Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[CarltonTheBear]

Carlyle still has a winning record as a coach.

And Raycroft had 37 wins that one season.

 

[Redleaf]

I'm hoping that fans here don't expect a new coach (any coach) to have any instant impact on the fortunes of this team.

Sorry to be the downer, but that just isn't going to happen, unless Nonis addresses some of the issues on the blueline at the same time he fires Carlyle.

For those that blame everything on Carlyle, do you really think Eakins would have done much better? I think he could have been worse. Perhaps much worse.

Or perhaps he'd be better. Or much better. Or the exact same. Who cares, it doesn't change the fact that Carlyle and his staff are absolute stiffs.

But really, the starting goaltender has a .925 save % and the offense seems to score effortlessly in all situations; it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle.

I love it when people argue that it couldn't get worse than Carlyle. It could absolutely be worse. Carlyle still has a winning record as a coach. What record does Eakins have? What qualifications does Eakins have? How do Maurice and Wilson's record compare?

Some fans just want to make the most simplistic connection to all the problems and throw all the blame one person.

Are you even reading or understanding what people are saying? How are any of the arguments against Carlyle simplistic? Re-read the thread and see the multitude of examination and analysis about how bad the team has played under Carlyle.

As for Eakins, I said I didn't care about him. I said it could have been worse, much worse, better or much better. Again, are you even reading or understanding what you are quoting? "It's difficult to get worse than Carlyle" is alot different than "it couldn't get any worse."

I'm glad you mentioned Maurice, by the way. His record during his first year in Toronto is better than Carlyle's this year. With .894 save percentage, to boot. So despite a superior team and much, much superior goaltending, Carlyle is going to have trouble matching Maurice.

Ultimately I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with this argument. Because the Leafs have had many coaching changes and have never reached the Cup that means they can't change coaches?

Even with all the negative attention and blame Carlyle has gotten since coming to Toronto, he's got the best winning percentage since Pat Quinn....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_head_coaches

 

[Andy007]

Carlyle still has a winning record as a coach.

And Raycroft had 37 wins that one season.

And Maurice has a winning record as Leafs coach as well.

 

[Andy007]

I'm hoping that fans here don't expect a new coach (any coach) to have any instant impact on the fortunes of this team.

Sorry to be the downer, but that just isn't going to happen, unless Nonis addresses some of the issues on the blueline at the same time he fires Carlyle.

For those that blame everything on Carlyle, do you really think Eakins would have done much better? I think he could have been worse. Perhaps much worse.

Or perhaps he'd be better. Or much better. Or the exact same. Who cares, it doesn't change the fact that Carlyle and his staff are absolute stiffs.

But really, the starting goaltender has a .925 save % and the offense seems to score effortlessly in all situations; it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle.

I love it when people argue that it couldn't get worse than Carlyle. It could absolutely be worse. Carlyle still has a winning record as a coach. What record does Eakins have? What qualifications does Eakins have? How do Maurice and Wilson's record compare?

Some fans just want to make the most simplistic connection to all the problems and throw all the blame one person.

Are you even reading or understanding what people are saying? How are any of the arguments against Carlyle simplistic? Re-read the thread and see the multitude of examination and analysis about how bad the team has played under Carlyle.

As for Eakins, I said I didn't care about him. I said it could have been worse, much worse, better or much better. Again, are you even reading or understanding what you are quoting? "It's difficult to get worse than Carlyle" is alot different than "it couldn't get any worse."

I'm glad you mentioned Maurice, by the way. His record during his first year in Toronto is better than Carlyle's this year. With .894 save percentage, to boot. So despite a superior team and much, much superior goaltending, Carlyle is going to have trouble matching Maurice.

Ultimately I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with this argument. Because the Leafs have had many coaching changes and have never reached the Cup that means they can't change coaches?

Even with all the negative attention and blame Carlyle has gotten since coming to Toronto, he's got the best winning percentage since Pat Quinn....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_head_coaches

Great, way to keep posting things that have nothing to do with what you're quoting.

 

[Redleaf]

I'm hoping that fans here don't expect a new coach (any coach) to have any instant impact on the fortunes of this team.

