Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Highlander]

Randy aint going nowhere till the end of the season unless they make it to round 2 where he gets a stay of execution for another year. If they don't make the playoffs then Randy will hit the road with Frazer and Frazer and Bolthead doing lugnut theatre

 

[Arn]

Maybe they're holding out cos they think it'd be neat and make a better narrative to end the drought after a round 50 years

 

[Redleaf]

Holland 4:30 of ice time ????? . Reimer sat after that NY game ????. Kadri 2nd line ??? . is it just me or is the coach sending out the wrong message.

There's certainly some lingering questions about the decision-making process here. I'd also add the fact that Bernier should have been pulled last night after that 2nd stinker he let in. Or, at the very least, the 3rd goal that make it 3-0 when all could see he wasn't playing well at all.

I can't help but wonder if there is something else at work here. Perhaps a trade the Leafs have on the front burner for Reimer, but want to make absolutely sure Bernier can handle the lions share of games before they agree to the deal? If that's the case, I'd guess any deal they were considering is now on permanent hold.

Came here to post exactly this.  Get out of my brain, RedLeaf.

LOL.

 

[princedpw]

My criticism of Bozak is certainly not in relation to his last few games (although he was rather ordinary last night).  When the team is struggling though, it is just the constantcy that I don't understand.  The 1st line was the only line immune to roster juggling. 

... Last year though, Grabovski and Kadri were the ones entitled to Carlyle's "wrath" when the team wasn't playing well.  Even though Bozak was playing as the afterthought behind a much faster pair in JVR/Kessel.

Yeah, I just don't understand why they didn't ever move Grabbo to the top line and Bozak to the third line to mix things up last year.

 

[hap_leaf]

I still don't see any on-ice strategy that makes me think that Randy knows  how to cure some of this team's problems.  Or, that the players are executing those strategies, which may be the case.  I just can't tell.

Here are a few things I think they can sharpen up on:

1 Stop doing the same things over and over again:
a) this is mostly centered on Kessel, but since he is the most important piece of our offense, deserves mentioning.  Every time when he gains the offensive zone - with speed - he puts on the brakes just before he gets to the hash marks and plays it back to the defense.  OK, I get that he has gained the zone.  But if he does this every time, its becoming obvious to the opposition.  It almost seems an attempt to get rid of the puck before he gets hit or risk bursting by the defender along the boards and crashing the net area.  I'd give anything to see him do that.  Self preservation over team. 

1 b) Another trend happening so often its mind-boggling.  The player carries the puck, and I think its several of them that are doing this time after time, which leads me to believe Carlyle is telling them to do this, at which point around center ice they drop it back to a trailing guy with speed.  I'm not seeing much gained by this from the results of this play.  I'm not seeing that this guy has any more options than the original puck carrier.  It just doesn't seem to be tricking anybody or opening up any lanes.  I'd prefer some nice short passes and chip n go's.  The play risks an interception or flubbed back pass as well. 

2. Offensive zone decisions: Again some simplicity of short passes and direct play would be so welcome to watch.  It seems every play, especially on the PP must result in a highlight reel goal.  Risky passes through defenders' legs, over-passing and way too high shots from the point.  I'd like to see one or two passes and a shot, low and tip-able.  Nothing fancy.

3. Forwards taking the puck into the offensive zone and...line change time.  They gain the zone and - yes they are tired - but could they sometimes dig down for an attempt?  They dump it down and skate ever so slow to the bench.  This seems to happen a lot.  Can the D not pass it between themselves in the neutral zone and allow the forwards to change and get a fresh rush going?  It seems not. 

TLDR; Get back to basics and change up some tired routines.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I still don't see any on-ice strategy that makes me think that Randy knows  how to cure some of this team's problems.  Or, that the players are executing those strategies, which may be the case.  I just can't tell.

Here are a few things I think they can sharpen up on:

1 Stop doing the same things over and over again:
a) this is mostly centered on Kessel, but since he is the most important piece of our offense, deserves mentioning.  Every time when he gains the offensive zone - with speed - he puts on the brakes just before he gets to the hash marks and plays it back to the defense.  OK, I get that he has gained the zone.  But if he does this every time, its becoming obvious to the opposition.  It almost seems an attempt to get rid of the puck before he gets hit or risk bursting by the defender along the boards and crashing the net area.  I'd give anything to see him do that.  Self preservation over team. 

