Carlyle fired

[freer]

I think the Leafs giving Horchuk 'player of the game' is a real slap in Randy Carlyle's face.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-name-horachek-player-of-the-game/

That seems so childish to me, these guys are supposed to be professional. This group of players seem childish, sort of like when they decided to not salute the fans because they were upset at the booing and sweater throwing after a 9-2 loss.

Who really care if they didn't salute the fans! I am not a fan of the Ranger which is where it started.

you mean kessel?

I mean the "Rangers".  from NY

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Just re-listened to Dubas' interview on TSN 1050 earlier today. He was asked about how the communication has differed between Carlyle and the front office and Horachek and the front office. Said that before the firing Randy mostly communicated with just Nonis; while Dubas, Hunter, Horachek, and Spott all communicated with each other. He made note that it was typical in an organization for the newcomers to bond with each other a little more than the guys who had been in the organization previously. So the conclusion was basically that there's a lot more open communication between the head coach, assistant coach, and all the members of the front office now than there was previously.

 

[Kin]

Just re-listened to Dubas' interview on TSN 1050 earlier today. He was asked about how the communication has differed between Carlyle and the front office and Horachek and the front office. Said that before the firing Randy mostly communicated with just Nonis; while Dubas, Hunter, Horachek, and Spott all communicated with each other. He made note that it was typical in an organization for the newcomers to bond with each other a little more than the guys who had been in the organization previously. So the conclusion was basically that there's a lot more open communication between the head coach, assistant coach, and all the members of the front office now than there was previously.

Which is great and all but post-Carlyle firing there's been a little bit too much hand-wiping for my tastes. Not even that it's not true but that if it is true then there's really no excuse for there not to have been a change sooner.

 

[rdowdall]

Just re-listened to Dubas' interview on TSN 1050 earlier today. He was asked about how the communication has differed between Carlyle and the front office and Horachek and the front office. Said that before the firing Randy mostly communicated with just Nonis; while Dubas, Hunter, Horachek, and Spott all communicated with each other. He made note that it was typical in an organization for the newcomers to bond with each other a little more than the guys who had been in the organization previously. So the conclusion was basically that there's a lot more open communication between the head coach, assistant coach, and all the members of the front office now than there was previously.

Which is great and all but post-Carlyle firing there's been a little bit too much hand-wiping for my tastes. Not even that it's not true but that if it is true then there's really no excuse for there not to have been a change sooner.

After any coach is fired in any city, there seems to be a lot of damage control. 

 

[Redleaf]

Don't get me wrong, they needed to try and fix the underlying issues with this club, but I'll say it again...

Carlyle wasn't the problem with this team.

In fact, it looks like he got more out of them, at least in the win-loss column, than was reasonably expected.

The Leafs will now go on a bit of a win streak against some of the weaker teams coming up, and end of in the mushy middle, missing the playoffs AND without being able to pick up any sure fire players at the draft.

Gotta love this team, or you'd go mad with all the wild roller coaster rides. Especially the dips, and double loopers...

 

[Andy007]

And, again, what are you basing this on? 6 games? How can you make any possible conclusion on that tiny of a sample size? Not to mention the fact that the team is without Lupul, Holland, Komarov and has played 4 games in 6 nights, all on the road, against top tier teams. Didn't you say earlier that you would wait until the 20 game mark (not that that provides much more scientific evidence anyway)?

 

[Redleaf]

And, again, what are you basing this on? 6 games? How can you make any possible conclusion on that tiny of a sample size? Not to mention the fact that the team is without Lupul, Holland, Komarov and has played 4 games in 6 nights, all on the road, against top tier teams. Didn't you say earlier that you would wait until the 20 game mark (not that that provides much more scientific evidence anyway)?

Basing what on exactly?

 

[Andy007]

And, again, what are you basing this on? 6 games? How can you make any possible conclusion on that tiny of a sample size? Not to mention the fact that the team is without Lupul, Holland, Komarov and has played 4 games in 6 nights, all on the road, against top tier teams. Didn't you say earlier that you would wait until the 20 game mark (not that that provides much more scientific evidence anyway)?

Basing what on exactly?

Uhh.. that the players are the entire problem and Carlyle wasn't part of the problem at all.

 

[Redleaf]

And, again, what are you basing this on? 6 games? How can you make any possible conclusion on that tiny of a sample size? Not to mention the fact that the team is without Lupul, Holland, Komarov and has played 4 games in 6 nights, all on the road, against top tier teams. Didn't you say earlier that you would wait until the 20 game mark (not that that provides much more scientific evidence anyway)?

