OldTimeHockey
Active member
IF the coach has lost this team, this quickly, what does it say about the group of players that has been brought together?
Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread
- Thread starter LuncheonMeat
- Start date
- Status
L K
Active member
Even if the "right" move is the hard move (as in this team isn't suitable to win a Cup), I don't think that firing Carlyle isn't a component of the correct move. It's great that he won the Cup in Anaheim in 2007. He's also 14-18 with 1 playoff series win since that time (San Jose).
What I have seen with the team looks downright unbearable on most nights. Winning games while giving up 50 shots isn't good coaching, it's getting extremely lucky that your goaltending is making the routine AND difficult saves. That's a mark of a bad team, but also the mark of a bad coach. In this environment Carlyle has not been a good coach.
And quite frankly, if we are going to start arguing that this team isn't qualified to be an eventual Cup contender with its current makeup, then the purpose of the team should be development of the young players and benching them for mistakes that veterans are making in abundance is not even remotely a smart ploy.
What I have seen with the team looks downright unbearable on most nights. Winning games while giving up 50 shots isn't good coaching, it's getting extremely lucky that your goaltending is making the routine AND difficult saves. That's a mark of a bad team, but also the mark of a bad coach. In this environment Carlyle has not been a good coach.
And quite frankly, if we are going to start arguing that this team isn't qualified to be an eventual Cup contender with its current makeup, then the purpose of the team should be development of the young players and benching them for mistakes that veterans are making in abundance is not even remotely a smart ploy.
OldTimeHockey said:
That they need a new coach to be successful? Honestly, situations like this happen all the time. All coaches have an expiry date. They get hired to get fired. Unless you're Babcock coaches are a dime a dozen.
You could argue Carlye lost the team in Anaheim, and the very next season they are back to being one of the top teams in the league. I don't believe there were too many roster changes done there.
Even Boudreau, the guy who replaced Carlyle, lost the team in Washington and went to Anaheim and had success. While Oates took over in Washington and had success.
Sometimes a coach just isn't the right fit for a team. Sometimes a coach has done all he can do. They are the most replacement aspect of a hockey team for a reason.
bustaheims
Active member
OldTimeHockey said:
I don't think Carlyle losing the players is really the issue. They're still playing his system, they still show spurts of very real effort, etc. These are things that you don't really see when a team has quit on their coach. That being said, I don't think anyone believes that Carlyle is the sole issue with this team. He's just the easiest to deal with and he represents a move that would help to highlight the degree to which the other issues are impacting the team's performance. There are leadership problems with this team right now. That's on the coach and on the players. Changes need to be made in both areas, starting with the coach (and possibly the GM - though, I'm willing to give Nonis a chance to bring in a coach he chooses before calling for him to be fired) and moving on through the players as needed.
L K
Active member
Sometimes a mediocre coach gets masked by a roster that is filled with players that gel with his style. Sometimes a mediocre coach benefits by having incredible depth. Similarly sometimes a good coach gets burned by a terrible roster.
Sometimes the way you manage doesn't gel with the team. It isn't a fault with Randy but it is a fault for the organization if you continue to go with a struggling setup when it isn't working.
Grabovski lost his job on the basis of 1 year of somewhat poor performance. It happens with players an awful lot as well as with coaches (for those that argue that coaches get burned for the failings of the team).
Sometimes the way you manage doesn't gel with the team. It isn't a fault with Randy but it is a fault for the organization if you continue to go with a struggling setup when it isn't working.
Grabovski lost his job on the basis of 1 year of somewhat poor performance. It happens with players an awful lot as well as with coaches (for those that argue that coaches get burned for the failings of the team).
GhostofPotvin29
New member
bustaheims said:
Sometimes you do the easier move first to determine if the harder moves have to come later.
bustaheims
Active member
Potvin29 said:
That is the gist of what I was getting at, yes.
"The pressure right now should be placed on the players, Nonis told The Dreger Report on Wednesday. "I know Randy and the coaching staff is working hard. I'm not now, nor have I ever contemplated making a coaching change. The players have to respond."
Nonis has been trolling the league looking for trades and admits he has had offers on James van Riemsdyk, Nazem Kadri, Jake Gardiner, Morgan Rielly and both his goalies. However, the general managers with the most interest have yet to produce anything beyond older players in return or trade packages that are not useful to the Maple Leafs in the long term.
