Carlyle fired

[bustaheims]

Until they definitively tell me that it was Horachek and Spott that determined player deployment, ice time, etc., I will maintain my optimism. I am assuming that Horachek and Spott were professionals that respected the chain of command and did their best in an increasingly dour situation.

Horachek was in charge of the PK, but, outside of that, I have to believe that anything he tried to do during the games was focused on instructing the players within the confines of Carlyle's system.

 

[ZBBM]

Well, this is playing out exactly as I hoped it would.  They could have skipped the drama and the waste of a half-season by hiring Horachek as head after last season, but hey, that's nonisissence.

Now we can talk about whether it's better to pre-anoint Babcock or whether Horachek would be a better fit for The Great Rebuild that's in the offing.

 

[Highlander]

Well this is the beatiful thing about dumping Randy now. Horachuck gets the best part of half a season to show us if he can lead us to the promised land. We can always annoint him as permanent head coach later. 

 

[herman]

Well, this is playing out exactly as I hoped it would.  They could have skipped the drama and the waste of a half-season by hiring Horachek as head after last season, but hey, that's nonisissence.

Now we can talk about whether it's better to pre-anoint Babcock or whether Horachek would be a better fit for The Great Rebuild that's in the offing.

As mentioned in the article Potvin29 linked, Horachek would've likely been overwhelmed in the spotlight of Toronto media if he was trotted out there as the head coach in the off season. This whole season was, by my estimation, meant to be a 'show me what you've got' audition for Carlyle/Nonis to shelter Shanahan's actual choices as they acclimate to the Leafs' dysfunction.

If Babcock doesn't bite on this wide-open invitation to be the team's coach and saviour for all the moneys, then we still have Horachek/deBoer/Bylsma/etc. to fall back on with Shanahan having a better idea of what players/managers to keep/toss.

 

[freer]

More flame to the fire.

Hope_Smoke @Hope_Smoke
Kypreos also said Carlyle didn't do a lot of 1 on 1 teaching and communicate with players. That's something others have mentioned too.

In fact, big reason for the assistant coaching changes was to create more communication for the players. Goes also back to Dubas' comments where he said it was the team's responsibility to help young players develop rather than just telling them it's all on them.

Ppl want to rip Leafs leadership/character, but it was obvious (from player personnel changes & deployment) RC liked one way & stuck with it

Never adapted and continuously tried to hammer a square peg into a round hole. It hindered development & depreciated assets.

Repeated reports about how Carlyle didn't like Holland and therefore wouldn't play him (Leafs wasted a 2nd rnd pick bc Holland sat on bench). Ray Ferraro came out and said it was because he thought PH was soft cuz of the lace bite

Throughout Carlyle's tenure he has also mentioned over and over again how he doesn't understand why players aren't playing through injuries

Carlyle said he was not here to develop but to win games. Damning considering org pushed "young, developing team" angle

I think Carlyle would still be the coach today if he focused on developing the young players and their in-game thinking processes (Gardiner!), and didn't worry about the results. It wasn't the wins and losses that sealed his fate. Unfortunately, he thought his seat security came from the final results, and not the underlying metrics of coaching (process, communication, teaching vs. preaching).

I am a bit disappointed his apparent attitude towards the younger players was so sink-or-swim, as now we've lost critical development time on assets. However, the (new) coaching staff now has a strong negative example to play off of to motivate players to try different things.

Gardiner is not young anymore, when it comes to games played. 200+ games makes you a veteran, and he has gotten worse rather then better. IMO it should be sink or swim for him.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Gardiner is not young anymore, when it comes to games played. 200+ games makes you a veteran, and he has gotten worse rather then better. IMO it should be sink or swim for him.

This is his 3rd full season in the NHL.

 

[freer]

Gardiner is not young anymore, when it comes to games played. 200+ games makes you a veteran, and he has gotten worse rather then better. IMO it should be sink or swim for him.

This is his 3rd full season in the NHL.

still a veteran classification in my eyes.

 

[Andy007]

Gardiner is not young anymore, when it comes to games played. 200+ games makes you a veteran, and he has gotten worse rather then better. IMO it should be sink or swim for him.

This is his 3rd full season in the NHL.

Well by his very precise and tested mathematical equation, a veteran would acquire such a label after 2.5 seasons thus Gardiner is beyond a veteran.

 

[herman]

Gardiner had his development stunted, so games played are irrelevant if he was never really taught how to get better (this applies to most of the youth under Carlyle's tenure).

He has the physical tools to be a top-flight offensive d-man. His only issue is decision-making, which comes with good coaching, experience, and cleaning up some bad habits/instincts. His decision making flaws were exposed on a Leafs 'team' whose forwards hardly ever supported their defense for breakout plays.

 

[freer]

Gardiner had his development stunted, so games played are irrelevant if he was never really taught how to get better (this applies to most of the youth under Carlyle's tenure).

He has the physical tools to be a top-flight offensive d-man. His only issue is decision-making, which comes with good coaching, experience, and cleaning up some bad habits/instincts. His decision making flaws were exposed on a Leafs 'team' whose forwards hardly ever supported their defense for breakout plays.

