Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Redleaf]

We could go the other way too...

Mike Murphy?

Ok. So if my point is that there is no one template for what makes a good coaching hire the idea that inexperienced guys can be just as bad a hire as experienced guys supports that.

I agree in the sense that were not talking about a sure fire method of selecting the right guy either way. But I still think that the more experienced guy has a little better chance to succeed. I mean, if we're rolling the dice anyways, don't we at least want a guy with a long standing proven record?

 

[bustaheims]

I agree in the sense that were not talking about a sure fire method of selecting the right guy either way. But I still think that the more experienced guy has a little better chance to succeed. I mean, if we're rolling the dice anyways, don't we at least want a guy with a long standing proven record?

No, we want the guy who is the best fit and most likely to maximize the talent on the roster, regardless of experience. The truth is, it's been a long time since the Leafs gave an experienced coach a quality roster to work with. They've always brought them in when the roster was very talent thin and in a transitional period. They haven't really been given the opportunity to succeed here, and that's led to the perception that they can't succeed here. While the current roster may not be overflowing with high end talent, it's a much better roster than what guys like Murphy, Carpenter or Watt were ever offered.

 

[Kin]

I agree in the sense that were not talking about a sure fire method of selecting the right guy either way. But I still think that the experienced guy has a little better chance to succeed. I mean, if we're rolling the dice anyways, don't we at least want a guy with a proven record?

It's a trade-off. Guys with "proven records" who are available tend to be available because their records are good, not great. Guys without those records are, I suppose, more likely to be washouts but also could be great coaches who just need the right opportunity. Bill Belichick, Joe Maddon, Gregg Popovich...none of those guys got hired with a long history of pretty good performances behind them.

Considering the expectations some people are putting on the team's next coach, they're probably better off swinging for the fences.

 

[Redleaf]

I agree in the sense that were not talking about a sure fire method of selecting the right guy either way. But I still think that the more experienced guy has a little better chance to succeed. I mean, if we're rolling the dice anyways, don't we at least want a guy with a long standing proven record?

No, we want the guy who is the best fit and most likely to maximize the talent on the roster, regardless of experience.

I suppose that guy will come right out and tell Shanahan who he is, just to make things easier?

 

[Kin]

But you also can't just assume that a good record will translate because of what goes into a good team record besides what a coach does. Wilson had a good record of results with a good collection of talent in SJ but couldn't translate that into being a good coach of a developing team. Carlyle had a good record in Anaheim but was never a "He got those results with that roster?!?!?" kind of guy which is what people want here. The idea that there's going to be a candidate out there with a proven track record of really solid results with a Leafs-esque team is, I think, not particularly realistic.

 

[Redleaf]

Carlyle had a good record in Anaheim but was never a "He got those results with that roster?!?!?" kind of guy which is what people want here.

The verdict is still out as to whether or not Carlyle was a "He got those results with that roster?!?" here in Toronto. For all we know he may have gotten more out of this Leaf team than we realize right now. I understand most people probably won't agree with that, but I'm not entirely convinced he didn't

 

[Kin]

The verdict is still out as to whether or not Carlyle was a "He got those results with that roster?!?" here in Toronto. For all we know he may have gotten more out of this Leaf team than we realize right now. I understand most people probably won't agree with that, but I'm not entirely convinced he didn't

Well, leaving aside the fact that even if you were right about that it would speak to my point about a coach's record not following him around I think it's pretty silly to suggest that considering that the phenomenon I'm speaking of actually requires a coach to get good results with a team which Carlyle really hasn't.

 

[Hampreacher]

It has little to do with track record. Every coach has to win the cup for the first time. Coaches that have won championships have been fired. The point is are they doing the job. A coach uses the talents they have and adapts how they coach to the styles of the team around them. Carlyle refuses to change his style to match the talent the team has. That is not to say they cannot over time mold the team into their style. Secondly he was not able to motivate the players. Thus he needs to be fired. The next coach needs to be a motivator and able to ge the most out of the collection of players they have. The leafs are a playoff team with the right motivation and as they seek to improve the team. We need a Brent Sutter type who does not like dead weight on the team. If you don't put out a 110% effert your gone.