Basing what on exactly?

Uhh.. that the players are the entire problem and Carlyle wasn't part of the problem at all.

You can go ahead and lay out the reasons I'm wrong if you'd like...

 

[Andy007]

And, again, what are you basing this on? 6 games? How can you make any possible conclusion on that tiny of a sample size? Not to mention the fact that the team is without Lupul, Holland, Komarov and has played 4 games in 6 nights, all on the road, against top tier teams. Didn't you say earlier that you would wait until the 20 game mark (not that that provides much more scientific evidence anyway)?

Basing what on exactly?

Uhh.. that the players are the entire problem and Carlyle wasn't part of the problem at all.

You can go ahead and lay out the reasons I'm wrong if you'd like...

You're the one making the claim. You have concluded, after six games without Carlyle, that Carlyle was not a problem and that the players are to blame. Tell us how you came to that conclusion after six games (with 3 big injuries, and 4 on the road against better teams).

 

[Redleaf]

And, again, what are you basing this on? 6 games? How can you make any possible conclusion on that tiny of a sample size? Not to mention the fact that the team is without Lupul, Holland, Komarov and has played 4 games in 6 nights, all on the road, against top tier teams. Didn't you say earlier that you would wait until the 20 game mark (not that that provides much more scientific evidence anyway)?

Basing what on exactly?

Uhh.. that the players are the entire problem and Carlyle wasn't part of the problem at all.

You can go ahead and lay out the reasons I'm wrong if you'd like...

You're the one making the claim. You have concluded, after six games without Carlyle, that Carlyle was not a problem and that the players are to blame. Tell us how you came to that conclusion after six games (with 3 big injuries, and 4 on the road against better teams).

First of all I've been saying that for over a year, secondly you're the one having the problem with it. Tell me why you think I'm wrong if you want.

 

[Andy007]

And, again, what are you basing this on? 6 games? How can you make any possible conclusion on that tiny of a sample size? Not to mention the fact that the team is without Lupul, Holland, Komarov and has played 4 games in 6 nights, all on the road, against top tier teams. Didn't you say earlier that you would wait until the 20 game mark (not that that provides much more scientific evidence anyway)?

Basing what on exactly?

Uhh.. that the players are the entire problem and Carlyle wasn't part of the problem at all.

You can go ahead and lay out the reasons I'm wrong if you'd like...

You're the one making the claim. You have concluded, after six games without Carlyle, that Carlyle was not a problem and that the players are to blame. Tell us how you came to that conclusion after six games (with 3 big injuries, and 4 on the road against better teams).

First of all I've been saying that for over a year, secondly you're the one having the problem with it. Tell me why you think I'm wrong if you want.

I've already stated the huge limitations with your statement in my response(s). I'm still waiting to hear how you came to your conclusion based on only 6 games.

 

[Redleaf]

And, again, what are you basing this on? 6 games? How can you make any possible conclusion on that tiny of a sample size? Not to mention the fact that the team is without Lupul, Holland, Komarov and has played 4 games in 6 nights, all on the road, against top tier teams. Didn't you say earlier that you would wait until the 20 game mark (not that that provides much more scientific evidence anyway)?

Basing what on exactly?

Uhh.. that the players are the entire problem and Carlyle wasn't part of the problem at all.

You can go ahead and lay out the reasons I'm wrong if you'd like...

You're the one making the claim. You have concluded, after six games without Carlyle, that Carlyle was not a problem and that the players are to blame. Tell us how you came to that conclusion after six games (with 3 big injuries, and 4 on the road against better teams).

First of all I've been saying that for over a year, secondly you're the one having the problem with it. Tell me why you think I'm wrong if you want.

I've already stated the huge limitations with your statement in my response(s). I'm still waiting to hear how you came to your conclusion based on only 6 games.

Wow. I came to my conclusions over a year ago. Go back and look over my posts regarding the matter if you must. :

 

[Bullfrog]

First of all I've been saying that for over a year, secondly you're the one having the problem with it. Tell me why you think I'm wrong if you want.

You're missing the whole point of his post: that you CAN'T provide any solid opinion based on the fact it's been only six games, the team has a bunch of injured players, and it was the toughest road trip of the season.

Obviously, you're free to make an opinion on the team and Carlyle based on the past, which you've done. However, if this team improves under Horachek then it's fair to say Carlyle was a big part of the problem. Aside form a completely unsustainably low shot percentage and lack of wins, the data seems to indicate the team is improving.

