Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Redleaf]

And to add to that, if we could exchange our entire team for Edmonton's right now, I'd do that in a heartbeat.

Without a doubt. Even if they have a lot of similar type players, they have some serious pieces they could trade away to address their areas of need. What players are we going to trade to properly fix our blueline ? Franson?

 

[Kin]

Like Edmonton? I prefer the Detroit approach better, giving their young players longer time to develop in the minors, scout and draft smartly, regardless of where you finish.

It's easy to say that you like Detroit's approach better because on the surface the Detroit approach amounts to never missing the playoffs and always developing good players but, realistically, it's not an approach to team building. Detroit's success over the last 15 years can be largely attributed to two things that aren't really repeatable. One was having one of the best players of all time already on the team and the other was drafting a couple superstars outside of the fifth round of the draft. At a push you could say Detroit is a good model for how a terrific team can stay a terrific team but really now that Lidstrom's retired Detroit looks pretty ordinary.

Detroit has been held up as a model NHL franchise for almost 20 years now and, really, has anyone really been able to duplicate their success? No, because so long as it involves starting out with Hall of Famers then it's just not an option.

 

[Kin]

Oh I know. It's not really possible. But if you read the story on how mlse got Defoe you might think it's something Leiweke could pull off.

But I'm pie in the sky-ing here.

No, I gotcha, I just think the Blackhawks would just shut it down. I don't know what the NHL rules are for trading assets for a coach but even if that's allowed I think you'd be in a situation where what you'd have to put together to make it worth the Blackhawks' while would push it into an area where it wouldn't really help the Leafs.

 

[93forever]

Apparently Randy saying Reimer played "just okay" (when that's how he played) was the primary factor in the team's lengthy losing streak.

Makes sense to me.

Considering Bernier has played okay as well during the losing streak.

 

[bustaheims]

No, I gotcha, I just think the Blackhawks would just shut it down. I don't know what the NHL rules are for trading assets for a coach but even if that's allowed I think you'd be in a situation where what you'd have to put together to make it worth the Blackhawks' while would push it into an area where it wouldn't really help the Leafs.

The rules are pretty simple - it's not allowed.

 

[AvroArrow]

He's been good with the media

How, exactly, does this help our team?  It's completely irrelevant to the results he's gotten with this team.

the younger players have gotten good ice and a chance to improve

This is absolutely NOT true.  Ashton, D'Amigo, and Holland should be in the lineup with ample ice time.  Gardiner and Reilly should be getting much more PP ice time.  Kadri should be getting more ice time instead of useless McClement.

and he's won a cup in this league.

This is also completely irrelevant.  How does his cup in the past help us right now?  Tortorella has also won a cup, but I don't want him anywhere near this team either.



The guy has absolutely failed with this roster.  Plain and simple.  He needs to go.

 

[Kin]

How, exactly, does this help our team?  It's completely irrelevant to the results he's gotten with this team.

While this is probably true I think that there is something to be said about how a coach interacts with the media and how it relates to our experience as fans. It doesn't impact results, no, but results being equal I'd rather someone like Maurice than someone like Wilson.

This is absolutely NOT true.  Ashton, D'Amigo, and Holland should be in the lineup with ample ice time.  Gardiner and Reilly should be getting much more PP ice time.  Kadri should be getting more ice time instead of useless McClement.

Saying that you think players should be getting more time isn't really a counter-point to someone saying players have gotten a considerable amount of ice-time. Gardiner's at nearly 21 minutes game, Rielly's at almost 18(with each getting about 2 minutes of PP ice time a game) that's a lot of ice time for young defensemen. Kadri's also at about 18 minutes a game which, time on the PK excluded, is almost double what McClement is getting.

A fair argument can be made that the Marlies you mention should be in the line-up(although, when healthy, it'd be pretty hard to give all of those guys enough ice-time to justify them being with the big club) but I think you're off-base with Rielly, Gardiner and Kadri. It's certainly not a factual dispute.

This is also completely irrelevant.  How does his cup in the past help us right now?  Tortorella has also won a cup, but I don't want him anywhere near this team either.

It doesn't help us now but it is something to consider when examining what the Leafs should do going forward. If Carlyle has proven an ability to win in this league given the right talent but he can't win here then it does bring the players into question as much as the coach.