Sorry to be the downer, but that just isn't going to happen, unless Nonis addresses some of the issues on the blueline at the same time he fires Carlyle.

For those that blame everything on Carlyle, do you really think Eakins would have done much better? I think he could have been worse. Perhaps much worse.

Or perhaps he'd be better. Or much better. Or the exact same. Who cares, it doesn't change the fact that Carlyle and his staff are absolute stiffs.

But really, the starting goaltender has a .925 save % and the offense seems to score effortlessly in all situations; it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle.

I love it when people argue that it couldn't get worse than Carlyle. It could absolutely be worse. Carlyle still has a winning record as a coach. What record does Eakins have? What qualifications does Eakins have? How do Maurice and Wilson's record compare?

Some fans just want to make the most simplistic connection to all the problems and throw all the blame one person.

Are you even reading or understanding what people are saying? How are any of the arguments against Carlyle simplistic? Re-read the thread and see the multitude of examination and analysis about how bad the team has played under Carlyle.

As for Eakins, I said I didn't care about him. I said it could have been worse, much worse, better or much better. Again, are you even reading or understanding what you are quoting? "It's difficult to get worse than Carlyle" is alot different than "it couldn't get any worse."

I'm glad you mentioned Maurice, by the way. His record during his first year in Toronto is better than Carlyle's this year. With .894 save percentage, to boot. So despite a superior team and much, much superior goaltending, Carlyle is going to have trouble matching Maurice.

Ultimately I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with this argument. Because the Leafs have had many coaching changes and have never reached the Cup that means they can't change coaches?

Even with all the negative attention and blame Carlyle has gotten since coming to Toronto, he's got the best winning percentage since Pat Quinn....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_head_coaches

Great, way to keep posting things that have nothing to do with what you're quoting.

Say again?

 

[Andy007]

I'm hoping that fans here don't expect a new coach (any coach) to have any instant impact on the fortunes of this team.

Sorry to be the downer, but that just isn't going to happen, unless Nonis addresses some of the issues on the blueline at the same time he fires Carlyle.

For those that blame everything on Carlyle, do you really think Eakins would have done much better? I think he could have been worse. Perhaps much worse.

Or perhaps he'd be better. Or much better. Or the exact same. Who cares, it doesn't change the fact that Carlyle and his staff are absolute stiffs.

But really, the starting goaltender has a .925 save % and the offense seems to score effortlessly in all situations; it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle.

I love it when people argue that it couldn't get worse than Carlyle. It could absolutely be worse. Carlyle still has a winning record as a coach. What record does Eakins have? What qualifications does Eakins have? How do Maurice and Wilson's record compare?

Some fans just want to make the most simplistic connection to all the problems and throw all the blame one person.

Are you even reading or understanding what people are saying? How are any of the arguments against Carlyle simplistic? Re-read the thread and see the multitude of examination and analysis about how bad the team has played under Carlyle.

As for Eakins, I said I didn't care about him. I said it could have been worse, much worse, better or much better. Again, are you even reading or understanding what you are quoting? "It's difficult to get worse than Carlyle" is alot different than "it couldn't get any worse."

I'm glad you mentioned Maurice, by the way. His record during his first year in Toronto is better than Carlyle's this year. With .894 save percentage, to boot. So despite a superior team and much, much superior goaltending, Carlyle is going to have trouble matching Maurice.

Ultimately I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with this argument. Because the Leafs have had many coaching changes and have never reached the Cup that means they can't change coaches?

Even with all the negative attention and blame Carlyle has gotten since coming to Toronto, he's got the best winning percentage since Pat Quinn....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_head_coaches

And just to address this, Maurice's is .530, Carlyle's is .545. Not a huge difference despite Carlyle having a significantly superior team. And the only other coach since Pat Quinn was Ron Wilson.

 

[Redleaf]

I'm hoping that fans here don't expect a new coach (any coach) to have any instant impact on the fortunes of this team.

Sorry to be the downer, but that just isn't going to happen, unless Nonis addresses some of the issues on the blueline at the same time he fires Carlyle.

