Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Kin]

Mike Murphy took over in 96 and 97 and implemented a defensive system. The team was awful, gave up alot of goals, and finished about 10-15 games under .500 each year. Pat Quinn then comes in and implements an up tempo run and gun system with the same core and they make the conference finals. Sometimes all it takes is a simple philosophy change (or a different voice in the dressing room).

Curtis Joseph played a small part there too.

 

[Andy007]

Mike Murphy took over in 96 and 97 and implemented a defensive system. The team was awful, gave up alot of goals, and finished about 10-15 games under .500 each year. Pat Quinn then comes in and implements an up tempo run and gun system with the same core and they make the conference finals. Sometimes all it takes is a simple philosophy change (or a different voice in the dressing room).

Curtis Joseph played a small part there too.

Really? His .910 save % made that much of a difference over Potvin's .908 the previous year?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

It's as bad as "the Leafs won last year because of Reimer and luck".

So you don't think Reimer was the #1 reason that we won as many games as we did last season?

 

[bustaheims]

And to respond simply, Carlyle is preaching those very things yet the players aren't producing it on a nightly basis.  We've heard him say it, we've heard the reports from practice about what he's yelling at them, etc.  So to say it's Carlyle telling them to do something other than this is not correct, IMO. 

From the way the team plays, I'd say Carlyle is give them mixed messages. He wants an up tempo offensive system, but one that does not rely on the rush. That's kind of contradictory. On top of that, he has them playing a very passive defensive system that makes things much more difficult in terms of implementing an up tempo offence. The team needs to be aggressive in all three zones, not just the offensive zone.

So to me it comes down to the players at some point need to finally deliver, or they are the wrong players, or Carlyle is not getting the message across.  If it's point #3 then maybe a coaching change helps that, but to be honest I don't think it will change a lot.

If the team isn't implementing the coach's system properly that either means the first step is that system needs to change or the coach needs to change. If things don't improve from taking a different direction there, then you start changing the talent. Make the easy move first before you start taking the difficult path, as it might not be needed.

All teams have certain traits, like the Capitals seem to have the same qualities and weaknesses they've head for years despite six different coaches. Changing the voice screaming won't always change the result. Toronto really isn't a lot different, and will (like the Caps) struggle to be a legit contender until they find away to reduce the weaknesses as much as possible.

While this is true to an extent, all teams find success from maximizing their use of their areas of strength, rather than trying to overcommit to covering up their areas of weakness. You compensate for your weaknesses by enhancing your strengths first.

 

[nutman]

So today they should be in a room for at least ten hrs viewing the last two games and answering questions from the coaching staff. also things should be pointed out.

 

[Corn Flake]

It's as bad as "the Leafs won last year because of Reimer and luck".

So you don't think Reimer was the #1 reason that we won as many games as we did last season?

Didn't say that at all.  I don't have any issue with Reimer being considered the #1 reason.

My point is luck is not the #2 thru #999 reasons.  did the Leafs have some luck? In general, sure they did .............. for the first bloody season in about the last eight or so.

 

[Kin]

Really? His .910 save % made that much of a difference over Potvin's .908 the previous year?

Well, yes, I'll stand by the statement that Curtis Joseph played a huge role in their success that year but also that's far from being the only personnel change the Leafs made. There was a lot of turnover that year and a lot of young players took big steps forward. At the beginning of the final Mike Murphy season the defense was

Murphy-Yushkevich
Schneider-Smith
Macoun-Zettler

Then, in the first Quinn year, the six top defensemen were

Yushkevich-Cote
Kaberle-Berard
Smith-Markov

That's a big change.

 

[Tigger]

I think, to put things really simply, based on the talent on the roster, the Leafs need to be playing a much more up tempo, aggressive system rather than the passive system they've been using. They need to take away time and space in all three zones, force turnovers and create more opportunities to take advantage of their size and their speed.

Mike Murphy took over in 96 and 97 and implemented a defensive system. The team was awful, gave up alot of goals, and finished about 10-15 games under .500 each year. Pat Quinn then comes in and implements an up tempo run and gun system with the same core and they make the conference finals. Sometimes all it takes is a simple philosophy change (or a different voice in the dressing room).

IIRC Quinn also later lamented that he believed at the time that the league was going to go 'all in' on addressing interference and later decided he needed to rejig the team ( make it more physical and grind-y ) to make it more successful, specifically in the playoffs, fwiw.

I don't mind the thought of the Leafs going all out on run and gun but I also think that dimension alone won't lead to a cup win. What Carlyle ( or most coaches would for that matter ) is asking them to do is develop themselves into a two way team, which they're not, they're missing some essential ingredients but that doesn't mean they should stop trying to develop/grow. They have some of what it takes but I think they're clearly geared a little too much in a direction that will only take them so far.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Who ever said the Devils' system wasn't flawed?

