Leafs @ Hurricanes - Jan. 9th, 7:00pm - SN, SN 590

[Stickytape]

Maybe Carlyle can convince Niedermayer to come out of retirement and Pronger to be less injured.

Using that criteria has any coach ever deserved credit for a Stanley Cup win? I don't think anyone is going to be sitting around in 20 years speaking with awe about the talent assembled on the 06-07 Ducks.

Other than an initial shake-up, does anyone really think replacing Carlyle will benefit this team in the long term?

It depends who they replace him with, of course.  But if whoever replaces him will dress and actually play a 4th line that does more than not punch people for 5 minutes a night, keep a 4th line center off the 3rd line, and/or implement any sort of system that doesn't see the team out-shot 25-50 every night, then yes, I think it will benefit the team in the long run.

If no such coach exists, then the team is screwed permanently and you might as well sell it for scrap.  I rather doubt that's the case, though.

 

[Joe S.]

Maybe Carlyle can convince Niedermayer to come out of retirement and Pronger to be less injured.

Using that criteria has any coach ever deserved credit for a Stanley Cup win? I don't think anyone is going to be sitting around in 20 years speaking with awe about the talent assembled on the 06-07 Ducks.

I was trying to make the point that Carlyle having a ring has little to no relation to how he's handling the team now. I wasn't trying to say that Carlyle had no impact on the cup win, because in all honesty I have no idea if he did at all.

 

[Kin]

I was trying to make the point that Carlyle having a ring has little to no relation to how he's handling the team now. I wasn't trying to say that Carlyle had no impact on the cup win, because in all honesty I have no idea if he did at all.

But I think the point that Cox is making is that Carlyle's cup ring is evidence that, at the very least, he has some sort of vague notion about how to coach a NHL team, an assertion that does seem to clash with some of the criticism he's receiving both here and elsewhere.

Does that automatically mean Carlyle's doing a good job now? No. But I think in light of the fact that he's had success in the past(and not just with Niedermayer and Pronger) and we've never really seen anything great from the guys he's coaching that it's a little unfair to isolate him as the problem.

 

[Joe S.]

I was trying to make the point that Carlyle having a ring has little to no relation to how he's handling the team now. I wasn't trying to say that Carlyle had no impact on the cup win, because in all honesty I have no idea if he did at all.

But I think the point that Cox is making is that Carlyle's cup ring is evidence that, at the very least, he has some sort of vague notion about how to coach a NHL team, an assertion that does seem to clash with some of the criticism he's receiving both here and elsewhere.

Does that automatically mean Carlyle's doing a good job now? No. But I think in light of the fact that he's had success in the past(and not just with Niedermayer and Pronger) and we've never really seen anything great from the guys he's coaching that it's a little unfair to isolate him as the problem.

Obviously Carlyle is a competent NHL coach. My assessment of the situation is of course simplistic - I'm baffled by the roster management, which is directly under Carlyle's control.

The fact that players don't know (allegedly) how to execute his system is more damning on the players. It boggles my mind that professional hockey players, who have been playing for probably 15-20 years of their lives, can't understand what a coach is asking them to do?

This team needs 2 changes - a 1991 culture change a la blue jays (sorry for the ancient reference) and a new philosophy.

 

[Highlander]

Carlyle lost the team out West, they stopped listening to him and he was fired.  I am not saying Eakins is the 2nd coming of anything as no one has been able to do anything with the Oiler underachievers, but he was the guy most of the young guys looked up to and he mentored them, hell he was in better shape than most of them.  Carlyle is playing tire irons when he could be playing a high energy 4th line that would eat up some minutes and provide some supplemental scoring, allowing the Kessels, JVR and Lupuls those extra seconds of rest that would give them more blast on their shifts.
Tampa brought up their AHL coach and they are not doing to bad are they?

 

[Kin]

But if whoever replaces him will dress and actually play a 4th line that does more than not punch people for 5 minutes a night, keep a 4th line center off the 3rd line, and/or implement any sort of system that doesn't see the team out-shot 25-50 every night, then yes, I think it will benefit the team in the long run.