 

[Redleaf]

The verdict is still out as to whether or not Carlyle was a "He got those results with that roster?!?" here in Toronto. For all we know he may have gotten more out of this Leaf team than we realize right now. I understand most people probably won't agree with that, but I'm not entirely convinced he didn't

Well, leaving aside the fact that even if you were right about that it would speak to my point about a coach's record not following him around I think it's pretty silly to suggest that considering that the phenomenon I'm speaking of actually requires a coach to get good results with a team which Carlyle really hasn't.

I guess it all really depends on what management is able to do this off season to improve the club. An experienced guy coming in on the 'upswing',  (much like we saw when Pat Burns came in) has a better chance in my mind to succeed than Shanahan just wildly 'swinging for the fences' and hoping for success to follow.

 

[Kin]

I guess it all really depends on what management is able to do this off season to improve the club. An experienced guy coming in on the 'upswing',  (much like we saw when Pat Burns came in) has a better chance in my mind to succeed than Shanahan just wildly 'swinging for the fences' and hoping for success to follow.

I think you're exaggerating the extent to which a relatively inexperienced coach is an unknown quantity. Nobody becomes a NHL head coach without a wealth of AHL or CHL head coaching experience or NHL assistant coaching experience. That experience might not translate directly into the NHL but most of what I think people would say are the qualities or responsibilities a coach has are things they do in those roles. Kevin Dineen wouldn't be a wild swing. He's been a head coach in pro hockey for 10 years including in the NHL.

Are the tactics in the AHL or CHL the same as in the NHL? Is motivating a junior the same as motivating a vet? No. But the truth is that each locker room and each organization is different. Nobody is going to have a track record of doing exactly what they're being tasked to do here and, if they did, the reality is that the market here makes it something else entirely. You're always flying blind to some extent, so to be solely focused on one aspect of a coach's resume is, I think, fairly counter-productive.

 

[Redleaf]

I guess it all really depends on what management is able to do this off season to improve the club. An experienced guy coming in on the 'upswing',  (much like we saw when Pat Burns came in) has a better chance in my mind to succeed than Shanahan just wildly 'swinging for the fences' and hoping for success to follow.

I think you're exaggerating the extent to which a relatively inexperienced coach is an unknown quantity. Nobody becomes a NHL head coach without a wealth of AHL or CHL head coaching experience or NHL assistant coaching experience. That experience might not translate directly into the NHL but most of what I think people would say are the qualities or responsibilities a coach has are things they do in those roles. Kevin Dineen wouldn't be a wild swing. He's been a head coach in pro hockey for 10 years including in the NHL.

Are the tactics in the AHL or CHL the same as in the NHL? Is motivating a junior the same as motivating a vet? No. But the truth is that each locker room and each organization is different. Nobody is going to have a track record of doing exactly what they're being tasked to do here and, if they did, the reality is that the market here makes it something else entirely. You're always flying blind to some extent, so to be solely focused on one aspect of a coach's resume is, I think, fairly counter-productive.

This whole discussion started when I posted a reply that I didn't see Dineen as a tantalizing option. The 'swing for the fences' was another direction you took that I was responding to.

Regardless, I agree that coaching success in the AHL can transfer to success in the NHL under the right circumstances, and perhaps we can find the right guy taking that direction. There's just no examples of that happening in Toronto in the modern era.

And now we complete the 360 and you say...it doesn't until it does. 

 

[Rebel_1812]

Anyone want to organize a pool for Carlyle's departure date?

A carpool?  ;D

What if he doesn't get fired?

Leafs will start the season on a long losing streak.  Either a core of players are traded or common sense arises and Carlyle gets fired.  I personally see nothing in Carlyle that would warrant a contract extension so I cannot he could possibly return.

Its not a sure thing; I'd say the odds are 80% he gets fired.  If there are no better coaching options they will stick with the only guy to get the leafs to the playoffs since the first lockout.  I think they wanted Deboer or Maurice; but those options have dried up.  Who is a better available coaching option?  Its not like Nonis can go with an unproven guy, because if the miss the playoffs another season his job is gone too.

Barry Trotz would be a good fit, as would Peter Laviolette. Either of them would be a better option than the two you mentioned, and both are still available. There could also be other names in play after the playoffs are over, I can easily see for example Bylsma getting fired if the Pens don't make it past the first 2 rounds.

