Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[GhostofPotvin29]

What pep talk are we talking about?

I imagine it was the one pre-game thing when, after Carlyle left the room shortly before the game started, Phaneuf mumbled out a few cliches and such. At least, that's the one I'm referring to. It wasn't particularly inspiring, but, I wouldn't say it was all that different from what we saw from the Red Wings room, either.

Ahhhh I remember now.  I assume that sort of thing happens in every room, every game.  I think it even happened in house league minor hockey.

"Win one for the Gipper!"

 

[Stickytape]

But outright denying his responsibility to the team is a completely alien idea to me.  I don't get where that's coming from.

I don't think it's a question of denying responsibility so much as it is a case of denying efficacy. I think that there are certain things that a coach can do to get through to players individually or collectively on an ongoing basis to shape how they approach games or practices or their profession but the idea that a really good speech during the intermissions will get a bunch of guys dragging their butts to play better...I doubt that. I don't think that's something a coach really can do outside of extraordinary circumstances.

That sort of motivation, the "we sucked last period so we'll do better next"  drive, I really think that comes from within. Either someone has it or they don't and I don't think Carlyle watching episodes of Friday Night Lights for pointers is going to help. Now, a coach or a captain or a teammate, they can play a role in motivating a player to have that or improve themselves in that regard but the sort of win one for the Gipper stuff you're referring to? I think it's entirely overblown.

See, this I'm okay with, too.  Debates about competency and efficacy I understand.

It's just important to draw a line between "there isn't that much he can do", and saying that the coach then shouldn't even bother, and has zero responsibility.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that there is some sort of magic phrase, or some magic decibel level of shouting that will instantly win you the cup.  I'm suggesting that how a coach acts, what he says, how and when he says it, etc, can be little things that add up to a net positive for the team.

In summary:
1.  There are little things coaches can do to positively influence their players, and

2.  I think coaches should do these things when possible. 

3.  There are little things coaches can do that will negatively influence their players, and

4.  I think coaches should avoid doing those things in most cases.

5.  I'm amazed that I apparently need to type sentences such as these out to adults, but here we are.

 

[Kin]

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that, I just might say that the operative word there is "little".

 

[Stickytape]

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that, I just might say that the operative word there is "little".

Yeah, I'm a-okay with that, too.

 

[losveratos]

A coach has several responsibilities in general.
- Assess the strengths and weaknesses of those they coach
- Find ways to best utilize the strengths and best minimize the weaknesses
- To teach each member differently based on the individuals learning style
- Player motivation

Then you have the NHL specific stuff.
- Choosing lines
- Line changes
- Line matches
- Starting goalie
- Whether to measure the opponents equipment
- Pulling the goalie
- Shootout player selection
- Time outs
- A few more things mostly minor I'm sure I'm forgetting

But a lot of the other things you guys rag on such as
- PP selection (delegated)
- PK selection and coverage (delegated)
- Who gets called up and sent down (influenced by but not decided by him)

SO of all the things that we could be talking about for what really is his job. Why is there a multi-page conversation on coach speech giving? This isn't the King of England addressing his people, or the space race during the cold war. We're talking about 20+ professional athletes who have 3 leaders with letters on their jersey's who should be taking the mantle on that one in my opinion.

Which of his real jobs do you guys actually have problems with?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Those first 4 things you listed are literally what 95% of this thread has been about in terms of criticisms.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Then you have the NHL specific stuff.
- Choosing lines
- Line changes
- Line matches
- Starting goalie
- Whether to measure the opponents equipment
- Pulling the goalie
- Shootout player selection
- Time outs
- A few more things mostly minor I'm sure I'm forgetting

...

Which of his real jobs do you guys actually have problems with?

I mean I don't really agree with your point in general but just to play along I bolded them. I also wouldn't mind the occasional stick measurement I guess.

You also missed like tactics and stuff so that's why I bolded the last one.

 

[losveratos]

Then you have the NHL specific stuff.
- Choosing lines
- Line changes
- Line matches
- Starting goalie
- Whether to measure the opponents equipment
- Pulling the goalie
- Shootout player selection
- Time outs
- A few more things mostly minor I'm sure I'm forgetting

...

Which of his real jobs do you guys actually have problems with?

I mean I don't really agree with your point in general but just to play along I bolded them. I also wouldn't mind the occasional stick measurement I guess.

You also missed like tactics and stuff so that's why I bolded the last one.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this one... but I'm pretty sure I've heard him state several times that defense zone coverage and pk are the one a.coach's job and the offensive zone and pp setups are mostly the other a.coach's job.

I'm sure they touch base with him and together they create a general idea of what the game plan is... but it seems to me like big parts of the play by play are delegated down the coaching lineup. Where as he's bigger picture stuff.

 

[L K]

Then you have the NHL specific stuff.
- Choosing lines
- Line changes
- Line matches
- Starting goalie
- Whether to measure the opponents equipment
- Pulling the goalie
- Shootout player selection
- Time outs
- A few more things mostly minor I'm sure I'm forgetting

...

Which of his real jobs do you guys actually have problems with?

I mean I don't really agree with your point in general but just to play along I bolded them. I also wouldn't mind the occasional stick measurement I guess.

You also missed like tactics and stuff so that's why I bolded the last one.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this one... but I'm pretty sure I've heard him state several times that defense zone coverage and pk are the one a.coach's job and the offensive zone and pp setups are mostly the other a.coach's job.

