Leafs @ Avalanche - Nov. 6th, 9:00pm - TSN4, Fan 590

[Joe S.]

I don't get your cryptic babcock stuff. First of all he's not coming to the Leafs. Second of all, even if he did, and the players stay the same, how much difference could a coach possibly make? A difference of a couple of wins?

Carlyle annoys me, but Babcock won't turn this team into a 100 point division winner on his own.

 

[Arn]

Agreed.

How many times do people get these notions and nominate the next saviour only for it to not happen. Most often recently it's happened with UFAs where people have gone on and on all season how they'll sign with the Leafs and save the team only for them to go to New York or Columbus or Minnesota.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't get your cryptic babcock stuff. First of all he's not coming to the Leafs. Second of all, even if he did, and the players stay the same, how much difference could a coach possibly make? A difference of a couple of wins?

Carlyle annoys me, but Babcock won't turn this team into a 100 point division winner on his own.

It depends on the coach I would think.  If a coach like Tippett, with a track record of strong defensive teams/systems, were able to instill a system like that on last season's Leafs team, with the quality of goaltending the Leafs received, I would imagine that might be worth more than 2 wins. 

But it's pretty impossible to really say.  Too many variables.

EDIT: I should add now that I think about it, you can look at certain stats that show Leafs teams under Wilson performed pretty good overall and then were let down by goaltending, and compare those stats before and after Carlyle.  Then compare Carlyle here to when he was fired in Anaheim.  This has been done before so I won't go into it too much, but it appears that Carlyle had a negative overall impact on the team, which was 'hidden' somewhat by the team acquiring very good goaltending.  It's hard to say for sure how much to pin on the coach, is it coincidence or not - but at least in Carlyle's case there seems to be trends you can look at (at least possession-wise) going back to Anaheim and continuing into Toronto that make you wonder.

 

[bustaheims]

I don't get your cryptic babcock stuff. First of all he's not coming to the Leafs. Second of all, even if he did, and the players stay the same, how much difference could a coach possibly make? A difference of a couple of wins?

I don't know. Look how much Anaheim turned around the season after Carlyle was fired, and they didn't make many roster changes that summer - and certainly, no significant ones. The right coach instilling the right system and the right structure can make a significant difference. Yes, there's no guarantee that they will, but, if the head coach's strategies and such are the biggest sources of problems for a team, the possibility exists.

 

[Highlander]

Actually I am cryptic, like the same reasons some of us knock on wood. Not superstition just don't want to jinx anything, therefore the name as such.

Overall we have to look at the bigger picture, when Burke arrived full of brime and bluster he wanted to reshape the team and make it in his image. The suites at Bell/Rogers cannot handle larger than life personalities and he was shown the door, same treatment for Leweike. Regardless of how you feel about Burke, he did show the Muskoka 5 the door, swung some unbelievable trades bringing us: Phanuef, Gardiner, Franson, Kessel, JVR and drafted a few good ones in Kadri and Reilly. So there was some form of platform to build on.

So we move on and actually I feel even better about the new regime. Lewieke for all his faults is going to be remembered as the guy whom turned around the Raptors, eventually TFC and then knowing his weakest link is hockey, he goes and and hires perhaps the best choice available in Shanahan.  The Shanahan makes his imprint by firing and hiring all the right people, gets rid of Randys sidekicks and brings in two very good assistants, extends Randy (Until what I hope what will happen next year),  fires the old guard, old thinking boys club in Louiselle and Poulin and brings in a brilliant young mind in Dubois.  And then caps it all by bringing in Hunter, this is a lot of movement in one year.  and believe me the Shanaplan is watching and don't think he is not involved, watch his face on the games he is at.
So we have a platform of good young talent, we have assembled a first rate front office and a semblance of a coaching staff.  What is really missing, two or three key players and a coach, like the one I won't mention.
As Cathal said in his article a few weeks ago, that B?..k has nothing left to prove in Detroit, or with our Olympic teams.  His legacy will be turning around an Original Six team. And the only one truly floundering and lost on the wind are the aptly named?Leafs.  A true legacy for any coach would be to bring a Stanley Cup to Toronto.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm not saying that Babcock to the Leafs is definitely going to happen, but there are a few reasons him coming here makes a lot of sense.