I think you're letting your dislike for that play cloud your viewing of his game as a whole.  When he gets a chance to blow by a defender he takes it almost every time.  I view Kessel as someone who doesn't like to waste a possession of the puck - he either wants to get a shot on goal or he wants to set someone else up.  When he's unable to beat a defender wide, he'll often cut back and his passing ability is at a level where he can do that and find the seams and trailing players.  Does it work everytime? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that it's not a smart strategy when he does it.  Alex Ovechkin and Steven Stamkos have scored a ton of goals from the same spot on the ice over and over again - it's not that teams don't know it's happening, they're just good enough to beat it.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm going to say it.


Hire Maurice.

:-\

Laviolette is still my first choice but Maurice would be pretty high on the list after him. Every time I see him on TSN I wonder why he isn't coaching.

 

[Highlander]

Not a fan of Peter L but Maurice is a favorite. Love to see him back. Or even Punch if we could dig him up.

 

[lc9]

What are you talking about?  Stevie Y "became" a champion?  Awfully coincidental that he didn't "become" a champion when the team wasn't very good and "became" a champion when the team got better.

I think it's fair to say Yzerman changed his game, it has been well documented and much discussed.  He went from a scorer only to the best 2-way player in the game.  Can't refute that.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

What are you talking about?  Stevie Y "became" a champion?  Awfully coincidental that he didn't "become" a champion when the team wasn't very good and "became" a champion when the team got better.

I think it's fair to say Yzerman changed his game, it has been well documented and much discussed.  He went from a scorer only to the best 2-way player in the game.  Can't refute that.

Yzerman had been in the league for well over 10 years and had a Pearson Trophy and 1000 NHL points under his belt when he made that transformation.  And we're comparing 23 year old Kadri with 139 NHL games to that.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

What are you talking about?  Stevie Y "became" a champion?  Awfully coincidental that he didn't "become" a champion when the team wasn't very good and "became" a champion when the team got better.

I think it's fair to say Yzerman changed his game, it has been well documented and much discussed.  He went from a scorer only to the best 2-way player in the game.  Can't refute that.

And he was almost traded before the 1995-96 season in part because of criticism of his "leadership."

It's all narrative.  It has no more to do with Yzerman figuring out how to lead than it does with adding Scotty Bowman as coach, Mike Vernon as goalie, Slava Fetisov, Sergei Federov, Igor Larionov, Brendan Shanahan, etc. 

The team simply got a whole lot better.  But it's a better narrative to say Yzerman figured out how to lead or something.

 

[ZBBM]

What are you talking about?  Stevie Y "became" a champion?  Awfully coincidental that he didn't "become" a champion when the team wasn't very good and "became" a champion when the team got better.

I think it's fair to say Yzerman changed his game, it has been well documented and much discussed.  He went from a scorer only to the best 2-way player in the game.  Can't refute that.

And he was almost traded before the 1995-96 season in part because of criticism of his "leadership."

It's all narrative.  It has no more to do with Yzerman figuring out how to lead than it does with adding Scotty Bowman as coach, Mike Vernon as goalie, Slava Fetisov, Sergei Federov, Igor Larionov, Brendan Shanahan, etc. 

The team simply got a whole lot better.  But it's a better narrative to say Yzerman figured out how to lead or something.

Do you think "leadership" is just a bogus concept?

 

[lc9]

What are you talking about?  Stevie Y "became" a champion?  Awfully coincidental that he didn't "become" a champion when the team wasn't very good and "became" a champion when the team got better.

I think it's fair to say Yzerman changed his game, it has been well documented and much discussed.  He went from a scorer only to the best 2-way player in the game.  Can't refute that.

Yzerman had been in the league for well over 10 years and had a Pearson Trophy and 1000 NHL points under his belt when he made that transformation.  And we're comparing 23 year old Kadri with 139 NHL games to that

To be fair, I wasn't making comparisons to Kadri. 

My take on Kadri:  He probably feels entitled.  First round pick, Canada boy, he thinks he should be the #1 guy.  But his work ethic doesn't seem to match his mentality.  He gets frustrated early in games.

It's hard to say with a lot of these players.  Carlye has so many things backwards.  I can't figure out why Holland gets such little ice time, he is clearly better than McClement, yet is saddled with Orr.  Carlye must know his leash is getting shorter, but he seems to be doubling down on his stubbornness.  It is no fun watching the leafs get outplayed every game.  Even when they win they are usually thoroughly outplayed. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

What are you talking about?  Stevie Y "became" a champion?  Awfully coincidental that he didn't "become" a champion when the team wasn't very good and "became" a champion when the team got better.

I think it's fair to say Yzerman changed his game, it has been well documented and much discussed.  He went from a scorer only to the best 2-way player in the game.  Can't refute that.

