Highlander
Active member
No Randy = Plumer
Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread
- Thread starter LuncheonMeat
- Start date
- Status
bustaheims
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Except, of course, when it is. In fact, the simplest solution is often the correct solution.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Sure, if you want to be an absurdist. Firing the coach is very much a legitimate potential solution. Hiding under a pile of coats (or whatever other absurd suggestion you feel like putting forth) - otherwise known as avoidance - is not.
Kin
New member
bustaheims said:
Well, if the problem is how the Leafs can sneak into the playoffs in the 6 seed, sure. If the problem is how the Leafs can get to a point where they're legitimate Stanley Cup contenders then, no, I would categorize it as the equivalent to hiding under those coats.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
If the coach is part of the problem - and there are many indicators that the current coach is - replacing him is just as important as addressing issues on the roster.
Kin
New member
bustaheims said:
Again, if "the problem" is that this team isn't good enough to be a contender and that those failings run throughout the roster then, no, issues of coaching are largely irrelevant. It is basically the fundamental definition of putting the cart before the horse.
edit: And, really, if one is of the opinion that major changes to the roster need to be made? Then an argument can easily be made that going out and looking for a coach who can squeeze the most possible wins out of a so-so team is tremendously counter-productive.
pnjunction
New member
So no point at all in looking for better coaching until you feel you have contender-level talent on your roster? Theoretically, if you had a coach that brings out the worst in most of your players how are you going to know when they are at that level?
Doesn't sound good for developing that talent, sitting back and watching them suck no matter how bad your coaching is until all that talent is just sitting in your lap (and you know it). Doesn't sound good for getting that talent much playoff experience for the big push when you finally get a competent coach either.
Doesn't sound good for developing that talent, sitting back and watching them suck no matter how bad your coaching is until all that talent is just sitting in your lap (and you know it). Doesn't sound good for getting that talent much playoff experience for the big push when you finally get a competent coach either.
Bullfrog
Active member
I just don't see how it can be counter-productive. Nothing they do with coaching staff prevents them from making any player transactions.
I understand your point that the team's players ultimately need to get better, but why wait to upgrade the coaching? Are you suggesting they need to see what type of team they end up with and then get a coach that fits that?
I understand your point that the team's players ultimately need to get better, but why wait to upgrade the coaching? Are you suggesting they need to see what type of team they end up with and then get a coach that fits that?
Kin
New member
pnjunction said:
No, that's not what I've said. I've said that without a concrete move towards assembling that kind of talent that who the coach is doesn't really matter. Also, putting together that sort of talent can and usually is at odds with trying to squeeze as many points as possible out of a season.
pnjunction said:
That assumes that one coach fits all situations, that the right guy to coach a team to the title is the right guy to develop players to boot. But look at recent cup winners. The Kings made a coaching change the year they won the cup. So did the Penguins. The Blackhawks brought in Quenneville only after Kane, Toews, Sharp, Keith and Seabrook were on board. The Bruins team Julien was brought in to coach already had Chara, Thomas and Bergeron. Datysuk, Zetterberg and Lidstrom all predated Babcock on the Wings.
The idea of finding the right coach and then finding the right players just doesn't have much in the way of precedent and it's not hard to see why. If the ultimate goal of a coach is to harness the requisite talent on a team in a particular playing style that maximizes that talent then don't you need to know what kind of players you're building around before you know if a coach's philosophy fits that mold?
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
Well, ultimately maybe, but again the point isn't that you need to wait to "upgrade" the coaching but rather that these moves need to be connected to a larger plan to address the more significant issue and, along those lines, the coach you're looking for is going to be the guy who helps you in a specific way. You can "upgrade" the coaching staff by going out and getting looking for someone who'll get the most out of a mediocre roster or you can upgrade the staff by getting by looking for a coach who'll be really good at working with and developing young players. Those two things don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive but if you're dealing with a league that incentives terribleness over mediocrity then I'm sure you can see why mediocrity, even optimum mediocrity, should be avoided.
You know, if you look at it, the turning point for the Leafs came when Carlyle made his disparaging remarks about reimer. Reimer is the nicest hockey player you will ever see. I think that the other players really resented randy for those comments and it started the downward spiral.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Worst losing streak since 2009. Even the 18 Wheeler had an OT point.
Spider
New member
If Nonis is thinking af firing Carlyle if they don't make the playoffs, why wait until the end of the season? Get him out of here as soon as possible, so a new coach can start looking at the strengths of this team and develop a new system right away; with 7 games left. Instead of waiting until training camp next season.
Rebel_1812
New member
Okay so Randy gets fired. Who do you replace him with? What coach can turn a team that gives up 40 shots a night into one that gives up 20 shots a night?
- Status