Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[hockeyfan1]

Couple more articles today on how this was just a matter of time given the way the Leafs have been playing since last season:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capitals-insider/wp/2014/01/11/no-
surprise-leafs-failing-to-live-up-to-expectations/

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/01/12/toronto-maple-leafs-collapse-
should-come-as-no-surprise-based-on-the-numbers/

From the article:
The goaltending has gone from supernatural to human to increasingly exhausted.

Exactly what was feared would happen.  No surprise.

 

[Tigger]

Is it really an outright benchmark or is it something Nonis kind of has to reply to if asked?

In this case, it doesn't appear as though he was asked. It was more of a statement he made without being prompted, and, when it happens like that, it tends to be an indicator that the opposite is true.

Also, for those that want a high draft pick, if you really believe Carlyle is to blame why stop now?

Well, let's be honest - we all know Carlyle isn't going to be fired in the next few days. By the time he is relieved of his duties as coach, the team will likely already be too far gone for them not to get a high draft pick. Combine that with what will likely be a trade deadline that sees a number of pieces shipped out for picks and prospects, and you have a team that's likely going to end up in a similar position regardless. At this point, firing Carlyle isn't about salvaging this season, but rather about creating a clean slate before the off-season and learning a little bit more about what the team has in the system, and how they could function in a system that is built towards maximizing their strengths rather than attempting to minimize their weaknesses.

Well, like Nik said it seems that pressure is there regardless, it seems it's making the rounds but to me it's overblown.

Honestly, I'm not a huge Carlyle guy, but aside from some disagreements I've had about the use of the team I really have a hard time believing the current Leafs are loads better than what some seem to think, in fact, I remember saying the same thing about Wilson. ( and again, I'll point out the staggering nostalgia towards him now seems utterly ludicrous )

To me, the basic premise of firing Carlyle is relatively premature and somewhat pointless at this time, given what I know.

 

[losveratos]

Couple more articles today on how this was just a matter of time given the way the Leafs have been playing since last season:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capitals-insider/wp/2014/01/11/no-surprise-leafs-failing-to-live-up-to-expectations/

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/01/12/toronto-maple-leafs-collapse-should-come-as-no-surprise-based-on-the-numbers/

Too bad these guys are just piling on now instead of writing these when it would have actually gained my respect about 2 months ago. But no... because they were still winning then, no one wanted to write these articles.

These articles are just for fan service. They're there not to show intelligence or the I told ya so's. They're there so that on Sunday morning or whatever a Toronto local can read an article that speaks about what he's already known for a few weeks now and he can smile and nod his head in complete agreement.

Maybe if these actually came out before the floor came out from under the team, they could have been pressured into doing something about it.

Now it's honestly just lazy writing.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Couple more articles today on how this was just a matter of time given the way the Leafs have been playing since last season:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capitals-insider/wp/2014/01/11/no-surprise-leafs-failing-to-live-up-to-expectations/

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/01/12/toronto-maple-leafs-collapse-should-come-as-no-surprise-based-on-the-numbers/

Too bad these guys are just piling on now instead of writing these when it would have actually gained my respect about 2 months ago. But no... because they were still winning then, no one wanted to write these articles.

These articles are just for fan service. They're there not to show intelligence or the I told ya so's. They're there so that on Sunday morning or whatever a Toronto local can read an article that speaks about what he's already known for a few weeks now and he can smile and nod his head in complete agreement.

Maybe if these actually came out before the floor came out from under the team, they could have been pressured into doing something about it.

Now it's honestly just lazy writing.

What are you talking about?

Like when Bruce Arthur wrote about it on October 16, 2013? http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/10/16/toronto-maple-leafs-off-to-hot-start-but-cannot-defy-the-percentages-forever/ 

And the other author writes about the Capitals and only wrote about the Leafs when they came to town.

Honestly, that's just lazy criticism on your part.

 

[losveratos]

Couple more articles today on how this was just a matter of time given the way the Leafs have been playing since last season:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capitals-insider/wp/2014/01/11/no-surprise-leafs-failing-to-live-up-to-expectations/

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/01/12/toronto-maple-leafs-collapse-should-come-as-no-surprise-based-on-the-numbers/

Too bad these guys are just piling on now instead of writing these when it would have actually gained my respect about 2 months ago. But no... because they were still winning then, no one wanted to write these articles.

These articles are just for fan service. They're there not to show intelligence or the I told ya so's. They're there so that on Sunday morning or whatever a Toronto local can read an article that speaks about what he's already known for a few weeks now and he can smile and nod his head in complete agreement.

Maybe if these actually came out before the floor came out from under the team, they could have been pressured into doing something about it.

Now it's honestly just lazy writing.

What are you talking about?

Like when Bruce Arthur wrote about it on October 16, 2013? http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/10/16/toronto-maple-leafs-off-to-hot-start-but-cannot-defy-the-percentages-forever/ 

And the other author writes about the Capitals and only wrote about the Leafs when they came to town.