1) Money. I don't think that Babcock is greedy, but there's apparently a lot of grumblings from coaches about how they're paid very little compared to other leagues. They're also a very tight-knit community. Right now Quenneville is the highest paid head coach at just $2.75mil. If Babcock can come in and demand $4mil from the Leafs that sets a new bar that other coaches can bring in up negotiations. Not a lot of teams are going to be able to provide that type of salary. A big reason Byslma wasn't hired this offseason is because nobody could really top what Pittsburgh is currently paying him to be unemployed.

2) Power. Again, this is hearsay, but apparently Babcock wants more control over player-related decisions. He wants a gig like Roy has in Colorado. I'm not sure how much control Holland will be willing to give up in Detroit. But if he's coming here to replace Randy then there will likely be a vacancy at the GM position as well. Babcock likely wouldn't replace Nonis too but I'm sure Shanahan could find a GM willing to have Babcock in his front office.

3) Ego. Highlander touched on this, and referenced Cathal Kelly's article on the same subject. But basically Babcock wants to be known as the best head coach of his generation. If he can bring a Cup to Toronto the dude will have his face on stamps at some point.

 

[Highlander]

Missed one.
Friendship  Shanaplan and the B are very very good friends and have the same mindset.
                And for those of us who have been at the same job over 15 years,no matter how    great sometimes long for a change.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Missed one.
Friendship  Shanaplan and the B are very very good friends and have the same mindset.
                And for those of us who have been at the same job over 15 years,no matter how    great sometimes long for a change.

There's actually a few accounts that Shanahan hated playing for Babcock. With that said, a lot of good coaches aren't liked by players so I'm not sure that would exclude Babcock from being a target of Shanny's. But I wouldn't list their relationship as a reason for him coming here.

 

[herman]

http://thehockeywriters.com/red-wings-coach-mike-babcock-doesnt-hold-back-in-radio-interview/
Mike Babcock's coaching style:

If you don?t want to be coached, don?t come here. If you want to be pushed to be the best you can be, come here.

I think Carlyle is cut from the same mold philosophically; where they differ (critically) is in the how they coach (systems, teaching the game). Babcock can teach a skill-independent game, where the only demand is execution and the hard work required to do so. His level of team preparation is unparalleled. That 2014 Gold Medal game was a quiet, textbook dismantling of the Swedes through relentless puck pressure and possession.

I sense that Carlyle is trying to do something similar, but for some reason he isn't able to get through to the players. That and there are some inherent flaws to the system that he is slow to correct. I don't think anyone on this board would be against seeing Babcock coach here, but I'll believe it when I see it. Just like Stamkos taking a hometown discount for his next contract.

 

[Highlander]

with the rumours of having corporate logos a la Soccer on our sweaters our caps should go up and Stamkos could become affordable at market price.
Just imagine the Bad Boy logo where the Leaf crest used to be.. Can't wait for this brave new world.

 

[Madferret]

Stamkos...Babcock...anyone else? What about Karlsson or Subban? Crosby?

 

[Joe S.]

All I know is that since I've been posting here, I've seen 4 coaches come and go; Quinn, Maurice, Wilson and Carlyle.

What was the common criticism from most posters here? 'They don't have a system' or 'They're system doesn't work' and it's always the coach that isn't here who has some magical system that will fix what ails this team.

This team just isn't good enough, this isn't a coaching problem, this is a talent problem.

 

[Kin]

All I know is that since I've been posting here, I've seen 4 coaches come and go; Quinn, Maurice, Wilson and Carlyle.

What was the common criticism from most posters here? 'They don't have a system' or 'They're system doesn't work' and it's always the coach that isn't here who has some magical system that will fix what ails this team.

This team just isn't good enough, this isn't a coaching problem, this is a talent problem.

This. This right here.

 

[herman]

All I know is that since I've been posting here, I've seen 4 coaches come and go; Quinn, Maurice, Wilson and Carlyle.

What was the common criticism from most posters here? 'They don't have a system' or 'They're system doesn't work' and it's always the coach that isn't here who has some magical system that will fix what ails this team.