 

[Hampreacher]

The coach must use the players he has. Carlyle does not have the players to play his defensive system nor are they available even over the summer via trade/free agency. He has not and will not adapt his system therefore he must be  fired. It may be too late for  this season as they may have to win out and get help this year to make playoffs, but it might give a new coach a chance to evaluate the talent. It be that an coach might step up and prove themselves and be hired full time after the season is over. I do not think waiting until the season is over will work as Carlyle will still try to make the Leafs play his system, a system that is not suited for his style, therefore fire him now.

 

[Hampreacher]

As for Nonis I would have said let him have a chance to prove himself having a full year including thedraft and summer free-agency period to prove himself except at the trade deadline he stood pat with a Vanek available and virtually given away.

 

[princedpw]

This is also completely irrelevant.  How does his cup in the past help us right now?  Tortorella has also won a cup, but I don't want him anywhere near this team either.

It doesn't help us now but it is something to consider when examining what the Leafs should do going forward. If Carlyle has proven an ability to win in this league given the right talent but he can't win here then it does bring the players into question as much as the coach.

In general, how well a coach has done in the past has to be the primary criterion when thinking about who to hire.  I'm assuming you'll probably agree with that right?  Things like the ability to handle the media are sufficiently secondary to me that I'd ignore them unless I legitimately couldn't make up my mind on the two top candidates.  In that case, sure, secondary criteria come in to play to make a decision.

Having said that I, wouldn't specifically weigh the winning of a cup too heavily.  A cup run is a very short period of time --- just a few games.  And we know that over such a short period of games, luck is a huge factor.  An experienced coach has a much longer run of games to look at, including all the games in all the seasons where the coach didn't win the cup.  And, of course, some coaches aren't reasonably put in a position where they have much of a chance to win a cup.  So, how did they take advantage of their players strengths and hide their weakeness?  How much did they improve their team and the individual players on the team and in what ways?  etc.  Anyway, if I were a GM evaluating coaches I'd want my staff to do a much more nuanced analysis of coach's work than whether they won or lost a cup.  It's sort of irritating when the mass media points to something like "he won/did not win the cup" as a synopsis of why a coach is expected to do well in the future with a specific new team.

 

[Kin]

In general, how well a coach has done in the past has to be the primary criterion when thinking about who to hire. I'm assuming you'll probably agree with that right?

Not really. I mean, it's the best source of hard information you might have but I think if we looked at sports history we'll see all sorts of examples where if a team had primarily looked at a coach's previous record then they would have missed out on hiring someone who went on to great success. I still think that when it comes to a lot of the personnel side of management it's still more art than science. I agree that it makes for an aggravating, error-prone process but I don't think there's an easy way to see who the right coach would be in a particular situation.

Anyway, if I were a GM evaluating coaches I'd want my staff to do a much more nuanced analysis of coach's work than whether they won or lost a cup.  It's sort of irritating when the mass media points to something like "he won/did not win the cup" as a synopsis of why a coach is expected to do well in the future with a specific new team.

I don't disagree particularly, although I think you should probably read "he won the cup" in  a lot of those situations to more be a shorthand for someone saying "he did the things required to get a team to win the cup" which, in their mind, speaks to at least a baseline  competence/ability in the various spheres you're talking about.

Likewise, simplistic thinking or not, I think that applying certain cold hard truths to this situation are a little misplaced. Yes, you or I know with our left-brains that if a Stanley Cup final goes to a game 7 then the difference between winning and losing is tiny, can be attributed to luck and the performances between the two teams are razor thin but how much weight do you think that carries in a NHL locker room? We, unfortunately, have cultivated a sports culture where, in a lot of ways, second best is the worst possible finish and as much as you or I might think that's nonsense, the reality is that when Randy Carlyle or whoever is giving between period speeches he's not talking to 20 data analysts.

A cup ring, like it or not(and to reiterate, I think this is dumb but true), probably does have a certain fetishistic value in terms of authority and gravitas. I think that's painfully obvious when you listen to people within the sport talk about the sport. Does that mean it should be a determining factor? Does it mean that the value of it is universal and reflects a particular individual accomplishment? No. But I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand either.

 

[princedpw]

In general, how well a coach has done in the past has to be the primary criterion when thinking about who to hire. I'm assuming you'll probably agree with that right?

Not really. I mean, it's the best source of hard information you might have but I think if we looked at sports history we'll see all sorts of examples where if a team had primarily looked at a coach's previous record then they would have missed out on hiring someone who went on to great success. I still think that when it comes to a lot of the personnel side of management it's still more art than science. I agree that it makes for an aggravating, error-prone process but I don't think there's an easy way to see who the right coach would be in a particular situation.