For those that blame everything on Carlyle, do you really think Eakins would have done much better? I think he could have been worse. Perhaps much worse.

Or perhaps he'd be better. Or much better. Or the exact same. Who cares, it doesn't change the fact that Carlyle and his staff are absolute stiffs.

But really, the starting goaltender has a .925 save % and the offense seems to score effortlessly in all situations; it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle.

I love it when people argue that it couldn't get worse than Carlyle. It could absolutely be worse. Carlyle still has a winning record as a coach. What record does Eakins have? What qualifications does Eakins have? How do Maurice and Wilson's record compare?

Some fans just want to make the most simplistic connection to all the problems and throw all the blame one person.

Are you even reading or understanding what people are saying? How are any of the arguments against Carlyle simplistic? Re-read the thread and see the multitude of examination and analysis about how bad the team has played under Carlyle.

As for Eakins, I said I didn't care about him. I said it could have been worse, much worse, better or much better. Again, are you even reading or understanding what you are quoting? "It's difficult to get worse than Carlyle" is alot different than "it couldn't get any worse."

I'm glad you mentioned Maurice, by the way. His record during his first year in Toronto is better than Carlyle's this year. With .894 save percentage, to boot. So despite a superior team and much, much superior goaltending, Carlyle is going to have trouble matching Maurice.

Ultimately I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with this argument. Because the Leafs have had many coaching changes and have never reached the Cup that means they can't change coaches?

Even with all the negative attention and blame Carlyle has gotten since coming to Toronto, he's got the best winning percentage since Pat Quinn....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_head_coaches

And just to address this, Maurice's is .530, Carlyle's is .545. Not a huge difference despite Carlyle having a significantly superior team. And the only other coach since Pat Quinn was Ron Wilson.

But you're kind of missing the point. How does someone stand firmly behind an argument that says it couldn't get worse than Randy Carlyle?

 

[Andy007]

I'm hoping that fans here don't expect a new coach (any coach) to have any instant impact on the fortunes of this team.

Sorry to be the downer, but that just isn't going to happen, unless Nonis addresses some of the issues on the blueline at the same time he fires Carlyle.

For those that blame everything on Carlyle, do you really think Eakins would have done much better? I think he could have been worse. Perhaps much worse.

Or perhaps he'd be better. Or much better. Or the exact same. Who cares, it doesn't change the fact that Carlyle and his staff are absolute stiffs.

But really, the starting goaltender has a .925 save % and the offense seems to score effortlessly in all situations; it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle.

I love it when people argue that it couldn't get worse than Carlyle. It could absolutely be worse. Carlyle still has a winning record as a coach. What record does Eakins have? What qualifications does Eakins have? How do Maurice and Wilson's record compare?

Some fans just want to make the most simplistic connection to all the problems and throw all the blame one person.

Are you even reading or understanding what people are saying? How are any of the arguments against Carlyle simplistic? Re-read the thread and see the multitude of examination and analysis about how bad the team has played under Carlyle.

As for Eakins, I said I didn't care about him. I said it could have been worse, much worse, better or much better. Again, are you even reading or understanding what you are quoting? "It's difficult to get worse than Carlyle" is alot different than "it couldn't get any worse."

I'm glad you mentioned Maurice, by the way. His record during his first year in Toronto is better than Carlyle's this year. With .894 save percentage, to boot. So despite a superior team and much, much superior goaltending, Carlyle is going to have trouble matching Maurice.

Ultimately I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with this argument. Because the Leafs have had many coaching changes and have never reached the Cup that means they can't change coaches?

Even with all the negative attention and blame Carlyle has gotten since coming to Toronto, he's got the best winning percentage since Pat Quinn....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_head_coaches

And just to address this, Maurice's is .530, Carlyle's is .545. Not a huge difference despite Carlyle having a significantly superior team. And the only other coach since Pat Quinn was Ron Wilson.

But you're kind of missing the point. How does someone stand firmly behind an argument that says it couldn't get worse than Randy Carlyle?

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

 

[AvroArrow]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  This team's success stems from talent.  This team's failure stems from coaching and poor effort.