And he was almost traded before the 1995-96 season in part because of criticism of his "leadership."

It's all narrative.  It has no more to do with Yzerman figuring out how to lead than it does with adding Scotty Bowman as coach, Mike Vernon as goalie, Slava Fetisov, Sergei Federov, Igor Larionov, Brendan Shanahan, etc. 

The team simply got a whole lot better.  But it's a better narrative to say Yzerman figured out how to lead or something.

Do you think "leadership" is just a bogus concept?

I don't think it's quantifiable by us nor does it have an easily identifiable set of attributes.  I mean, Yzerman is the prime example of someone criticized for years for a perceived lack of leadership and then lauded for his leadership.  Odds are he didn't undergo some quantum leap in terms of leadership ability in the span of a season or two, but that the success of his teams made people view him differently.  How do you think Sundin would rank if the Leafs won the Cup while he was in Toronto?  Because he didn't, he still always carried around a label questioning his ability to lead a team to a championship.  Yet, if they won it wouldn't have been just because of him, and them not winning was not just because of him.

I think it's just a nice way to mythologize some players who just happen to be very talented and, in some cases, in fortunate circumstances.

So I'm sure it exists in some way, but not easily identifiable and, IMO, not reliant on winning or losing.

 

[nutman]

One thing teams can't afford to do is run with three lines, they will tire as the game goes on. This in turn leaves the Leafs at a disadvantage. I think the two punchers need to be replaced, and the fourth is just as good a spot as any to put young energy players. Make the fourth line a threat to other teams, and not to us like it is now.

 

[Champ Kind]

Do you think "leadership" is just a bogus concept?

I don't think it's quantifiable by us nor does it have an easily identifiable set of attributes.  I mean, Yzerman is the prime example of someone criticized for years for a perceived lack of leadership and then lauded for his leadership.  Odds are he didn't undergo some quantum leap in terms of leadership ability in the span of a season or two, but that the success of his teams made people view him differently.  How do you think Sundin would rank if the Leafs won the Cup while he was in Toronto?  Because he didn't, he still always carried around a label questioning his ability to lead a team to a championship.  Yet, if they won it wouldn't have been just because of him, and them not winning was not just because of him.

I think it's just a nice way to mythologize some players who just happen to be very talented and, in some cases, in fortunate circumstances.

So I'm sure it exists in some way, but not easily identifiable and, IMO, not reliant on winning or losing.

I think McFate is right.  Unless entire academic faculties and experts in the field are lying to us, leadership is "something" and, actually, can be developed and improved upon.  There are myriad leadership strategies, approaches, and generally accepted "dos-and-don'ts".  Why then, would this be true for, oh, I don't know, the entire business and corporate world but not true for hockey players?

 

[ZBBM]

What are you talking about?  Stevie Y "became" a champion?  Awfully coincidental that he didn't "become" a champion when the team wasn't very good and "became" a champion when the team got better.

I think it's fair to say Yzerman changed his game, it has been well documented and much discussed.  He went from a scorer only to the best 2-way player in the game.  Can't refute that.

And he was almost traded before the 1995-96 season in part because of criticism of his "leadership."

It's all narrative.  It has no more to do with Yzerman figuring out how to lead than it does with adding Scotty Bowman as coach, Mike Vernon as goalie, Slava Fetisov, Sergei Federov, Igor Larionov, Brendan Shanahan, etc. 

The team simply got a whole lot better.  But it's a better narrative to say Yzerman figured out how to lead or something.

Do you think "leadership" is just a bogus concept?

I don't think it's quantifiable by us nor does it have an easily identifiable set of attributes.  I mean, Yzerman is the prime example of someone criticized for years for a perceived lack of leadership and then lauded for his leadership.  Odds are he didn't undergo some quantum leap in terms of leadership ability in the span of a season or two, but that the success of his teams made people view him differently.  How do you think Sundin would rank if the Leafs won the Cup while he was in Toronto?  Because he didn't, he still always carried around a label questioning his ability to lead a team to a championship.  Yet, if they won it wouldn't have been just because of him, and them not winning was not just because of him.

I think it's just a nice way to mythologize some players who just happen to be very talented and, in some cases, in fortunate circumstances.

So I'm sure it exists in some way, but not easily identifiable and, IMO, not reliant on winning or losing.