Laviolette and Bylsma aren't know for being good defensive coaches and I think we can all agree the shots against has to improve.  Trotz was a very average coach, and only lasted so long because he worked for a Mickey Mouse operation.

 

[Rebel_1812]

I agree in the sense that were not talking about a sure fire method of selecting the right guy either way. But I still think that the experienced guy has a little better chance to succeed. I mean, if we're rolling the dice anyways, don't we at least want a guy with a proven record?

It's a trade-off. Guys with "proven records" who are available tend to be available because their records are good, not great. Guys without those records are, I suppose, more likely to be washouts but also could be great coaches who just need the right opportunity. Bill Belichick, Joe Maddon, Gregg Popovich...none of those guys got hired with a long history of pretty good performances behind them.

Considering the expectations some people are putting on the team's next coach, they're probably better off swinging for the fences.

Thats what I saw in Peter Deboer.  He was great in the OHL with the Kitchener Rangers. He basically had his pick of NHL jobs and picked wrong with Florida Panthers.  Neither the panthers nor the devils has had a very talented roster but he has done well with what he has.  Too bad he is now locked up with the devils.

 

[Rebel_1812]

The verdict is still out as to whether or not Carlyle was a "He got those results with that roster?!?" here in Toronto. For all we know he may have gotten more out of this Leaf team than we realize right now. I understand most people probably won't agree with that, but I'm not entirely convinced he didn't

Well, leaving aside the fact that even if you were right about that it would speak to my point about a coach's record not following him around I think it's pretty silly to suggest that considering that the phenomenon I'm speaking of actually requires a coach to get good results with a team which Carlyle really hasn't.

He got more out of Kadri then Wilson ever did.

 

[Rebel_1812]

And now we complete the 360 and you say...it doesn't until it does. 

Lol.  Yes that and sniper quotes are his hallmarks.

 

[Kin]

This whole discussion started when I posted a reply that I didn't see Dineen as a tantalizing option. The 'swing for the fences' was another direction you took that I was responding to.

Right and in this case I'm using Dineen as an example of the problem with looking at coaches without a great NHL history as largely unknown commodities.  I don't think that's true in general but especially not when a guy's been coaching as long as he has and has had some of the successes that he has. To the extent that he's fit for the Leafs, I think, is an unknown in the exact same way that a more experienced coach's fit with the club is unknown.

Regardless, I agree that coaching success in the AHL can transfer to success in the NHL under the right circumstances, and perhaps we can find the right guy taking that direction. There's just no examples of that happening in Toronto in the modern era.

Maybe, but it's happened lots of times around the league in that time and, quite frankly, I would be very suspicious if MLSE was overly concerned with the Leafs' recent history while trying to build a championship team.

 

[Kin]

He got more out of Kadri then Wilson ever did.

My goodness. It's like time is linear.

 

[Boston Leaf]

At this point I don't see Carlyle being fired. I think it would have been done by now to be fair to
Carlyle. I think he is back with a very short leash... Maybe he will get rid of a half dozen or so assistant coaches they have

 

[Redleaf]

This whole discussion started when I posted a reply that I didn't see Dineen as a tantalizing option. The 'swing for the fences' was another direction you took that I was responding to.

Right and in this case I'm using Dineen as an example of the problem with looking at coaches without a great NHL history as largely unknown commodities.  I don't think that's true in general but especially not when a guy's been coaching as long as he has and has had some of the successes that he has. To the extent that he's fit for the Leafs, I think, is an unknown in the exact same way that a more experienced coach's fit with the club is unknown.

Regardless, I agree that coaching success in the AHL can transfer to success in the NHL under the right circumstances, and perhaps we can find the right guy taking that direction. There's just no examples of that happening in Toronto in the modern era.

Maybe, but it's happened lots of times around the league in that time and, quite frankly, I would be very suspicious if MLSE was overly concerned with the Leafs' recent history while trying to build a championship team.

I don't know about MLSE as they're making money regardless, but Nonis and Shanahan should be very concerned with the Leafs recent history moving forward. In fact, it should be keeping Shanny up at night thinking about how he can avoid more of the same.

 

[Redleaf]

At this point I don't see Carlyle being fired. I think it would have been done by now to be fair to
Carlyle. I think he is back with a very short leash... Maybe he will get rid of a half dozen or so assistant coaches they have

I think the odds he stays next season increase a little more each day he's still around.