But here's the thing, I've been posting on this board for 10 or so years. In that time I've seen a fairly repeatable pattern. Now, admittedly, I'm not an X's and O's expert or anything so I can't comment on the specific criticisms but the pattern goes like this: the team's coach is getting roughly out of his roster what the talent level would dictate, people eventually become unhappy with who is coaching the Leafs, a lot of the blame for the results is directed towards that coach's system or lack thereof, eventually that coach gets fired, the team then goes out and hires a coach who is very well regarded and has had success elsewhere, the new coach...proceeds to get out of his team roughly what the talent level of the team would dictate at which point everyone begins complaining about the new coach's system or lack thereof.

Now, again, I'm not an expert in the specifics here but given that experience and the fact that most coaches around the league roughly get out of their team what they should based on the talent of the roster...it becomes very difficult to sell me on the idea that different X's and O's would yield drastically different results.

 

[Highlander]

Good point Nik but look at some other squads, I am not overly enamoured with the Tampa Bay talent level but the coach seems to be motivating them. Perhaps like in a post I wrote yesterday, we are lacking the one or two players that bring the winning chemistry to the team, that motivate their teamates to a new level.
I am not sure Pylon Phaneuf can do this, he was not very articulate in the HBO series and I believe Bolland was one of those guys I was speaking about.  God if we could have gotten Patrick Sharpe at the same time.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I'm starting to believe that Carlyle's struggles have less to do with his experience/ Cup rings, as it does his ability to capture the respect of his players.

He came off a bit cocky in the 24/ 7 stuff for me. He wasn't a total knob, but calling Bozak Kessel's butler and singling out Kadri (while making him look a bit stupid) a lot of the time can have back-fire, especially with a young team that is by most of their accounts, "very tight". They may be young, but I think all professionals or humans for that matter, like to be respected and maybe we're seeing the teams patience wearing out.

One thing I don't see, or rarely with Carlyle, is a lot of teaching as opposed to yelling on the bench. Maybe he needs to at least change his approach with the players.

As stated above, Carlyle has had these types of issues before.

Just a thought...

 

[Kin]

Good point Nik but look at some other squads, I am not overly enamoured with the Tampa Bay talent level but the coach seems to be motivating them.

Ok, but leaving aside that Tampa has some pretty good players, including the reigning Art Ross winner, you're talking about 44 games.

Regardless, I'm not saying that a team can't play above it's talent level, just that it's not something that seems to be repeatable and isn't really a fair standard to hold a coach to.

 

[TML fan]

But if whoever replaces him will dress and actually play a 4th line that does more than not punch people for 5 minutes a night, keep a 4th line center off the 3rd line, and/or implement any sort of system that doesn't see the team out-shot 25-50 every night, then yes, I think it will benefit the team in the long run.

But here's the thing, I've been posting on this board for 10 or so years. In that time I've seen a fairly repeatable pattern. Now, admittedly, I'm not an X's and O's expert or anything so I can't comment on the specific criticisms but the pattern goes like this: the team's coach is getting roughly out of his roster what the talent level would dictate, people eventually become unhappy with who is coaching the Leafs, a lot of the blame for the results is directed towards that coach's system or lack thereof, eventually that coach gets fired, the team then goes out and hires a coach who is very well regarded and has had success elsewhere, the new coach...proceeds to get out of his team roughly what the talent level of the team would dictate at which point everyone begins complaining about the new coach's system or lack thereof.

Now, again, I'm not an expert in the specifics here but given that experience and the fact that most coaches around the league roughly get out of their team what they should based on the talent of the roster...it becomes very difficult to sell me on the idea that different X's and O's would yield drastically different results.

When you get outplayed as badly by Buffalo as you do by Pittsburgh, it's hard to sell me on talent being the problem. Some teams are better suited to play a certain way, based on the types of players they have and their talent level. Carlyle has not only incorrectly assessed his players, but as it's become obvious that his method won't work with them, he's proven unable to adapt his methods to his team.

It's not that Carlyle is a bad coach. It's that he's a bad coach for this team. In that sense, you're right it's the players fault. It's just a hell of a lot easier to replace 1 guy than 18.

 

[Kin]

When you get outplayed as badly by Buffalo as you do by Pittsburgh, it's hard to sell me on talent being the problem. Some teams are better suited to play a certain way, based on the types of players they have and their talent level. Carlyle has not only incorrectly assessed his players, but as it's become obvious that his method won't work with them, he's proven unable to adapt his methods to his team.