Is Carlyle the only problem?  No.  Is he a major problem?  Yes.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

But you're kind of missing the point. How does someone stand firmly behind an argument that says it couldn't get worse than Randy Carlyle?

Because of all the stuff that's already been said. You're either not reading or or you don't buy it. The latter is fine but don't pretend people haven't put thought into this.

The only way a new coach would be worse in my opinion is if he came in and punched Bernier in the groin before every practice.

 

[Redleaf]

I'm hoping that fans here don't expect a new coach (any coach) to have any instant impact on the fortunes of this team.

Sorry to be the downer, but that just isn't going to happen, unless Nonis addresses some of the issues on the blueline at the same time he fires Carlyle.

For those that blame everything on Carlyle, do you really think Eakins would have done much better? I think he could have been worse. Perhaps much worse.

Or perhaps he'd be better. Or much better. Or the exact same. Who cares, it doesn't change the fact that Carlyle and his staff are absolute stiffs.

But really, the starting goaltender has a .925 save % and the offense seems to score effortlessly in all situations; it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle.

I love it when people argue that it couldn't get worse than Carlyle. It could absolutely be worse. Carlyle still has a winning record as a coach. What record does Eakins have? What qualifications does Eakins have? How do Maurice and Wilson's record compare?

Some fans just want to make the most simplistic connection to all the problems and throw all the blame one person.

Are you even reading or understanding what people are saying? How are any of the arguments against Carlyle simplistic? Re-read the thread and see the multitude of examination and analysis about how bad the team has played under Carlyle.

As for Eakins, I said I didn't care about him. I said it could have been worse, much worse, better or much better. Again, are you even reading or understanding what you are quoting? "It's difficult to get worse than Carlyle" is alot different than "it couldn't get any worse."

I'm glad you mentioned Maurice, by the way. His record during his first year in Toronto is better than Carlyle's this year. With .894 save percentage, to boot. So despite a superior team and much, much superior goaltending, Carlyle is going to have trouble matching Maurice.

Ultimately I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with this argument. Because the Leafs have had many coaching changes and have never reached the Cup that means they can't change coaches?

Even with all the negative attention and blame Carlyle has gotten since coming to Toronto, he's got the best winning percentage since Pat Quinn....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_head_coaches

And just to address this, Maurice's is .530, Carlyle's is .545. Not a huge difference despite Carlyle having a significantly superior team. And the only other coach since Pat Quinn was Ron Wilson.

But you're kind of missing the point. How does someone stand firmly behind an argument that says it couldn't get worse than Randy Carlyle?

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

"it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle"

Not just to center you out, but others has said it more precisely.

The evidence just doesn't support this. In fact, it supports the opposite argument more.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

Yeah, I mean I guess that statement needs to be expanded on a bit. Could my neighbour George coach this team better? Probably not. Do I think a qualified NHL coach who has a better idea of how to win in the NHL today and has strategies that are better suited for this team would be better? Definitely.

 

[L K]

I'm hoping that fans here don't expect a new coach (any coach) to have any instant impact on the fortunes of this team.

Sorry to be the downer, but that just isn't going to happen, unless Nonis addresses some of the issues on the blueline at the same time he fires Carlyle.

For those that blame everything on Carlyle, do you really think Eakins would have done much better? I think he could have been worse. Perhaps much worse.

Or perhaps he'd be better. Or much better. Or the exact same. Who cares, it doesn't change the fact that Carlyle and his staff are absolute stiffs.

But really, the starting goaltender has a .925 save % and the offense seems to score effortlessly in all situations; it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle.

I love it when people argue that it couldn't get worse than Carlyle. It could absolutely be worse. Carlyle still has a winning record as a coach. What record does Eakins have? What qualifications does Eakins have? How do Maurice and Wilson's record compare?

Some fans just want to make the most simplistic connection to all the problems and throw all the blame one person.

Are you even reading or understanding what people are saying? How are any of the arguments against Carlyle simplistic? Re-read the thread and see the multitude of examination and analysis about how bad the team has played under Carlyle.

As for Eakins, I said I didn't care about him. I said it could have been worse, much worse, better or much better. Again, are you even reading or understanding what you are quoting? "It's difficult to get worse than Carlyle" is alot different than "it couldn't get any worse."

