Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Kin]

But with Ashton, his linemates have typically been terrible hockey players. It'd be difficult to get him more time without playing him on the PK or double-shifting a top six forward.

But that was my point. If you're going to play the 4th line that infrequently, I'm not sure it's to anyone's benefit that Ashton is in that role.

There can be a persuasive argument about playing the worst players on the roster more IF those worst players were better than Orr and McLaren (who admittedly hasn't played much). The team has better options in McClement, Ashton, D'Amigo, and Bodie. With those four, there's no point at all in having the players who can only be trusted for five minutes a night.

Well, you say that, but I'm still not sure that playing your worst line for significantly more than, say, 6 or 7 minutes a night has much in the way of benefits to a club.

 

[Kin]

Well that's what I meant about Nik making his own argument. I guess I didn't say it right, but he basically argued with himself in the same post.

No, I think you're just reading that incorrectly where you think I'm saying that Carlyle's decision is what's best for Ashton where I'm actually saying that the reason I don't like Carlyle's decision is because I don't think it's best for Ashton.

 

[princedpw]

The thing I'd like to know first before starting a debate about whether Carlyle is doing the right or the wrong thing with his ice time is how a player's performance varies with the amount of ice time he gets.  That's something I really don't know at all.  Does the average-conditioned forward play better in minutes 0-14, say, than minutes 15-18?  Or is it the case that most forwards in the NHL are in good enough condition to play 18 minutes and see no drop in their play?  If the latter is the case, then, just as a completely artificial example, it is entirely sensible to be playing line 1 20 minutes (they are a little tired in minutes 19-20, but even tired they are way better than the 4th-line guys), lines 2-3 18 minutes and line 4 4 minutes.  (That's assuming that nobody has any special roles like pk or anything and that the 4th-line guys are worse than the 3rd line guys).

Anyway, playing the 4th-line guys a small amount could be the right thing for Randy to do ... but I just don't know exactly when fatigue actually sets in and begins to have an impact on these uber-in-shape NHL players.  I do remember Sundin once saying that he thought he played best at 19 minutes (and that's where Quinn played him) but he always wanted more.

At the moment, the amount of time he plays those 4th liners doesn't bug me as much as who the 4th liners are --- who they are (when its Orr/Mclaren) just really bugs me sometimes as it seems so obviously sub-optimal.  And even though it probably doesn't make too much of a difference ... it could.  An incremental goal here or there might be enough to win one more game and we know the playoffs are often decided by just 0 or 1 or 2 points.

 

[TML fan]

Well that's what I meant about Nik making his own argument. I guess I didn't say it right, but he basically argued with himself in the same post.

No, I think you're just reading that incorrectly where you think I'm saying that Carlyle's decision is what's best for Ashton where I'm actually saying that the reason I don't like Carlyle's decision is because I don't think it's best for Ashton.

Yeah I get that. That's a persuasive enough argument in my mind. I mean, I have no problem with Carlyle dressing players to play 2 minutes if those players are Orr and McLaren. I don't see any point of having players like Ashton in the lineup if they aren't going to play.

 

[nutman]

I see the fourth line played a bit extra early in the game. To me Orr looked way out of place, he did not look like a player that could keep up with the game, mind or body.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Leafs have been outshot in 79 of their last 100 games. 

 

[nutman]

Leafs have been outshot in 79 of their last 100 games. 

So. Look at the standings, that's the bottom line. Sorry but after watching the games on tv, I am sick of hearing them two talk about the shots on net all game.
I am sure that will improve. I would like to also point out, they may get 40 shots but maybe only 10-15 are good shots. Where we may only get say 26 shots and still have 10-15 solid chances. This is IMO the better stat to be looking at, not so much how many, but quality.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Leafs have been outshot in 79 of their last 100 games. 

So. Look at the standings, that's the bottom line. Sorry but after watching the games on tv, I am sick of hearing them two talk about the shots on net all game.
I am sure that will improve. I would like to also point out, they may get 40 shots but maybe only 10-15 are good shots. Where we may only get say 26 shots and still have 10-15 solid chances. This is IMO the better stat to be looking at, not so much how many, but quality.

Take it however you want, but getting outshot in basically 80% of games is crazy.

 

[bustaheims]

Take it however you want, but getting outshot in basically 80% of games is crazy.

It is, but, it's really the margin they're being outshot by that's alarming.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Leafs have been outshot in 79 of their last 100 games. 

So. Look at the standings, that's the bottom line. Sorry but after watching the games on tv, I am sick of hearing them two talk about the shots on net all game.
I am sure that will improve. I would like to also point out, they may get 40 shots but maybe only 10-15 are good shots. Where we may only get say 26 shots and still have 10-15 solid chances. This is IMO the better stat to be looking at, not so much how many, but quality.