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=439329
Nonis will not fire Carlyle and with no trades available the group we have must overcome whatever the problem is. Reims comment fits perfectly. Carlyle may be a part of the problem but the simple fact that half of the team does not bother to show up pretty much every second game indicates something more than couching issue. The Buds are due for some players only behind-the-closed-doors face to face talking. Too bad Bolland is not there. This is very young group, hopefully someone has enough leadership skills and shakes up the team a bit. Who will do the talking? Gards, Rielly, D?Amigo, Holland are just kids, Kuli, Gunnar, Phil hardly say anything. Is Lups up to the task? Dion? Reims?
Nonis has been trolling the league looking for trades and admits he has had offers on James van Riemsdyk, Nazem Kadri, Jake Gardiner, Morgan Rielly and both his goalies. However, the general managers with the most interest have yet to produce anything beyond older players in return or trade packages that are not useful to the Maple Leafs in the long term.
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=439329
Nonis will not fire Carlyle and with no trades available the group we have must overcome whatever the problem is. Reims comment fits perfectly. Carlyle may be a part of the problem but the simple fact that half of the team does not bother to show up pretty much every second game indicates something more than couching issue. The Buds are due for some players only behind-the-closed-doors face to face talking. Too bad Bolland is not there. This is very young group, hopefully someone has enough leadership skills and shakes up the team a bit. Who will do the talking? Gards, Rielly, D?Amigo, Holland are just kids, Kuli, Gunnar, Phil hardly say anything. Is Lups up to the task? Dion? Reims?
ZBBM
Active member
drummond said:
Nonis committed to Carlyle and Carlyle's vision last summer with the absurd buyout of RC's whipping-boy Grabbo and signing up Hoppy McUseless to an undeserved megacontract. And now, no doubt, he'll follow that up by committing to Captain Bubble for an eternity.
This is so excellent.
bustaheims
Active member
drummond said:
Well, that sounds somewhat close to the dreaded vote of confidence, but, I still don't like it. It doesn't feel "vote of confidence shortly before firing the coach" enough.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
bustaheims said:
Yes, I can just see it now, Grabovski and MacArthur singing Randy's praises...
Potvin29 said:
I'm surprised Reimer's head hasn't exploded yet.
bustaheims
Active member
I thought this was interesting:
Chev-boyar-sky
New member
I think you move the coach before the players.
Who would Nonis move anyways? The only player that might make sense is Lupul due to injuries, but you don't just move a Lupul/JVR/Kadri/Gardiner to see if the players will respond to Carlyle's system.
It's not working now so......
I thought the few moments during 24/7 were interesting in the dressing room. Basic/simple message yet it's not producing results.
One trade idea I was wondering about a week ago was Lupul for Toffoli/Mitchell, though I'm not sure the Kings go for it.
The most obvious thing this team needs is a better defence.
Who would Nonis move anyways? The only player that might make sense is Lupul due to injuries, but you don't just move a Lupul/JVR/Kadri/Gardiner to see if the players will respond to Carlyle's system.
It's not working now so......
I thought the few moments during 24/7 were interesting in the dressing room. Basic/simple message yet it's not producing results.
One trade idea I was wondering about a week ago was Lupul for Toffoli/Mitchell, though I'm not sure the Kings go for it.
The most obvious thing this team needs is a better defence.
I don't think Carlyle gets fired until February at the latest. Nothing will happen on that front until Bozak and Bolland return. If the team is still playing like crap after they return then maybe Nonis will consider it, but at that point the season will probably be lost anyway.
I went looking last night at Carlyle's coaching history and I was surprised that his only other nhl head coach job was with Anaheim. I just thought he'd been with a few other teams. So he had 7 straight successful years there, a bad 20 or so games and was fired.
I don't really have any specific point, I was just surprised.
His Norris win also made me laugh. Back in the days when it just went to the highest scoring defenceman. 83 points but -16. 80s hockey!
I don't really have any specific point, I was just surprised.
His Norris win also made me laugh. Back in the days when it just went to the highest scoring defenceman. 83 points but -16. 80s hockey!
bustaheims
Active member
Joe S. said:
I suppose successful depends on your definition, but, from my viewpoint, he really had 3 successful seasons to start his coaching career - in that, the team was good enough to do more than barely squeak into the playoffs. That was followed by 2 years where the team wasn't so good, though, they did manage to win a round in the year they did make the playoffs. Then, he had one more successful season, and then 1/4 season of being pretty bad.
- Status