I'm glad you mentioned Maurice, by the way. His record during his first year in Toronto is better than Carlyle's this year. With .894 save percentage, to boot. So despite a superior team and much, much superior goaltending, Carlyle is going to have trouble matching Maurice.

Ultimately I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with this argument. Because the Leafs have had many coaching changes and have never reached the Cup that means they can't change coaches?

Even with all the negative attention and blame Carlyle has gotten since coming to Toronto, he's got the best winning percentage since Pat Quinn....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_head_coaches

And just to address this, Maurice's is .530, Carlyle's is .545. Not a huge difference despite Carlyle having a significantly superior team. And the only other coach since Pat Quinn was Ron Wilson.

But you're kind of missing the point. How does someone stand firmly behind an argument that says it couldn't get worse than Randy Carlyle?

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

"it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle"

Not just to center you out, but others has said it more precisely.

The evidence just doesn't support this. In fact, it supports the opposite argument more.

On the basis of what exactly?  That Carlyle has a better record with his top line being JVR-Bozak-Kessel than Wilson with a top line of Jason Blake - Matt Stajan - Alexei Ponikarovsky?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

But you're kind of missing the point. How does someone stand firmly behind an argument that says it couldn't get worse than Randy Carlyle?

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

"it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle"

Not just to center you out, but others has said it more precisely.

The evidence just doesn't support this. In fact, it supports the opposite argument more.

You do realize that "it would be difficult to be worse" and "couldn't be worse" are different yes?

 

[AvroArrow]

But you're kind of missing the point. How does someone stand firmly behind an argument that says it couldn't get worse than Randy Carlyle?

Because of all the stuff that's already been said. You're either not reading or or you don't buy it. The latter is fine but don't pretend people haven't put thought into this.

The only way a new coach would be worse in my opinion is if he came in and punched Bernier in the groin before every practice.

Further to CtB's statement, the comment "can't get worse" is bounded by 'realistic'.  Technically, yes, it can ALWAYS get worse, and that seems to be partially what you're clinging to here (the technicality).  Realistically, things can't get worse with this team and the talent it has.

 

[Redleaf]

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

Yeah, I mean I guess that statement needs to be expanded on a bit. Could my neighbour George coach this team better? Probably not. Do I think a qualified NHL coach who has a better idea of how to win in the NHL today and has strategies that are better suited for this team would be better? Definitely.

Fair enough. But we haven't had much luck in the recent past with the strategy of changing coaches in the hopes of improving the play of this team.

 

[Stickytape]

Of course it could be worse, but it's a completely moot point: Carlyle isn't good enough, so we roll the dice.  It's not rocket surgery.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

Yeah, I mean I guess that statement needs to be expanded on a bit. Could my neighbour George coach this team better? Probably not. Do I think a qualified NHL coach who has a better idea of how to win in the NHL today and has strategies that are better suited for this team would be better? Definitely.

Fair enough. But we haven't had much luck in the recent past with the strategy of changing coaches in the hopes of improving the play of this team.

Didn't have much luck in changing goalies either until a good one came along.

 

[Redleaf]

But you're kind of missing the point. How does someone stand firmly behind an argument that says it couldn't get worse than Randy Carlyle?

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

"it'd be difficult for any coach to be worse than Carlyle"

Not just to center you out, but others has said it more precisely.

The evidence just doesn't support this. In fact, it supports the opposite argument more.

You do realize that "it would be difficult to be worse" and "couldn't be worse" are different yes?

That's why I also posted that others here have been more precise in saying it couldn't get worse.

 

[Redleaf]

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

Yeah, I mean I guess that statement needs to be expanded on a bit. Could my neighbour George coach this team better? Probably not. Do I think a qualified NHL coach who has a better idea of how to win in the NHL today and has strategies that are better suited for this team would be better? Definitely.

Fair enough. But we haven't had much luck in the recent past with the strategy of changing coaches in the hopes of improving the play of this team.

Didn't have much luck in changing goalies either until a good one came along.

So the strategy is to change coaches every couple of years until the team decides to actually play for one of them?