Take it however you want, but getting outshot in basically 80% of games is crazy.

79%...quit exaggerating! Geez

 

[Zee]

But they're 53-37-10 over that 100 games.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Literally all I'm saying is that it's crazy to see how high a percentage of games they are getting outshot in is.

 

[freer]

Literally all I'm saying is that it's crazy to see how high a percentage of games they are getting outshot in is.

Yeah, the games where we are out shot by 10 or more are different, IMO then the ones which the shot are close. Last nights game was close and IMO again the team played well

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm not worried about their offence either. It's their defence that scares the heck out of me. I mean, if the top 3 lines defence is as bad as it looks with Carlyle's coaching, could we imagine what a group of borderline NHLer's(-McClement) would look like?

D'Amigo's defensive play is pretty good - not Selke calibre or anything, but definitely good enough to not be a liability. As for Ashton, it's harder to tell, since he hasn't seen a lot of time on the ice and most of is has been spent with guys like Orr, Smith, Smithson, etc.

Relevant to this discussion yesterday, take a look at how Chicago uses their 4th line:

For those who don't know what it means, Bollig/Smith/Kruger are getting hardly any offensive zone shifts.  Not saying every team can do this, but having a 4th line you can trust to play defensive minutes frees up your offensive players a lot more.  They don't necessarily have to be put out in the defensive zone for a face-off if you can trust your 4th line to do it - rather than having to do so because there's no one else.

It's just one part of their puzzle, but I'm sure there's some reasoning behind it.

 

[Leaflifer]

I'm not worried about their offence either. It's their defence that scares the heck out of me. I mean, if the top 3 lines defence is as bad as it looks with Carlyle's coaching, could we imagine what a group of borderline NHLer's(-McClement) would look like?

D'Amigo's defensive play is pretty good - not Selke calibre or anything, but definitely good enough to not be a liability. As for Ashton, it's harder to tell, since he hasn't seen a lot of time on the ice and most of is has been spent with guys like Orr, Smith, Smithson, etc.

Relevant to this discussion yesterday, take a look at how Chicago uses their 4th line:

For those who don't know what it means, Bollig/Smith/Kruger are getting hardly any offensive zone shifts.  Not saying every team can do this, but having a 4th line you can trust to play defensive minutes frees up your offensive players a lot more.  They don't necessarily have to be put out in the defensive zone for a face-off if you can trust your 4th line to do it - rather than having to do so because there's no one else.

It's just one part of their puzzle, but I'm sure there's some reasoning behind it.

Interesting.

Also, In regards to shot totals, the Roger Neilson method just makes way more sense IMO. You count quality scoring chances.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Leafs were behind in those too.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I must have missed this in November, but someone brought it up on Twitter and it's interesting in the context of the number of shots the Leafs give up:

23. Ryan said there was one on-ice adjustment with his transition from Anaheim to Ottawa. Senators head coach Paul MacLean wants his forwards to engage opponents who go to the half-wall with the puck in the defensive zone. Ryan remembers then-Ducks head coach Randy Carlyle demanding they stay in the middle of the ice. ?If the goalie can?t stop it from out there, we?ll get another one,? Ryan said Carlyle would say.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey/opinion/2013/11/30-thoughts-wild-prosper-from-playing-puck-more.html

 

[Bonsixx]

I must have missed this in November, but someone brought it up on Twitter and it's interesting in the context of the number of shots the Leafs give up:

23. Ryan said there was one on-ice adjustment with his transition from Anaheim to Ottawa. Senators head coach Paul MacLean wants his forwards to engage opponents who go to the half-wall with the puck in the defensive zone. Ryan remembers then-Ducks head coach Randy Carlyle demanding they stay in the middle of the ice. ?If the goalie can?t stop it from out there, we?ll get another one,? Ryan said Carlyle would say.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey/opinion/2013/11/30-thoughts-wild-prosper-from-playing-puck-more.html

That's pretty funny.

 

[L K]

The Bobby Ryan quote means a lot less to me than the Minnesota quotes about using a combination of dump-ins and aggressive puck carrying.  The Senators are pretty much a carbon copy of the Leafs in that they rely on good goaltending to win (last year Anderson was unreal) whereas this year, average goaltending is getting them average results.

 

[TML fan]

Fire him already.

 

[lc9]

Fire him already.

Please god yes.  He has been so bad.  This team just doesn't compete, their system doesn't allow it.  It's sad watching all the games, even when they win they were usually thoroughly outplayed.