Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Highlander]

Me too, Maurice is a quality guy.

 

[Corn Flake]

You didn't seriously have him on your list, did you?

He really turned Winnipeg around (only to be betrayed by terrible goaltending). He may not have been at the top of my list, but it would have been irresponsible not to consider him as a candidate.

I would have had him on my list too. He put together a couple of pretty competitive Leafs teams despite absolutely atrocious goaltending.

Fair points guys, I just think about bringing a past coach/exec back again and feel like it's some sort of weird habit of teams in Toronto that generally doesn't work out. 

 

[Kin]

Generally, I haven't minded him as a NHL coach over his career. Didn't mind him as the Leafs coach either. But this team is kind of contractually stuck with this flawed core for a while. So I don't know how Carlyle can survive ... "you can't change all of the players so ..."

Good to have you back.

Anyways, I agree with you just about entirely. The one problem I have with the "you can't change the players" idea is that, big picture, what it means is that the team needs to be on the look-out for a coach who can figure out a way to build a cup contender from a severely flawed core which is as close as it gets to being an impossible task.

So when the candidates being tossed around are who they are, with either no track record or a pretty good track record of not being able to that, it's hard not to see it as treading water.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

You didn't seriously have him on your list, did you?

He really turned Winnipeg around (only to be betrayed by terrible goaltending). He may not have been at the top of my list, but it would have been irresponsible not to consider him as a candidate.

I would have had him on my list too. He put together a couple of pretty competitive Leafs teams despite absolutely atrocious goaltending.

Fair points guys, I just think about bringing a past coach/exec back again and feel like it's some sort of weird habit of teams in Toronto that generally doesn't work out.

I thought he did well with what he had in net with the team.  Was a weird time for the team when he was here.  But yeah, I'd have been shocked if he was brought back - which is a moot point now!

 

[ZBBM]

Generally, I haven't minded him as a NHL coach over his career. Didn't mind him as the Leafs coach either. But this team is kind of contractually stuck with this flawed core for a while. So I don't know how Carlyle can survive ... "you can't change all of the players so ..."

Good to have you back.

Anyways, I agree with you just about entirely. The one problem I have with the "you can't change the players" idea is that, big picture, what it means is that the team needs to be on the look-out for a coach who can figure out a way to build a cup contender from a severely flawed core which is as close as it gets to being an impossible task.

So when the candidates being tossed around are who they are, with either no track record or a pretty good track record of not being able to that, it's hard not to see it as treading water.

Welcome back x2.  You've been missed.

I also agree with youse twos.

 

[cw]

Generally, I haven't minded him as a NHL coach over his career. Didn't mind him as the Leafs coach either. But this team is kind of contractually stuck with this flawed core for a while. So I don't know how Carlyle can survive ... "you can't change all of the players so ..."

Good to have you back.

Anyways, I agree with you just about entirely. The one problem I have with the "you can't change the players" idea is that, big picture, what it means is that the team needs to be on the look-out for a coach who can figure out a way to build a cup contender from a severely flawed core which is as close as it gets to being an impossible task.

So when the candidates being tossed around are who they are, with either no track record or a pretty good track record of not being able to that, it's hard not to see it as treading water.

I guess I see it as a significant talent problem. Scotty Bowman in his prime wasn't going to win a cup with this group this year. And they can't very well default all their games next year and not show up.

So ... they can try someone else to try and get more out of the contracts they're kind of stuck with.

Worst case is probably close to "they won't be much worse off in the standings next year".

Best case is next year, they get a playoff run "where anything can happen" except as we know, it's very unrealistic to expect a parade.

Other than a year of eating Carlyle's last year of salary (relative peanuts to their overall financial picture), I don't see them as having much to lose.

 

[Kin]

I guess I see it as a significant talent problem. Scotty Bowman in his prime wasn't going to win a cup with this group this year. And they can't very well default all their games next year and not show up.

So ... they can try someone else to try and get more out of the contracts they're kind of stuck with.

Worst case is probably close to "they won't be much worse off in the standings next year".

Best case is next year, they get a playoff run "where anything can happen" except as we know, it's very unrealistic to expect a parade.

Other than a year of eating Carlyle's last year of salary (relative peanuts to their overall financial picture), I don't see them as having much to lose.

I agree with the idea that what this team primarily faces is a talent problem. The question then I think the team faces is how they want to deal with it or, I guess, how valuable or desirable that playoff spot is vs. doing whatever you can to build to the future even if a complete teardown isn't really an option.