This team just isn't good enough, this isn't a coaching problem, this is a talent problem.

Maybe we have different definitions of talent, but I think we've had some phenomenal players contribute here in that time period (Sundin, Roberts, Mogilny, Kaberle, Kessel). I define talent as those physical/psychological gifts that can't really be taught.

If we had a true system, talent would be the icing on the cake that puts us over the top. Buying talent was what put our terrible systems play into contention in the Quinn/Sundin years, with nary a thought for actual development. The lockout year pushed our aging best players into decline. Grossly misreading the salary cap and rule changes of 2004 put us in a deeper hole as we continued to try to buy our way to a Cup.

All those post-season press conferences when our coaches and GMs had to answer for failure kept mentioning things like no team identity, not enough compete, losing too many one-on-one battles, which are all signs that the Leafs did not have everyone pulling in the same direction at the same time.

What I believe we need is
1) a management team dedicated to driving cost-effective talent into the development and NHL systems;
2) a development system that focuses on molding players into hard working, disciplined plan executers;
3) an on-ice system that doesn't depend on any one player, that generates opportunities that we can control, and that limits the opportunities against

Gardiner and Kadri both have tremendous talent, and they both see the game well, but they don't seem to think the game as well as they could. Talent needs a firm, sustainable direction, and a good system serves as a firm foundation for talent to be a creative difference maker. Based on what we heard from certain interviews these last few years, we've wasted our accumulated talent on flawed systems that make our players work even harder than necessary. No wonder they're crashing and burning by the 4th quarter of every season.

I'm excited to see how Shanahan's changes play out because there appears to be a dedication to drafting and developing the best talent, using our resources to analyze and determine the best strategies. This season is all about the growing pains that comes with a direction change, and we're going to see what parts perform and stick around, and what parts don't fit anymore.

 

[Highlander]

I vote for Herman to become aide de camp for Hunter. Man you grasp what is going on and a welcome addition to this site.

Kadri showed a flash last night when he 1. tipped the puck inside his blue line and 2. did a beeline straight up ice and stood in front of the net for the Kessel swat in.  More of that please  Mr.Kadri

 

[Kin]

All those post-season press conferences when our coaches and GMs had to answer for failure kept mentioning things like no team identity, not enough compete, losing too many one-on-one battles, which are all signs that the Leafs did not have everyone pulling in the same direction at the same time.

Or it's a bunch of meaningless phrases that at once shift the blame onto nobody and everybody. It's a sign that a team without a real plan to accumulate the sort of talent necessary to be one of the better teams in the league, which the Leafs haven't really had despite the fact that they have had some good individuals on the team in the last 15 years, needs to try and sell the public on an easy answer, one that hints at a major success just being around the corner as opposed to the long, hard road that the truly successful teams walked before accumulating the raw talent needed to win.

You say it yourself, when the Leafs had a good collection of talent in the early 2000's, they won. Then, with the same Coach in control, they began to stop being effective once the team became less talented. It wasn't a failure of system. The results that Wilson got in San Jose but couldn't replicate in Toronto weren't a matter of him teaching an effective style of play to one group of players and then simply disregarding the idea later.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

All I know is that since I've been posting here, I've seen 4 coaches come and go; Quinn, Maurice, Wilson and Carlyle.

What was the common criticism from most posters here? 'They don't have a system' or 'They're system doesn't work' and it's always the coach that isn't here who has some magical system that will fix what ails this team.

This team just isn't good enough, this isn't a coaching problem, this is a talent problem.

I don't recall Quinn being a systems thing or even Wilson for that matter.  I don't remember far enough back to know the board consensus on Quinn (or probably even Wilson) but whether or not those were fan criticisms of those coaches or not shouldn't really matter to the evaluation of this coach.  And that's awhile back too - I know I've certainly changed a LOT in how I view the game and how I view certain players and coaches in the past and that reflects and influences how I view them in the present.  But I know the Leafs are squandering the prime seasons of their best players and players that they have committed to, so if they're going to commit to these players but it's not working under this coach then the next logical step is to find one who does.  I think the issues with the past coaches were as much organizational as the coach themselves - Burke had Wilson but never got him a capable goalie; Maurice suffered a similar fate; Quinn seemed to be scapegoat for the first team to miss the postseason in years. 