Honestly, that's just lazy criticism on your part.

When I said "these guys" I wasn't specifically talking about those two articles. I've read a handful lately on pretty much the same topic. That's all.

As a side note about Bruce specifically... great he wrote about the "math"

But this "Leafs will probably either improve at possessing the puck, fail to improve and defy the percentages as they did last season with goaltending and special teams and offence, or fall victim to the math."

It's pretty far from scathing. So he basically wrote the article to say the leafs will either keep winning or start losing. Wow... big prediction there. Way to drive that dagger into the coach.

Every writer for the big news/sports networks tip toe around condemning winning teams that are playing poorly until they really start losing. It's just the way the job shakes out.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

But this "Leafs will probably either improve at possessing the puck, fail to improve and defy the percentages as they did last season with goaltending and special teams and offence, or fall victim to the math."

It's pretty far from scathing. So he basically wrote the article to say the leafs will either keep winning or start losing. Wow... big prediction there. Way to drive that dagger into the coach.

If you only take that one quote, but if you read the entirety of the article and then read that quote then it makes perfect sense.  He sets out in the article why it is very unlikely that the Leafs will continue to be successful the way they are playing.  He states that the only way they can be successful is if they improve their possession game or if their goaltending is elite all season along with their PP & PK.  This follows directly from what is discussed in the article.

Why is it his job to predict what they're going to do?  He's just laying out the ways in which the Leafs can be successful and how they probably won't be successful if they continued to play the way they were.

And if you're looking for more out of the mainstream media I don't know what to tell you.  James Mirtle has been predicting what's happening to the Leafs for months, probably even before the season started.  Cox and Simmons are generally terrible, and the majority of Leafs writers simply roll with the tide of how the team is doing in any given week and tailor their columns to reflect that.

The Leafs bloggers and guys like Mirtle have been all over the Leafs for months, and were all over the team last season too.  This isn't something new.

 

[losveratos]

But this "Leafs will probably either improve at possessing the puck, fail to improve and defy the percentages as they did last season with goaltending and special teams and offence, or fall victim to the math."

It's pretty far from scathing. So he basically wrote the article to say the leafs will either keep winning or start losing. Wow... big prediction there. Way to drive that dagger into the coach.

If you only take that one quote, but if you read the entirety of the article and then read that quote then it makes perfect sense.  He sets out in the article why it is very unlikely that the Leafs will continue to be successful the way they are playing.  He states that the only way they can be successful is if they improve their possession game or if their goaltending is elite all season along with their PP & PK.  This follows directly from what is discussed in the article.

Why is it his job to predict what they're going to do?  He's just laying out the ways in which the Leafs can be successful and how they probably won't be successful if they continued to play the way they were.

And if you're looking for more out of the mainstream media I don't know what to tell you.  James Mirtle has been predicting what's happening to the Leafs for months, probably even before the season started.  Cox and Simmons are generally terrible, and the majority of Leafs writers simply roll with the tide of how the team is doing in any given week and tailor their columns to reflect that.

The Leafs bloggers and guys like Mirtle have been all over the Leafs for months, and were all over the team last season too.  This isn't something new.

Maybe it's just me on this one. Could be observational bias. It just pisses me off reading all these now instead of having them on the front page in big bold letters for everyone to see a long time ago.

Just feels like a snowball rolling down a big hill. No one calls it an avalanche until they're already under the snow. I hate that they don't try to see it coming. I would argue that predictions and educated guesses are their job. At least that's what I think. Otherwise... why even hire someone knowledgeable on the sport instead of just a bunch of good writers who are interested in the subject.

I'd like to see them make a call 100% no wiggle room. Then scream to the heavens when they're right and say I told you so. Or own it when they're wrong.

These days you just see a bunch of wishy washy maybe's and possibles.
The biggest offence to me. The one I think degrades the entirety of this profession, are the ones who will edit or remove entirely incorrect calls from twitter or blogs whatever. Makes me sick >_>

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Relevant to how Carlyle deploys his lines:

28. Looked through all of Toronto's games this season to see how its fourth line was used in comparison to opponents. In 39 of 47 games so far, a Maple Leaf forward had less ice time than anyone from the other team. What stands out is that 14 times there were at least two forwards with less time. And, 16 times three forwards were lower. (Note: I eliminated situations where someone was injured early, like Patrick Eaves at the Winter Classic and Dave Bolland in Vancouver). With the compressed schedule, you can't help but wonder if they are going to need more depth.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey/opinion/2014/01/30-thoughts-jets-coach-paul-maurice-has-tough-task-ahead.html

 

[ZBBM]

Nonis didn't hire Carlyle, and, if memory serves, Burke didn't hire Wilson.  Sure, they each accepted the coach, and for all I know they would have hired them anyway in an open search.  But that notwithstanding, I don't get why any GM should be beholden to someone's else pick to be coach. 