1995, 2000, 2003
New Jersey Devils, Stanley Cup wins

Exceptional players. How many teams have tried to implement the trap and failed? Talent DOES matter. I never argued it doesn't. I'm arguing that the Leafs have the talent, not to be champions perhaps but definitely to be better than they are showing. It's just not being implemented correctly.

You see, you're missing what I'm saying. But I'm sure there's no real point in explaining.

Well what are you saying? Those teams implemented a system and made it work because they had exceptional players, including quite possibly the best goaltender of all time. How could you be saying anything else?

You stated a team that relies on an exceptional player to be successful makes it flawed. If winning the cup is flawed, I'm all for it. My point is that teams don't win without an exceptional player.

I guess my question to you is how is a team that wins the Stanley Cup, flawed.

 

[Andy007]

Really? His .910 save % made that much of a difference over Potvin's .908 the previous year?

Well, yes, I'll stand by the statement that Curtis Joseph played a huge role in their success that year but also that's far from being the only personnel change the Leafs made. There was a lot of turnover that year and a lot of young players took big steps forward. At the beginning of the final Mike Murphy season the defense was

Murphy-Yushkevich
Schneider-Smith
Macoun-Zettler

Then, in the first Quinn year, the six top defensemen were

Yushkevich-Cote
Kaberle-Berard
Smith-Markov

That's a big change.

I'm just not sure how 50+ games of a a 20 yr old Kaberle and half of a season of Berard made up for the drastic win improvement. Markov and Cote also played the previous year under Murphy. And, as I pointed out earlier, Joseph's numbers were very similar to Potvin's. That team doesn't go from 30 wins to 45 without the influence of Quinn.

 

[Corn Flake]

And to respond simply, Carlyle is preaching those very things yet the players aren't producing it on a nightly basis.  We've heard him say it, we've heard the reports from practice about what he's yelling at them, etc.  So to say it's Carlyle telling them to do something other than this is not correct, IMO. 

From the way the team plays, I'd say Carlyle is give them mixed messages. He wants an up tempo offensive system, but one that does not rely on the rush. That's kind of contradictory. On top of that, he has them playing a very passive defensive system that makes things much more difficult in terms of implementing an up tempo offence. The team needs to be aggressive in all three zones, not just the offensive zone.

I translate what he's saying is there's much more to up tempo offense than stealing pucks and generating 2 on 1's.  Up tempo means get the puck, exit your zone and move quickly up the ice, gain the offensive zone and move the puck in there.  The team (the players) have managed to score a lot of goals off the rush and I don't think he wants that to stop. He wants more than just that.  I hear what you mean it sounds mixed but we are going by his media quotes which is probably not really how things are articulated at practice.

He would probably be a happy little camper with odd man rush goals, plus all kinds of increased up tempo offense in the zone, holding the puck in for all kinds of long stretches. They definitely have not done a good job of that all year long, hence the reason ES scoring is down so much.  Rarely see them score at ES after gaining and holding the zone for any kind of stretch of time.  Usually those situations end with a blind pass at the crease from the side boards, which gets deflected out and off the opposite boards.

So to me it comes down to the players at some point need to finally deliver, or they are the wrong players, or Carlyle is not getting the message across.  If it's point #3 then maybe a coaching change helps that, but to be honest I don't think it will change a lot.

If the team isn't implementing the coach's system properly that either means the first step is that system needs to change or the coach needs to change. If things don't improve from taking a different direction there, then you start changing the talent. Make the easy move first before you start taking the difficult path, as it might not be needed.

For sure, but before we decide the coach has to go, but we have seen that this team has won a lot of games despite not playing very well fundamentally and (IMO) not playing the way Carlyle has demanded they do.  That isn't a Carlyle specific problem. That's a general team vs. coach problem when a team is winning despite not doing things by the book. Once their winning ways stop, they don't have much choice but to listen. 

So now that they've had their lunch handed to them 3 games in a row, where there is really no leg left to stand on where the players can say "hey we are still winning, so *shrug* why should I bother forechecking or whatever".  They either now listen to the coach and execute the plans or they keep losing.

 

[TML fan]

Who ever said the Devils' system wasn't flawed?

1995, 2000, 2003
New Jersey Devils, Stanley Cup wins

Exceptional players. How many teams have tried to implement the trap and failed? Talent DOES matter. I never argued it doesn't. I'm arguing that the Leafs have the talent, not to be champions perhaps but definitely to be better than they are showing. It's just not being implemented correctly.

You see, you're missing what I'm saying. But I'm sure there's no real point in explaining.

Well what are you saying? Those teams implemented a system and made it work because they had exceptional players, including quite possibly the best goaltender of all time. How could you be saying anything else?

You stated a team that relies on an exceptional player to be successful makes it flawed. If winning the cup is flawed, I'm all for it. My point is that teams don't win without an exceptional player.

I guess my question to you is how is a team that wins the Stanley Cup, flawed.