Failing in those seasons shouldn't be reason not to make a move in this one if you think it's going to pay dividends for the team.  The right coach can help set the organizational direction for continued sustained success from the AHL team up.  If that's not Carlyle, and he's shown no indication so far that it is him, then they need to find the person who is.

 

[Andy007]

But the thing is I see notable differences in team play and systems in relation to the different coaches. Maurice had a much more stable defence that would make smart, simple plays in the defensive zone. He just had absolutely brutal goaltending (and still managed respectable teams). Wilson had stretches where the goaltending alternated between awful and great and when the goalies played great, the team looked great. Under Carlyle the team has almost never looked great. The stats all give credence to these observations.

As for Quinn, well I'm sure the changing of the entire rulebook and deterioration of an aging #1 goalie after a full year off was the most to blame for that team's failure.

 

[Kin]

But the thing is I see notable differences in team play and systems in relation to the different coaches. Maurice had a much more stable defence that would make smart, simple plays in the defensive zone. He just had absolutely brutal goaltending (and still managed respectable teams). Wilson had stretches where the goaltending alternated between awful and great and when the goalies played great, the team looked great. Under Carlyle the team has almost never looked great. The stats all give credence to these observations.

As for Quinn, well I'm sure the changing of the entire rulebook and deterioration of an aging #1 goalie after a full year off was the most to blame for that team's failure.

I don't think Joe's post, and I know this is true for mine, should be seen in anyway as a pro-Carlyle or even a anti-firing Carlyle stance. Just as a "No coach will fix the fundamental deficits in Talent that are the real problem the team will face going forward" stance and just a frank acknowledgement that "the system" gets blamed by a great many fans regardless of who's coaching the team when the results aren't there.

 

[herman]

...
You say it yourself, when the Leafs had a good collection of talent in the early 2000's, they won. Then, with the same Coach in control, they began to stop being effective once the team became less talented. It wasn't a failure of system. The results that Wilson got in San Jose but couldn't replicate in Toronto weren't a matter of him teaching an effective style of play to one group of players and then simply disregarding the idea later.

I agree with you. Talent wins games.

My argument is that talent alone only gets you so far. Take, for example, the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002 against Carolina. On paper, we had the better team, in spite of the injuries (Sundin returned!). But Carolina made it easier for themselves by playing a system that limited opportunities against, and increased their possession time. The Leafs system at the time, if I recall correctly, was run and gun and blame Aki Berg. A good system elevates a team; talent takes it to the next level.

Let's say hockey was simplified down to a game of War -- Team A's value vs Team B's value; each team's value is determined by the sum of its players and their individual values. Some are very talented, so they get high values (10 for Crosby/Toews/Bergeron?). Some have stone hands and can't skate, so they're negative values. Obviously, the more talented team wins out. However, if there is a system in place that puts everyone in an optimal position to succeed in a) generating opportunity (i.e. possession, controlled entry) and b) limiting opposing chances; then it's like every player gets an automatic +4 or something.

Talent is fleeting, and dependent on having the right players at the right age and stage of development; there's a science to it that I don't know enough about, but the analytics play a huge role. Talent is also costly, and in a salary cap world, that cost makes talent a limited commodity. In light of that, a strong, well developed system is a worthwhile investment that doesn't count against the cap and it elevates the team irrespective of the talent level.

Detroit comes to mind as a good example. They play a tight, possession based game and generate chances with disciplined passes. They make Gustavsson look good. Last year's Leafs are a good example of a terrible system that gave everyone -3 to their player values. Some had the talent to rise above it (Kessel, JvR) and had some measure of success. The team did not.

I vote for Herman to become aide de camp for Hunter. Man you grasp what is going on and a welcome addition to this site.

Thanks, you're making me blush. Honestly, I just watch the game and read what a lot of you very capable people say and research. I joined so that I could try to contribute to the conversation and refine my own ideas about the game. I have a macro idea of what I'd like the Leafs to do (see previous posts), but I haven't the faintest idea how to go about implementing any of those things.