So to me the question of Carlyle is less one of a W-L record and more the broader and harder to gauge issue of how well young players are coming along with him behind the bench. If there's something that Carlyle can hang his hat on right now it's that he seems to be a pretty good steward of young talent.

 

[Corn Flake]

You didn't seriously have him on your list, did you?

He really turned Winnipeg around (only to be betrayed by terrible goaltending). He may not have been at the top of my list, but it would have been irresponsible not to consider him as a candidate.

I would have had him on my list too. He put together a couple of pretty competitive Leafs teams despite absolutely atrocious goaltending.

Fair points guys, I just think about bringing a past coach/exec back again and feel like it's some sort of weird habit of teams in Toronto that generally doesn't work out.

I thought he did well with what he had in net with the team.  Was a weird time for the team when he was here.  But yeah, I'd have been shocked if he was brought back - which is a moot point now!

This is how many felt about John Gibbons.... and now.... blech.

You're right, it is moot.

 

[L K]

You didn't seriously have him on your list, did you?

He really turned Winnipeg around (only to be betrayed by terrible goaltending). He may not have been at the top of my list, but it would have been irresponsible not to consider him as a candidate.

I would have had him on my list too. He put together a couple of pretty competitive Leafs teams despite absolutely atrocious goaltending.

Fair points guys, I just think about bringing a past coach/exec back again and feel like it's some sort of weird habit of teams in Toronto that generally doesn't work out.

I thought he did well with what he had in net with the team.  Was a weird time for the team when he was here.  But yeah, I'd have been shocked if he was brought back - which is a moot point now!

This is how many felt about John Gibbons.... and now.... blech.

You're right, it is moot.

I think some of Gibbon's history was a bit revisionist though. He was a guy who had questionable lineup decisions, he was a guy who poorly managed his bullpen through micromanagement, he was a guy who had a lineup that struggled to get runners around the basepaths but didn't apply a different philosophy to get things done.

He was a guy who didn't do a good job of controlling egos in the dressing room.  He got in physical conflicts with Ted Lilly.  Got into confrontations with Alex Rios.  Those really aren't the signs of a guy who was doing that awesome of a job.

With Maurice I think maybe a bit of that is happening too.  I mean, ultimately he still had a very good Sundin and Kaberle/McCabe on defense.  The Leafs depth was definitely eroding at that time though relying on O'Neill, Wellwood, etc.  I do remember Maurice playing John Pohl way too much.  He did have some awful goaltenders though between Aubin, Raycroft and Tellqvist.  I mean give that 2006-2007 team either of Reimer or Bernier and they easily would have made the playoffs IMO.

 

[freer]

yet Mr Gibbons still holds the job.

 

[Kin]

He was a guy who didn't do a good job of controlling egos in the dressing room.  He got in physical conflicts with Ted Lilly.  Got into confrontations with Alex Rios.  Those really aren't the signs of a guy who was doing that awesome of a job.

Sure, but in the broader picture do you look at those Blue Jays lineups and think they should have done more than what they did?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

With Maurice I think maybe a bit of that is happening too.  I mean, ultimately he still had a very good Sundin and Kaberle/McCabe on defense.  The Leafs depth was definitely eroding at that time though relying on O'Neill, Wellwood, etc.  I do remember Maurice playing John Pohl way too much.  He did have some awful goaltenders though between Aubin, Raycroft and Tellqvist.  I mean give that 2006-2007 team either of Reimer or Bernier and they easily would have made the playoffs IMO.

Was still a tough situation I think - Sundin finished with 76 points in 75 games, but no other forwards cracked 50, either due to injury or skill.

But the goalies - all 3 combined for an .891 SV% for the season.  .891!  And they still missed by only 1 point.

EDIT: That team had 32.7 shots per game and 28.4 against per game (tied for 6th least in league), so they were probably a solid possession team too.  Imagine if they had a Bernier in net?

 

[cw]

I guess I see it as a significant talent problem. Scotty Bowman in his prime wasn't going to win a cup with this group this year. And they can't very well default all their games next year and not show up.

So ... they can try someone else to try and get more out of the contracts they're kind of stuck with.

Worst case is probably close to "they won't be much worse off in the standings next year".

Best case is next year, they get a playoff run "where anything can happen" except as we know, it's very unrealistic to expect a parade.

Other than a year of eating Carlyle's last year of salary (relative peanuts to their overall financial picture), I don't see them as having much to lose.

I agree with the idea that what this team primarily faces is a talent problem. The question then I think the team faces is how they want to deal with it or, I guess, how valuable or desirable that playoff spot is vs. doing whatever you can to build to the future even if a complete teardown isn't really an option.