I said a system that relies on exceptional players to work is flawed. If you don't have exceptional players then the system would not work, would it? You may be right that exceptional players are required to be champions, and I would agree that the Leafs are not good enough to be champions. I would also say that the Leafs are not bad enough to be outplayed like this every night.

If you're trying to put a square peg into a round hole, it's not the peg's fault it doesn't fit.

To answer your question on how a team that wins a Stanley Cup is flawed: They aren't.

 

[Corn Flake]

Great post by my old buddy Gus on a very detailed breakdown of the Leafs defensive, uh, break downs:

http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/11/28/toronto-maple-leafs-systems-defensive-zone/

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Who ever said the Devils' system wasn't flawed?

1995, 2000, 2003
New Jersey Devils, Stanley Cup wins

Exceptional players. How many teams have tried to implement the trap and failed? Talent DOES matter. I never argued it doesn't. I'm arguing that the Leafs have the talent, not to be champions perhaps but definitely to be better than they are showing. It's just not being implemented correctly.

You see, you're missing what I'm saying. But I'm sure there's no real point in explaining.

Well what are you saying? Those teams implemented a system and made it work because they had exceptional players, including quite possibly the best goaltender of all time. How could you be saying anything else?

You stated a team that relies on an exceptional player to be successful makes it flawed. If winning the cup is flawed, I'm all for it. My point is that teams don't win without an exceptional player.

I guess my question to you is how is a team that wins the Stanley Cup, flawed.

I said a system that relies on exceptional players to work is flawed. If you don't have exceptional players then the system would not work, would it? You may be right that exceptional players are required to be champions, and I would agree that the Leafs are not good enough to be champions. I would also say that the Leafs are not bad enough to be outplayed like this every night.

If you're trying to put a square peg into a round hole, it's not the peg's fault it doesn't fit.

To answer your question on how a team that wins a Stanley Cup is flawed: They aren't.

Well now that this has all been sorted out....

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Not to sound too sophisticated but there's a buttload of good discussion going on today.

 

[Kin]

I'm just not sure how 50+ games of a a 20 yr old Kaberle and half of a season of Berard made up for the drastic win improvement.

Again, I'm not speaking in absolutes. Those players all represented upgrades on what they replaced, they aren't in and of themselves responsible for the entirety of the improvement.

Markov and Cote also played the previous year under Murphy.

For 25 and 12 games respectively, c'mon.

That team doesn't go from 30 wins to 45 without the influence of Quinn.

Sure, that played a part. But like I said, there was a lot of roster turnover that year. To attribute it just to Quinn, as you did, is silly. Steve Thomas had more to do with it than Quinn did.

 

[Tigger]

Great post by my old buddy Gus on a very detailed breakdown of the Leafs defensive, uh, break downs:

http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/11/28/toronto-maple-leafs-systems-defensive-zone/

Thanks for posting!

 

[Andy007]

I'm just not sure how 50+ games of a a 20 yr old Kaberle and half of a season of Berard made up for the drastic win improvement.

Again, I'm not speaking in absolutes. Those players all represented upgrades on what they replaced, they aren't in and of themselves responsible for the entirety of the improvement.

Markov and Cote also played the previous year under Murphy.

For 25 and 12 games respectively, c'mon.

That team doesn't go from 30 wins to 45 without the influence of Quinn.

Sure, that played a part. But like I said, there was a lot of roster turnover that year. To attribute it just to Quinn, as you did, is silly. Steve Thomas had more to do with it than Quinn did.

Please, I'm not saying it was just Quinn but he had a heck of a lot to do with changing that team around. Berezin went from 16 goals to 37. That's a testament to the changing of systems.

Besides, you're first assertion was that Joseph (.910 SP and 3 shutouts) had most to do with the team's success despite Potvin's almost identical numbers the previous year (.908 SP, 5 shutouts).

 

[Tigger]

Well, Cujo performed like that while the team was running and gunning, if you notice Felix' numbers that year weren't very good ( granted, a small sample size, likely due to his knee injury that year ). There's no doubt scoring 74 more goals while giving up roughly the same was huge but I'm not sure the Leafs would have been as successful playing that style without Cujo.

 

[Kin]

Please, I'm not saying it was just Quinn but he had a heck of a lot to do with changing that team around. Berezin went from 16 goals to 37. That's a testament to the changing of systems.

Not really because it wasn't something he was able to sustain and after that year he more or less returned to the scoring pace he'd set as a rookie under Murphy. If Quinn's system led to a significant increase in scoring by and large it didn't really affect anyone other than Berezin in that one year.

Besides, you're first assertion was that Joseph (.910 SP and 3 shutouts) had most to do with the team's success despite Potvin's almost identical numbers the previous year (.908 SP, 5 shutouts).

Well, I actually just said Joseph played "a big part" in their success which I'd stand by given that he finished 2nd in Vezina voting that year and was a Pearson finalist.