I'm sure they touch base with him and together they create a general idea of what the game plan is... but it seems to me like big parts of the play by play are delegated down the coaching lineup. Where as he's bigger picture stuff.

Delegation doesn't absolve of responsibility.  Carlyle picked his assistants and allows his assistants to work underneath him.  If Carlyle was opposed to the job they were doing, he would do something about it. 

 

[Stickytape]

Then you have the NHL specific stuff.
- Choosing lines
- Line changes
- Line matches
- Starting goalie
- Whether to measure the opponents equipment
- Pulling the goalie
- Shootout player selection
- Time outs
- A few more things mostly minor I'm sure I'm forgetting
...

I gather Carlyle delegates shootout lineups to his assistant coach, too.  Or so I've read.

 

[Leaflifer]

Agreed.  As Carlyle and the coaching staff said repeatedly during 24/7, they shouldn't be responsible for getting the players revved up for the game.  They need to find that from within themselves and from team leadership. 

The problem with this statement is that Carlyle and the coaches are part of the team's leadership. Part of the job of the coach and his staff is to motivate the team, whether Carlyle wants to believe that or not. It's not solely on them, but it is absolutely partly on them.

I agree with Carlyle on that point. I think the players do need to find the desire to win outside of his yelling at them saying they suck. He shouldn't
feel the need to do that.

After TBay won the cup, Tortorella was asked. "What did you say to those guys to get them going?"

He said, "Nothing...if they haven't figured it out by now there's nothing I CAN say."

: This is getting ridiculous to the point where I'm having trouble believing people are sincere when they suggest that coaches aren't at least partly responsible for keeping a team motivated.

So, for argument's sake, let's say that the Leafs sally forth against the Canucks on Saturday, and get outshot something like 15-2 in the 1st period.  During the 1st intermission, Carlyle gathers the players in the dressing room... and just calmly goes over a few set plays for 20 minutes.

That's cool with you?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I literally do not understand what this whole "I say nothing to my players" stuff is.  That is not how hockey works, and I surprised we're even entertaining the idea that it is.  ???

The way I see it, the coach is a part of the team, and in no way does any member of the team get to sit back and wash their hands of it when things aren't clicking.  Everyone has a hand in keeping the team motivated and focused.  When the team is losing, you do whatever the hell is necessary to start winning again.  You just do.

I'm fine with people saying that Carlyle is sincerely doing his best, or that he's still trying to find a way to get through to these players and maybe we should give him more time.  That's more of a discussion about competence, and I'm cool with that.  But outright denying his responsibility to the team is a completely alien idea to me.  I don't get where that's coming from.

No one is saying coaches aren't responsible for a teams play. With the Torts quote, all I am illustrating is the other side of that coin. What I can't believe is totally hanging a lack of motivation on the coach. There is only so much screaming a coach can do before a player decides to dig deep.

I was actually glad to see Carlyle bringing some fire into the room, cause I sure don't see it coming from anywhere else. Part of my concern in this area stems from the emotional scars of The Game. Seeing them sitting there staring blankly into space while the Bs on ice leadership took over and pulled off a near impossible comeback.

I want to see someone (or a few guys) get up on their feet and pump up that bench when they are playing flat. Not just Randy huffing and puffing away.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Gotta give Carlyle credit for putting Kulemin at C and with rolling 7 D for a couple games.  Changed things up and it's shown thus far something in Kulemin nobody had seen before.

 

[bustaheims]

Gotta give Carlyle credit for putting Kulemin at C and with rolling 7 D for a couple games.  Changed things up and it's shown thus far something in Kulemin nobody had seen before.

Most innovative move he's made since taking over behind the Leafs' bench. It'll be interesting to see what he does when Bolland's back.

 

[caver]

He sits Orr (finally), moves a few players around, and sticks with Bernier. It's good to see. A bit of change from a guy who wouldn't call a time out when the playoff roof was falling in. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

@mirtle

It seems insane for this to happen under a new coach and believe systems had zero to do with the shift

@beatoni12

@mirtle what does the before picture look like? All around average?

@mirtle

@beatoni12 A lot closer to average, yes

 

[Redleaf]

Interesting comments today from Carlyle...

"We've had our issues as far as allowing the opposition far too many shots against," Carlyle said, "but wouldn't you know it in the last three games we have out-shot our opponents and have not had the success.

"Sure we'd like to have more shots on net and we don't want to pass up opportunities to shoot the puck and drive it to the net, but shots on goal are not the end-all."

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Personally, interesting isn't really the word I'd use.

 

[Redleaf]

Personally, interesting isn't really the word I'd use.

Shots on goal.....important....not important.....come on....You guys have been arguing about this all season. 

 

[freer]

When we dont make the playoffs, he will be gone. I am the most positive fan out there. But this coach has to go. He has wrecked Reimer, which has us currently falling out of the playoffs. Bye Bye Randy.

 

[Zee]

When we dont make the playoffs, he will be gone. I am the most positive fan out there. But this coach has to go. He has wrecked Reimer, which has us currently falling out of the playoffs. Bye Bye Randy.

Kind of like when Wilson wrecked Reimer in 2011-2012 when he was losing game after game during the 18 wheeler stretch?