It's not that Carlyle is a bad coach. It's that he's a bad coach for this team. In that sense, you're right it's the players fault. It's just a hell of a lot easier to replace 1 guy than 18.

All of which I'd find much more compelling if the criticisms of Carlyle, as I say, weren't essentially the same as the criticisms of Quinn, Maurice and Wilson.

And while I have no problem with the idea of firing Carlyle, I'm just entirely unconvinced that whoever coaches the team next will get anything substantially above the talent level of the team which, all things considered, I think they're roughly at now.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

And while I have no problem with the idea of firing Carlyle, I'm just entirely unconvinced that whoever coaches the team next will get anything substantially above the talent level of the team which, all things considered, I think they're roughly at now.

You think the current play of the Leafs is indicative of the talent they have on the team?

 

[mr grieves]

And while I have no problem with the idea of firing Carlyle, I'm just entirely unconvinced that whoever coaches the team next will get anything substantially above the talent level of the team which, all things considered, I think they're roughly at now.

27th in the league in points over the majority of the season is this team's talent level? That's not what you said over the summer.

 

[Kin]

You think the current play of the Leafs is indicative of the talent they have on the team?

Current play as in the last few weeks current? No. Current as in the season as a whole? More or less.

 

[Kin]

27th in the league in points over the majority of the season is this team's talent level? That's not what you said over the summer.

Lucky for me then it's also not what I said in the post you quoted.

 

[mr grieves]

27th in the league in points over the majority of the season is this team's talent level? That's not what you said over the summer.

Lucky for me then it's also not what I said in the post you quoted.

Well, I thought it'd be unfair of me to take "now" to mean in the midst of a three game losing streak to non-playoff teams, in which the Leafs have given up 6 and 7 goals to two of league's worst offenses. Two and half months of poor play seemed a more reading than a week of disastrous play.

 

[Kin]

Well, I thought it'd be unfair of me to take "now" to mean in the midst of a three game losing streak to non-playoff teams, in which the Leafs have given up 6 and 7 goals to two of league's worst offenses. Two and half months of poor play seemed a more reading than a week of disastrous play.

Yeah, but it would be absolutely fair, and as a bonus accurate, to read what I wrote as being about their point total/place in the standings now, reflecting the entire year, and not about an arbitrary grouping of games designed to emphasize a point.

That cleared up I will restate for anyone who comes to the party late, the sentence in question should be interpreted as "I don't think anyone will get substantially more out of this group of players than Carlyle has to this point which is 47 points over 45 games"

 

[mr grieves]

Well, I thought it'd be unfair of me to take "now" to mean in the midst of a three game losing streak to non-playoff teams, in which the Leafs have given up 6 and 7 goals to two of league's worst offenses. Two and half months of poor play seemed a more reading than a week of disastrous play.

Yeah, but it would be absolutely fair, and as a bonus accurate, to read what I wrote as being about their point total/place in the standings now, reflecting the entire year, and not about an arbitrary grouping of games designed to emphasize a point.

That cleared up I will restate for anyone who comes to the party late, the sentence in question should be interpreted as "I don't think anyone will get substantially more out of this group of players than Carlyle has to this point which is 47 points over 45 games"

And, as long as I'm learning to be fair, let me ask: what Carlyle's "got out of" the team is meant only to indicate results -- and, more specifically, points -- not performance according to any particular measure?

 

[Kin]

Well, I thought it'd be unfair of me to take "now" to mean in the midst of a three game losing streak to non-playoff teams, in which the Leafs have given up 6 and 7 goals to two of league's worst offenses. Two and half months of poor play seemed a more reading than a week of disastrous play.

Yeah, but it would be absolutely fair, and as a bonus accurate, to read what I wrote as being about their point total/place in the standings now, reflecting the entire year, and not about an arbitrary grouping of games designed to emphasize a point.

That cleared up I will restate for anyone who comes to the party late, the sentence in question should be interpreted as "I don't think anyone will get substantially more out of this group of players than Carlyle has to this point which is 47 points over 45 games"

And, as long as I'm learning to be fair, let me ask: what Carlyle's "got out of" the team is meant only to indicate results -- and, more specifically, points -- not performance according to any particular measure?

I'd say points are a pretty fair measure of performance.