matters.

I think that if someone were to argue that Carlyle is a good coach it would be on the strength of his overall record in Anaheim which included the cup run but that also included a pretty consistent record of making the playoffs and included taking a team without Pronger and with Perry/Getzlaf as 20 year old rookies to a conference finals.

That said, I can't speak for that person because that person isn't me. I don't think the issue is "good" or "bad" coaches as I think that just about anyone who is or is under serious consideration to be a NHL head coach is a good coach. I think the issue is that which coach is right for which situation is a complicated matter that even the people hiring these coaches don't have a handle on. Even if you think Carlyle is a terrible coach who handicaps his team and the way Anaheim improved under Boudreau is evidence of this then you have to explain why Boudreau was available after it seems like Washington more or less tuned him out despite him being a "good" coach or why his playoff record is as mediocre as it is.

 

[rdowdall]

The right coach for the leafs is the coach that can get that first line to limit the number of shots they allow.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The right coach for the leafs is the coach that can get that first line to limit the number of shots they allow.

Or at least be willing to try something different.  Bozak's stapled to Kessel other than for extremely brief forays into something different.  The only times it lasts longer than a game or two is when Bozak is injured.

 

[rdowdall]

The right coach for the leafs is the coach that can get that first line to limit the number of shots they allow.

Or at least be willing to try something different.  Bozak's stapled to Kessel other than for extremely brief forays into something different.  The only times it lasts longer than a game or two is when Bozak is injured.

I don't have time to look up the stats right now, but how much of the shot disparity on the leafs is caused by the first line?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I don't have time to look up the stats right now, but how much of the shot disparity on the leafs is caused by the first line?

JVR, Bozak, and Kessel have a combined CF of 41.55% at even-strength. The other 10 forwards who have played a minimum of 100 minutes are at 45.78%.

 

[MetalRaven]

Sorry you are correct Laviolette then...same point. Name changes point remains. Many coaches were able to do it once then never again.

Well, no. Because if someone said that Laviolette was a coach that could help a team won the Stanley Cup and the only thing that they took into consideration was the year he did win the Cup it would be kind of nuts for them to not consider the year he took a pretty mediocre Flyers team to within a game of a second cup a few years later. I think you're essentially creating a straw man here where someone is saying Carlyle's quality can be judged only by the 06-07 success and that literally nothing else matters.

I think that if someone were to argue that Carlyle is a good coach it would be on the strength of his overall record in Anaheim which included the cup run but that also included a pretty consistent record of making the playoffs and included taking a team without Pronger and with Perry/Getzlaf as 20 year old rookies to a conference finals.

That said, I can't speak for that person because that person isn't me. I don't think the issue is "good" or "bad" coaches as I think that just about anyone who is or is under serious consideration to be a NHL head coach is a good coach. I think the issue is that which coach is right for which situation is a complicated matter that even the people hiring these coaches don't have a handle on. Even if you think Carlyle is a terrible coach who handicaps his team and the way Anaheim improved under Boudreau is evidence of this then you have to explain why Boudreau was available after it seems like Washington more or less tuned him out despite him being a "good" coach or why his playoff record is as mediocre as it is.

That straw man...I created him very purposefully...even attempting to dismantle other people attempting to put straws in him by burning all the other straws. But hes not fake exactly. You say its nuts to argue only based on one success...I agree but its happening...all around you. I've seen many people use "Carlyle has won a cup in ANH" as a defense to why hes good for our club.

The purpose of bringing up Laviolette was to use an example of a coach who won 1 Stanley Cup and has been unable to repeat it.  That does not mean they are a bad coach. Nor am I picking on Laviolette or even Carlyle. (If you hadn't corrected me poor Laviolette wouldnt even be in this mess)

It simply means that past success is not indicative of future success.

Your points on Carlyle are almost exactly what im talking about. In fairness you do state that you are not the person to ask about RCs positives. However, to point to RCs record in ANH as any indication that he is good for the Leafs (or a good coach) without saying what it is RC did for ANH that got that record is confusing to me because there are many factors that are different between the 2 clubs, mainly that the Leafs aren't ANH. If we have to be ANH for him to be effective then hes not good for our club. (Again not directed at Nik as you said you  werent the person to defend RC)

I see people defending him. They see something I dont. Unless its just gut feelings I would like someone to point out any benefit RC is having or will have on our club.

 

[Kin]

That straw man...I created him very purposefully...even attempting to dismantle other people attempting to put straws in him by burning all the other straws. But hes not fake exactly. You say its nuts to argue only based on one success...I agree but its happening...all around you. I've seen many people use "Carlyle has won a cup in ANH" as a defense to why hes good for our club.

You've lost me then. You can't agree that it's a straw man and then say that people are genuinely making that argument. I really don't think that anyone who's discussing the issue seriously is saying anything like that.

Mor than that though it seems like you're jumping back and forth between asking people to defend the notion that Carlyle is a good coach, which was the question you originally asked, and asking if he's a good coach for this group which are two fundamentally different questions. To play Devil's Advocate, I'd answer the first and say that his record with the Ducks is absolutely evidence that he's a good coach and as to the second I'd say that if Carlyle has evidence that he's a good coach but not for this group I'd say that it opens the question as to whether or not this group is the one the team should realistically be going forward with.

But personally I think that the effect that a coach has on winning and losing is wildly overstated so I think it's all relatively moot. I also think that most of what a coach does that has an effect on the game is impossible to quantify and, as a result, demanding evidence for it like you're Jack McCoy is kind of pointless.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Blue is 11-12 Leafs under Wilson
Orange/Red is 11-12 Leafs under Carlyle
12-13, 13-14 obviously Carlyle

Columns show CF%

 

[freer]

Blue is 11-12 Leafs under Wilson
Orange/Red is 11-12 Leafs under Carlyle
12-13, 13-14 obviously Carlyle

Columns show CF%

Fire RC and hire RW then.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Blue is 11-12 Leafs under Wilson
Orange/Red is 11-12 Leafs under Carlyle
12-13, 13-14 obviously Carlyle

Columns show CF%

Fire RC and hire RW then.