So to me the question of Carlyle is less one of a W-L record and more the broader and harder to gauge issue of how well young players are coming along with him behind the bench. If there's something that Carlyle can hang his hat on right now it's that he seems to be a pretty good steward of young talent.

In fairness to Carlyle, the inexperience on his roster contributed to the result.

I'd also say that if I had to bet on which path to take:
Door #1) Fix this roster
vs
Door #2) Tear it apart and rebuild

I'd bet the faster path to a parade is more likely going through door #2 - even though a rebuild would take a considerable amount of time.

However, I'm not dwelling on that because the chances of the board going along with a rebuild based upon recent history and comments by MLSE execs is close to nil so from my point of view, there's little point in discussing what is so unlikely to ever happen - even though I wish they would do so.

For the development of the youth, gaining the experience of a new coach after two years of Carlyle, is probably more beneficial to most of them if they bear that in mind when they hire the next coach. Therefore, I don't see it as a major constraint going forward with a new coach.

A more important thing for near term success is to hire a coach who will adjust their system around the talent he has to work with - rather than mandate a system that has worked for that coach in the past. Arguably for example, Tortorella wasn't the best choice Vancouver could have made given the talent mix on their roster. He's a proven Cup winner, good defensively and tended to demand physical play but he's never been that strong on the style that lighter weight Vancouver roster needed to play to maximize their results in my opinion.

To some extent, I think Ron Wilson suffered in Toronto for the same reason. At times, he tried to get them to play a style that didn't suit the optimum sum of their talents. OTH, Pat Quinn tended to be pretty good at adjusting his system to the talent he had to work with - if he lacked physical shutdown talent, he went with a run and gun for example.

 

[Kin]

A more important thing for near term success is to hire a coach who will adjust their system around the talent he has to work with - rather than mandate a system that has worked for that coach in the past. Arguably for example, Tortorella wasn't the best choice Vancouver could have made given the talent mix on their roster. He's a proven Cup winner, good defensively and tended to demand physical play but he's never been that strong on the style that lighter weight Vancouver roster needed to play to maximize their results in my opinion.

To some extent, I think Ron Wilson suffered in Toronto for the same reason. At times, he tried to get them to play a style that didn't suit the optimum sum of their talents. OTH, Pat Quinn tended to be pretty good at adjusting his system to the talent he had to work with - if he lacked physical shutdown talent, he went with a run and gun for example.

I think I agree with that in the abstract but I think one of the reasons I grapple with it in the specific here is that as someone who's advocated for that complete tear down one of the reasons I've often said that it's ultimately necessary is that if you look at the composition of cup winners they tend to have a fairly similar sort of players in the high end spots and that acquiring those players needs to chiefly be done through picking right at the top of the draft.

The response to that, fairly frequently, has been to specifically point to the '07 Ducks as an example not only of a team that wasn't largely built around those high end draft picks but also as an example of a team that differed from most Cup winners in some important ways(not having a traditional #1 center, using a shutdown line almost as a #2 line, favouring a top heavy rather than a deep defense, etc).

So the Leafs hired the guy who made that work and, as we've watched them struggle we've heard about how the problem is now Carlyle and how the system that worked for him in Anaheim won't work in Toronto. So if the traditional route is off-limits and the only guy who's made the non-traditional route work doesn't have the right players in place it sounds like you're left with pretty limited options if that big shiny cup is the end goal.

I get that there's wisdom in recognizing that the board probably won't go for the tear down route and I appreciate that this team isn't the '07 Ducks but after that...where's the blue print?

 

[Andy007]

I don't know, it seemed to me that Pat Quinn's teams had alot of similar defensive issues but was saved by great, and at times elite, goaltending.

The same goes for Wilson who, when the goaltending was strong, had the team playing really well.

Carlyle's teams, even when they were winning, were almost never playing well. And once the goaltending dropped from "elite" to simply "good" the team could barely win a single game.

 

[Leaflifer]

I don't know, it seemed to me that Pat Quinn's teams had alot of similar defensive issues but was saved by great, and at times elite, goaltending.

The same goes for Wilson who, when the goaltending was strong, had the team playing really well.

Carlyle's teams, even when they were winning, were almost never playing well. And once the goaltending dropped from "elite" to simply "good" the team could barely win a single game.

This is a good point. The leafs won a lot of games last year and this year in pretty unconvincing style. They do have scoring talent and goaltending.