 

[Redleaf]

First of all I've been saying that for over a year, secondly you're the one having the problem with it. Tell me why you think I'm wrong if you want.

You're missing the whole point of his post: that you CAN'T provide any solid opinion based on the fact it's been only six games, the team has a bunch of injured players, and it was the toughest road trip of the season.

Obviously, you're free to make an opinion on the team and Carlyle based on the past, which you've done. However, if this team improves under Horachek then it's fair to say Carlyle was a big part of the problem. Aside form a completely unsustainably low shot percentage and lack of wins, the data seems to indicate the team is improving.

You're both missing my point. I'm not basing it on the past six games.

 

[Andy007]

And, again, what are you basing this on? 6 games? How can you make any possible conclusion on that tiny of a sample size? Not to mention the fact that the team is without Lupul, Holland, Komarov and has played 4 games in 6 nights, all on the road, against top tier teams. Didn't you say earlier that you would wait until the 20 game mark (not that that provides much more scientific evidence anyway)?

Basing what on exactly?

Uhh.. that the players are the entire problem and Carlyle wasn't part of the problem at all.

You can go ahead and lay out the reasons I'm wrong if you'd like...

You're the one making the claim. You have concluded, after six games without Carlyle, that Carlyle was not a problem and that the players are to blame. Tell us how you came to that conclusion after six games (with 3 big injuries, and 4 on the road against better teams).

First of all I've been saying that for over a year, secondly you're the one having the problem with it. Tell me why you think I'm wrong if you want.

I've already stated the huge limitations with your statement in my response(s). I'm still waiting to hear how you came to your conclusion based on only 6 games.

Wow. I came to my conclusions over a year ago. Go back and look over my posts regarding the matter if you must. :

Wow?

Anyhoots, what made you write, then, a year after your conclusions, that Carlyle wasn't to blame? Nothing should have changed, right? Obviously you were insinuating that the team's play under Horachek validated your conclusion and I responded to that argument.

Also, you've been posting the last week about how you weren't sure there would be a difference (not: there won't be a difference) under a new coach. Posters kept saying to wait and you said you'd give the team 20 games to see how they played. And then you made your conclusion today, after game 6. Wow indeed.

 

[Redleaf]

And, again, what are you basing this on? 6 games? How can you make any possible conclusion on that tiny of a sample size? Not to mention the fact that the team is without Lupul, Holland, Komarov and has played 4 games in 6 nights, all on the road, against top tier teams. Didn't you say earlier that you would wait until the 20 game mark (not that that provides much more scientific evidence anyway)?

Basing what on exactly?

Uhh.. that the players are the entire problem and Carlyle wasn't part of the problem at all.

You can go ahead and lay out the reasons I'm wrong if you'd like...

You're the one making the claim. You have concluded, after six games without Carlyle, that Carlyle was not a problem and that the players are to blame. Tell us how you came to that conclusion after six games (with 3 big injuries, and 4 on the road against better teams).

First of all I've been saying that for over a year, secondly you're the one having the problem with it. Tell me why you think I'm wrong if you want.

I've already stated the huge limitations with your statement in my response(s). I'm still waiting to hear how you came to your conclusion based on only 6 games.

Wow. I came to my conclusions over a year ago. Go back and look over my posts regarding the matter if you must. :

And then you made your conclusion today, after game 6. Wow indeed.

The wow was because you keep insisting that I've just come up with this conclusion this morning. My conclusion was made over a year ago. Go back and read my posts.

 

[Bullfrog]

First of all I've been saying that for over a year, secondly you're the one having the problem with it. Tell me why you think I'm wrong if you want.

You're missing the whole point of his post: that you CAN'T provide any solid opinion based on the fact it's been only six games, the team has a bunch of injured players, and it was the toughest road trip of the season.

Obviously, you're free to make an opinion on the team and Carlyle based on the past, which you've done. However, if this team improves under Horachek then it's fair to say Carlyle was a big part of the problem. Aside form a completely unsustainably low shot percentage and lack of wins, the data seems to indicate the team is improving.

You're both missing my point. I'm not basing it on the past six games.

oh?

 

[Rebel_1812]

this thread has deteriorated quickly.

 

[freer]

this thread has deteriorated quickly.

I am happy that they removed Carlyle. Unfortunately when he was remove the team was in a playoff spot. Now we are not. That is not the new coaches fault, but people need some one to blame.