That's not really what I'm saying with posting that, but moreso it's pretty shocking how virtually all of those players saw their CF% drop under Carlyle over the longer term.  Maybe there are some who increased who aren't shown but that's a good number of players (obviously some of which are no longer here - it's a bit dated) who all saw regression in terms of the possession aspect.

 

[pmrules]

Saying that Randy needs to be fired is only half the problem - we need a replacement for him.  Ignoring whether you believe it is going to happen or not, assuming a change is imminent,  who do you all want to replace Carlyle in the interim or on a FT basis and why would they be better than Randy? 

Candidates:

Internally - Sprott/Horachek/Dineen/Other
Externally - Paul MacLean/Torts/Bylsma/R. Wilson/B. Sutter/Crawford/Eakins/Keenan/Boucher/Other

(I'm not including Babcock since he is not available immediately.)

My vote is either for Sutter or Bylsma.  I think Sutter/Bylsma would not take any crap from any of the players and somehow make the core players play defense first.  I also think both would do well in using the current core players strengths/weaknesses and form a system that would make this team a better possession team.  Just my opinion.

I also think if both are here long term, that they need the rest of the season to make an assessment on the current core - I think the core is severely flawed, and as others have said, the new coach needs that time to assess who to keep and who needs to go.

 

[Highlander]

I would love to see Randy in Sudbury instead of T.O.  Let Spott and Horachuck run the team until either Babc__k or a suitable replacement is found to start next season.
My feeling is Randy will run the team until the end of the season but don't really understand why?

 

[Boston Leaf]

Stay the course  ... wait until end of year and then open books for Babcock? maybe that is the obvious master plan after all?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Candidates:

Internally - Sprott/Horachek/Dineen/Other
Externally - Paul MacLean/Torts/Bylsma/R. Wilson/B. Sutter/Crawford/Eakins/Keenan/Boucher/Other

The Leafs have dipped into the junior ranks a bit lately too. Dale Hunter and Sheldon Keefe both have obvious ties to the Leafs front office. But both of them probably wouldn't move during the season.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm less concerned about the replacement, because I don't think they should be bringing in the long-term guy until the summer, when there's a wider range of available options (that includes coaches in the junior leagues, assistant coaches on NHL teams, etc). I think promoting Spott or Horachek (or, both as associates) on an interim basis is the way to go. I know the trend seems to be to bring in the full-time replacement right away with mid-season, but, unless you have a guy already in the organization, I think that's a mistake.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I know the trend seems to be to bring in the full-time replacement right away with mid-season, but, unless you have a guy already in the organization, I think that's a mistake.

Worked out so well last time Leafs did it...

 

[Corn Flake]

deBoer now, or wait for Babs.

 

[MetalRaven]

That straw man...I created him very purposefully...even attempting to dismantle other people attempting to put straws in him by burning all the other straws. But hes not fake exactly. You say its nuts to argue only based on one success...I agree but its happening...all around you. I've seen many people use "Carlyle has won a cup in ANH" as a defense to why hes good for our club.

You've lost me then. You can't agree that it's a straw man and then say that people are genuinely making that argument. I really don't think that anyone who's discussing the issue seriously is saying anything like that.

Mor than that though it seems like you're jumping back and forth between asking people to defend the notion that Carlyle is a good coach, which was the question you originally asked, and asking if he's a good coach for this group which are two fundamentally different questions. To play Devil's Advocate, I'd answer the first and say that his record with the Ducks is absolutely evidence that he's a good coach and as to the second I'd say that if Carlyle has evidence that he's a good coach but not for this group I'd say that it opens the question as to whether or not this group is the one the team should realistically be going forward with.

But personally I think that the effect that a coach has on winning and losing is wildly overstated so I think it's all relatively moot. I also think that most of what a coach does that has an effect on the game is impossible to quantify and, as a result, demanding evidence for it like you're Jack McCoy is kind of pointless.

Demanding evidence? Like Jack McCoy? I had to look that guy up...never watched Law and Order but I also have big eyebrows (not that big) so ill accept it. I think someones taking this a might personal considering I thought I kept any inflammatory words down maybe its just my abrupt manner...or the fact that I said they are all around you....that was supposed to be for levity doesnt translate well on the internet.
I asked, if that somehow upset you then im sorry. If I came off as demanding again sorry but I do feel the need to refocus on my original point because as you so nicely pointed out im "jumping back and forth". (When I say good coach I mean good coach for this team but also being a human, and quite complicated I might add, I can also question whether or not he is a good coach at all and pointing to the one time he succeeded, under those specific circumstances, wont suddenly convince me that he didn't just get lucky or have the perfect situation.

You said "his record with the Ducks is absolutely evidence that he's a good coach" So because ANH won more hes a good coach, but then you follow up with "I think that the effect that a coach has on winning and losing is wildly overstated" So which was it the coach or the talent? Talent exactly and I agree. So then why do we suddenly assume RC is a good coach if it was the talent that was good? The record proves the talent was good. I dont believe it "proves" the coach is good.

Im not asking everyone to defend RC. Im asking for those people who are defending him to explain what it is they see...why are they hopeful? What do they think we need? What is it they feel RC provides that another coach doesn't. You know a discussion. Not demands. No one is going to jail, nor will I beat anyone up for not answering me. 

And seriously Nik name calling? common man