There's a lot of truth in what you say but by the same token there is a huge literature, and not just in the MBA/finance field, about leadership qualities and how they can be developed.  There's no reason to think those principles don't apply in any social situation, including sports teams.  So actually, it's quite possible that Yzerman did develop (probably by means of his own experience) leadership skills that blossomed and got (rightfully) noticed.  And sure, it helps if the team around him gets better.  But there are acknowledged leaders on poor and mediocre teams ... Sundin being a case in point.

EDIT: Just saw AWB's post.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Do you think "leadership" is just a bogus concept?

I don't think it's quantifiable by us nor does it have an easily identifiable set of attributes.  I mean, Yzerman is the prime example of someone criticized for years for a perceived lack of leadership and then lauded for his leadership.  Odds are he didn't undergo some quantum leap in terms of leadership ability in the span of a season or two, but that the success of his teams made people view him differently.  How do you think Sundin would rank if the Leafs won the Cup while he was in Toronto?  Because he didn't, he still always carried around a label questioning his ability to lead a team to a championship.  Yet, if they won it wouldn't have been just because of him, and them not winning was not just because of him.

I think it's just a nice way to mythologize some players who just happen to be very talented and, in some cases, in fortunate circumstances.

So I'm sure it exists in some way, but not easily identifiable and, IMO, not reliant on winning or losing.

I think McFate is right.  Unless entire academic faculties and experts in the field are lying to us, leadership is "something" and, actually, can be developed and improved upon.  There are myriad leadership strategies, approaches, and generally accepted "dos-and-don'ts".  Why then, would this be true for, oh, I don't know, the entire business and corporate world but not true for hockey players?

Why would macroeconomics be relevant for the business world and not for Colton Orr? Probably because they're completely different areas I'm assuming.

But on a more serious note, I'm not trying to say it doesn't exist, only that in the context of a hockey team and what we are privy to, how can we know?  WE as fans don't get to study the players so how would we know who is or is not a good leader?  How do I know leadership principles for the business world are the same for a sports team?  How do I know they can be transferable?  How do I know the impact it might have on a sports team compared to a business setting?

I'd love links if there are studies that show these things.  I'm saying I don't know so why blow smoke up your backside about it?

 

[Champ Kind]

Do you think "leadership" is just a bogus concept?

I don't think it's quantifiable by us nor does it have an easily identifiable set of attributes.  I mean, Yzerman is the prime example of someone criticized for years for a perceived lack of leadership and then lauded for his leadership.  Odds are he didn't undergo some quantum leap in terms of leadership ability in the span of a season or two, but that the success of his teams made people view him differently.  How do you think Sundin would rank if the Leafs won the Cup while he was in Toronto?  Because he didn't, he still always carried around a label questioning his ability to lead a team to a championship.  Yet, if they won it wouldn't have been just because of him, and them not winning was not just because of him.

I think it's just a nice way to mythologize some players who just happen to be very talented and, in some cases, in fortunate circumstances.

So I'm sure it exists in some way, but not easily identifiable and, IMO, not reliant on winning or losing.

I think McFate is right.  Unless entire academic faculties and experts in the field are lying to us, leadership is "something" and, actually, can be developed and improved upon.  There are myriad leadership strategies, approaches, and generally accepted "dos-and-don'ts".  Why then, would this be true for, oh, I don't know, the entire business and corporate world but not true for hockey players?

Why would macroeconomics be relevant for the business world and not for Colton Orr? Probably because they're completely different areas I'm assuming.

But on a more serious note, I'm not trying to say it doesn't exist, only that in the context of a hockey team and what we are privy to, how can we know?  WE as fans don't get to study the players so how would we know who is or is not a good leader?  How do I know leadership principles for the business world are the same for a sports team?  How do I know they can be transferable?  How do I know the impact it might have on a sports team compared to a business setting?

I'd love links if there are studies that show these things.  I'm saying I don't know so why blow smoke up your backside about it?

Well, certainly there's no reason to get charged up about it.  I'd also say that, personally speaking, I think good leaders are born, not made.  Although good ones can likely become great and poor ones can become passable. 

As it relates to hockey, human nature is human nature, and leadership qualities transcend context, I would say.  I know that, in my own life, I've felt that my ability to lead has gotten better as I've matured or, maybe more accurately,  aged.  Some of it is the result of conscious strategy, some of it is by example, and some of it, quite honestly, is a result of being older than the other people in the room.  I have a lot of respect for guys like Landeskog who become captain at a young age and appear to do quite well with it.  Leadership takes a certain amount of gravitas, and to have requisite amounts at a yung age is no easy feat.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well enough (I'm certainly not "charged up" about it), but I appreciate your viewpoint on it and can see why you believe that.