I don't think that a GM should be beholden to any coach, whether he hired him or not. That said, it doesn't really answer what I asked you. Unless you think that the sort of aims you have for a coach are ones that can be easily achieved overnight then surely there has to be some sort of set length of time a coach has before he figures out how to make his players compete hard every night before he gets fired. Regardless of what that amount of time is it should at least be on the table when a GM is in the process of hiring a new coach or when that GM makes the decision to keep the incumbent head coach around.

So if Nonis ends up not firing Carlyle I think we can safely say that Nonis is looking at a slightly longer term picture here and that Carlyle not "adapting to suit the talent he has" is, perhaps, secondary to the idea that Nonis believes Carlyle is the guy to coach the team with the talent he eventually wants.

I think it makes more sense to give a GM several years to show he's taking a team in a winning direction.  If the coach isn't getting it done, particularly if he has never really had success with the team he's currently coaching, then I see no reason to give somebody a set amount of additional time just because ... well, there really is no good reason.

Well, I make the case for the "because" you're looking for above but this is where I become a little less clear on your rationale here. Carlyle did, smoke and mirrors or luck or whatever, did coax a pretty respectable performance out of the club in the only start to finish season that they've had under him. So if the criteria is that success buys a coach a little bit of rope then Carlyle at least should have more rope to work with than any coach since Pat Quinn. Maybe not the leisurely 46 games of rope some people are advocating but some nonetheless.

But even beyond that, I'm still more interested in the question I asked you. If Carlyle got fired and a new coach was brought in in the summer, Gordon as the permanent hire or someone new, how much time should they get next season before the sword starts dangling over their head? Because it sounds a little to my ears that you are advocating that a couple bad weeks of poor performance should doom a coach regardless of how long he's been here and while I admire that in a sort of Robespierre-esque revolutionary sense I think an organization who took that policy would have a very hard time attracting coaching candidates of real quality.

EDIT: I forgot to add that my yardstick of success is not "win now" (if by that you mean win the Cup).  I want to see a coach molding a team to its strengths and getting guys to compete every night.  If he does that, this roster has enough talent that they'll win more than lose.

No, by win now I really just mean the gap between where the Leafs are right now in the standings and where they'd have to be for Carlyle's job to be pretty inarguably safe. Which is...8 points? 10? Less? If the Leafs had 6 more points, the difference of three games, they'd be in the playoffs with a 5 point edge on the Red Wings.

Sorry Nik, lost track of this yesterday and only now had time to finish reading the thread.

To answer your question: No, I don't think there's a set minimum time that should be given a coach.  If a new coach turns out (somehow) to be just terrible, and you figure it out after his first game, then why handcuff yourself?  You asked about Gordon or a new hire and how much time in a new season.  Who was that guy who got fired in Chicago after like 3 games at the start of the year?  He was a returnee but there's a precedent anyway.

Cox was trying to impose some arbitrary amount of time, and there simply isn't any such thing that trumps the GM if he wants to make a move.

How many more points ahead would we need to be to make Carlyle's job inarguably safe?  Good question.  What was the record of the guy in NJ (sorry I forget names) who got fired a week before the team went into the playoffs (I think Larry Robinson took over)?  It was pretty good IIRC.

 

[Highlander]

I would not mind of having Maurice back, I always thought he did a good job under bad circumstances.

 

[Zee]

Is tonight Carlyle's last game as Leafs coach?

 

[freer]

Is tonight Carlyle's last game as Leafs coach?

I am not holding my breath, because the end of the season is still a far ways away.

 

[Spider]

Maybe Nonis is testing Carlyle to see where he plays Holland, and if it on the 4th line for less than 5 minutes, he is fired.  :

 

[nutman]

If he does get canned. My vote is for Sutter.

 

[Palmateer29]

If he does get canned. My vote is for Sutter.

Nah I've got it figured out;

Ron Wilson - Been there done that
Pierre Page - Coaching in Germany...
Craig Hartsburg - Associate coach with Columbus
Guy Charron - Coaching in the WHL
Bryan Murray - GM in Ottawa no thanks
Mike Babcock - I would take him as coach
Randy Carlyle - Time is up
Bruce Boudreau - I would take him as well

That's all we have to choose from apparently...

 

[Corn Flake]

Peter Laviolette
Kevin Dineen
Guy Boucher

 

[nutman]

Is Sutter not out there?

 

[Crucialness Key]

LEO KOMAROV --- THE MOST INTERESTING PLAYER/COACH IN THE WORLD

 

[Corn Flake]

Is Sutter not out there?

Which one?

Brent? I don't think he's interested in coming back to the NHL.

 

[nutman]

Is Sutter not out there?

Which one?

Brent? I don't think he's interested in coming back to the NHL.

I was thinking any, they are very good hockey people.