Let's not forget that the Leafs only show up for 10 to 20 minutes a game on average.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Also, Carlyle should really have been thankful for "unleashed" Gardiner:

‏@mc79hockey 

Post Olympics, Leafs at 5v5 with Gardiner on the ice: 14 GF, 13 GA, 47.3% Corsi. Without Gardiner: 39 GF 61 GA, 41.2% Corsi.

Pretty significant difference.

 

[L K]

He was a guy who didn't do a good job of controlling egos in the dressing room.  He got in physical conflicts with Ted Lilly.  Got into confrontations with Alex Rios.  Those really aren't the signs of a guy who was doing that awesome of a job.

Sure, but in the broader picture do you look at those Blue Jays lineups and think they should have done more than what they did?

It's a loaded question.  Based on the roster, probably not.  But that's just an assumption. 
They had a very decent top 3 in the rotation with Halladay, Lilly and Burnett.
They had a very good bullpen with BJ Ryan (before his collapse the next year), Speier, Downs, Frasor, Tallet, Schoenweis.

It certainly wasn't a year where I would have expected that Jays team to win but we can't ever really have a fair discussion of what could have happened that year if there was a different manager at the helm because that was a unique season with the team being signficantly differen the year before and the year after.

 

[Redleaf]

I guess I see it as a significant talent problem. Scotty Bowman in his prime wasn't going to win a cup with this group this year. And they can't very well default all their games next year and not show up.

So ... they can try someone else to try and get more out of the contracts they're kind of stuck with.

Worst case is probably close to "they won't be much worse off in the standings next year".

Best case is next year, they get a playoff run "where anything can happen" except as we know, it's very unrealistic to expect a parade.

Other than a year of eating Carlyle's last year of salary (relative peanuts to their overall financial picture), I don't see them as having much to lose.

I agree with the idea that what this team primarily faces is a talent problem. The question then I think the team faces is how they want to deal with it or, I guess, how valuable or desirable that playoff spot is vs. doing whatever you can to build to the future even if a complete teardown isn't really an option.

So to me the question of Carlyle is less one of a W-L record and more the broader and harder to gauge issue of how well young players are coming along with him behind the bench. If there's something that Carlyle can hang his hat on right now it's that he seems to be a pretty good steward of young talent.

In fairness to Carlyle, the inexperience on his roster contributed to the result.

I'd also say that if I had to bet on which path to take:
Door #1) Fix this roster
vs
Door #2) Tear it apart and rebuild

I'd bet the faster path to a parade is more likely going through door #2 - even though a rebuild would take a considerable amount of time.

However, I'm not dwelling on that because the chances of the board going along with a rebuild based upon recent history and comments by MLSE execs is close to nil so from my point of view, there's little point in discussing what is so unlikely to ever happen - even though I wish they would do so.

For the development of the youth, gaining the experience of a new coach after two years of Carlyle, is probably more beneficial to most of them if they bear that in mind when they hire the next coach. Therefore, I don't see it as a major constraint going forward with a new coach.

A more important thing for near term success is to hire a coach who will adjust their system around the talent he has to work with - rather than mandate a system that has worked for that coach in the past. Arguably for example, Tortorella wasn't the best choice Vancouver could have made given the talent mix on their roster. He's a proven Cup winner, good defensively and tended to demand physical play but he's never been that strong on the style that lighter weight Vancouver roster needed to play to maximize their results in my opinion.

To some extent, I think Ron Wilson suffered in Toronto for the same reason. At times, he tried to get them to play a style that didn't suit the optimum sum of their talents. OTH, Pat Quinn tended to be pretty good at adjusting his system to the talent he had to work with - if he lacked physical shutdown talent, he went with a run and gun for example.

I've been getting ripped apart for continually advocating this, but it hasn't persuaded me from thinking otherwise.

Carlyle isn't a bad coach. He may not be a perfect fit here, but I really don't understand the argument that his system is a major reason for this team's lack of success this season. There are more issues with the players than with the coaches.

It will be interesting to see how another coach does with this squad, and I believe we will find out next season. I will eat my words if he is able to keep this team playing a solid brand of hockey for an entire season, and gets them into the playoffs. I have severe doubts about that happening though, unless some substantial roster moves are also made this off season.

oh?btw?welcome back cw!

 

[Kin]

It's a loaded question.

I don't see how. If you think a manager plays a significant role in a team's W-L record then by criticizing Gibbons in that manner you're de facto saying that you think a better manager would have gotten a better result with a comparable talent level. I mean, I agree that there was talent there but that's why the Jays put up pretty good records under Gibbons.