Ok, so the difference between Gardiner's decline and say someone like Luke Schenn are different why?

 

[herman]

Gardiner had his development stunted, so games played are irrelevant if he was never really taught how to get better (this applies to most of the youth under Carlyle's tenure).

He has the physical tools to be a top-flight offensive d-man. His only issue is decision-making, which comes with good coaching, experience, and cleaning up some bad habits/instincts. His decision making flaws were exposed on a Leafs 'team' whose forwards hardly ever supported their defense for breakout plays.

Ok, so the difference between Gardiner's decline and say someone like Luke Schenn are different why?

Schenn can't skate. You can optimize someone's skating to make them marginally faster, but if you don't have the physical ability to keep up with the game's speed, that's it.

Like I said in another thread some time ago, the day of the stay-at-home defenseman is done.

 

[Highlander]

Luke Scheen was an anvil whom couldnt skate, Gardiner is a cheeta and needs to be let loose, sort of like our Kessel on defence, he needs to be paired with a great defensive defenceman

 

[freer]

Gardiner had his development stunted, so games played are irrelevant if he was never really taught how to get better (this applies to most of the youth under Carlyle's tenure).

He has the physical tools to be a top-flight offensive d-man. His only issue is decision-making, which comes with good coaching, experience, and cleaning up some bad habits/instincts. His decision making flaws were exposed on a Leafs 'team' whose forwards hardly ever supported their defense for breakout plays.

Ok, so the difference between Gardiner's decline and say someone like Luke Schenn are different why?

Schenn can't skate. You can optimize someone's skating to make them marginally faster, but if you don't have the physical ability to keep up with the game's speed, that's it.

Like I said in another thread some time ago, the day of the stay-at-home defenseman is done.

Schenn was a very good rookie, as was Jake. They both have gotten worse over time. Do you not agree? How much time do you grant a player to prove himself?

 

[Kin]

Schenn was a very good rookie, as was Jake. They both have gotten worse over time. Do you not agree?

No. Schenn was not very good as a rookie. Schenn's flaws weren't as exposed but as the years have passed it's become more and more clear that he doesn't have the physical tools to excel as a defenseman in the modern NHL. Gardiner is a different case. First of all, Gardiner's best season was last year, not his rookie year and his problems this year can't really be attributable to not having the physical ability to do what he did last year.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Like this is almost unbelievable how consistent it is:

WOWY = With and Without You - in other words, Red is without Carlyle, Blue is with Carlyle.

@draglikepull 

The average boost to post-Carlyle Corsi for those players is 8.3%!

 

[freer]

Like this is almost unbelievable how consistent it is:

WOWY = With and Without You - in other words, Red is without Carlyle, Blue is with Carlyle.

@draglikepull 

The average boost to post-Carlyle Corsi for those players is 8.3%!

so according to that chart, Carlyle wrecked Liles career.

 

[rdowdall]

Okay, so lets say the CORSI gets better and the team starts playing better, and starts winning more games then they lose.  Does that mean that it was the coaches fault the whole time?  Or are the Leafs really just back to square one with a flawed roster with no real tools to plug the holes? 

 

[bustaheims]

Okay, so lets say the CORSI gets better and the team starts playing better, and starts winning more games then they lose.  Does that mean that it was the coaches fault the whole time?  Or are the Leafs really just back to square one with a flawed roster with no real tools to plug the holes?

It's not that black and white. No one has ever seriously suggested that it is. If the Leafs possession games significantly improves over the rest of the season, it shows that Carlyle was a major impediment to their success, yes, but, unless they combine that with going deep in the playoffs/winning the Cup, he also wasn't the only one. What it would show is that maybe the team isn't as far away as they have looked for the last season and a half, and that the "core" doesn't need to be blown up, but, rather, massaged, reshaped and upgraded.

 

[freer]

Okay, so lets say the CORSI gets better and the team starts playing better, and starts winning more games then they lose.  Does that mean that it was the coaches fault the whole time?  Or are the Leafs really just back to square one with a flawed roster with no real tools to plug the holes?

Well it means that the coaches system didn't work. Players did not play his system. BTW they did win more then they lost in the first half of the season.

 

[TML fan]

Okay, so lets say the CORSI gets better and the team starts playing better, and starts winning more games then they lose.  Does that mean that it was the coaches fault the whole time?  Or are the Leafs really just back to square one with a flawed roster with no real tools to plug the holes?

Nobody is saying this team will challenge for a Cup. I know that's the ultimate goal but I think almost everyone has accepted that is not a reality for this team. I think most people are suggesting that the team would play better under a different coach, and that remains to be seen.

I can't speak for everyone here, but from my point of view, I'd like to see some playoff hockey and I think, now that Carlyle is out of the way, it's a real possibility for this team. I'm not under any illusions that this team doesn't need to be blown up and start from scratch to be seriously considered a contender, but I don't think that is a realistic option. They're just not going to do it. In the mean time, I'd just like to watch some meaningful hockey played by a team that doesn't bore and frustrate me to death.