I definitely didn't mean to imply that I thought it is an easy task.  And I'd certainly interview the coach and see what he had to say about my current team and how he thought he could help.  And I put what he says in to context given what I know about his past jobs.  I view this as part of judging his past performance and trying to figure out how a coach's past record of success will be helpful to my team going forward.  But perhaps you means something different than I think you mean when you say "if a team had primarily looked at a coach's previous record then ..."?  What else would they be looking at when making an informed decision?  I'm not sure I'm familiar with the kinds of hiring decisions you are referring to that you think weren't based on past performance (in this league or minor leagues)?

Anyway, if I were a GM evaluating coaches I'd want my staff to do a much more nuanced analysis of coach's work than whether they won or lost a cup.  It's sort of irritating when the mass media points to something like "he won/did not win the cup" as a synopsis of why a coach is expected to do well in the future with a specific new team.

I don't disagree particularly, although I think you should probably read "he won the cup" in  a lot of those situations to more be a shorthand for someone saying "he did the things required to get a team to win the cup" which, in their mind, speaks to at least a baseline  competence/ability in the various spheres you're talking about.
[/quote]

Sometimes "he won the cup" does mean those things above, but sometimes I get the feeling that it really does just mean "he won the cup."  I'd like to hear more about those things that he did do to win the cup.  For example, I appreciated the fact that Carlyle tried moving Kessel around last year in the playoffs to try to do his best to avoid Chara.  I thought that was a nice bit of strategy and surprise on Carlyle's side that panned out, even though they lost the series. 

 

[Kin]

But perhaps you means something different than I think you mean when you say "if a team had primarily looked at a coach's previous record then ..."?  What else would they be looking at when making an informed decision?  I'm not sure I'm familiar with the kinds of hiring decisions you are referring to that you think weren't based on past performance (in this league or minor leagues)?

I mean that there have been lots of instances in sports where the person who eventually got a coaching job, and who had great success with it, was unsuccessful and sometimes spectacularly so in their previous shots at the position in another organization. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that head coaching, like any management position, isn't one that someone is going to come to fully formed.

 

[L K]

But perhaps you means something different than I think you mean when you say "if a team had primarily looked at a coach's previous record then ..."?  What else would they be looking at when making an informed decision?  I'm not sure I'm familiar with the kinds of hiring decisions you are referring to that you think weren't based on past performance (in this league or minor leagues)?

I mean that there have been lots of instances in sports where the person who eventually got a coaching job, and who had great success with it, was unsuccessful and sometimes spectacularly so in their previous shots at the position in another organization. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that head coaching, like any management position, isn't one that someone is going to come to fully formed.

Some of it is going to be luck, but it's no different than any other hire on the planet.  You try and hire a guy who fits in well with what you have currently, but will also be a fit for what you plan to have in a few years.

The Leafs have a handful of good offensive minded young defensemen in Gardiner, Rielly, Percy and Finn at varying levels of development.  That would be one of the first places I looked to for the kind of coach I bring in.  Someone who can work with offensive talent and has a plan for allowing offensive creativity on the back-end but providing it in a controlled manner.

At the same time, you need to recognize that the Leafs don't have an overly imposing roster currently.  Based solely on playing style this year there are really only 3-4 guys who play with any amount of physicality (Kulemin, Bodie, D'Amigo and Orr).  One of them shouldn't be an NHL roster player and two of them have struggled to stay in Carlyle's lineup for stretches.  You need to either bring in a bunch of guys to fix that, or you need to acknowlege that the team isn't going to be able to play a forechecking game and that dump-ins are pretty much a useless strategy when your top 6 can't win a puck battle along the boards to save their life.  Dumps ins are either going to have to be flips into the corner where you can hope to use your speed to overwhelm the defenders going after the puck or you need to rely heavily on carrying the puck into the zone.

I think you also need to have a coaching staff that is at least keenly interested in advanced statistics, even if they don't necessarily make them the #1 priority in assessing team performance, so many other organizations are on that bandwagon now that "old school" hockey isn't good enough.  With shootouts and half of games seeming going to extra time there are too many points flying around to allow your team to be slightly behind any other organization in that regard. 

 

[L K]

Sometimes "he won the cup" does mean those things above, but sometimes I get the feeling that it really does just mean "he won the cup."  I'd like to hear more about those things that he did do to win the cup.  For example, I appreciated the fact that Carlyle tried moving Kessel around last year in the playoffs to try to do his best to avoid Chara.  I thought that was a nice bit of strategy and surprise on Carlyle's side that panned out, even though they lost the series.

He did a few things in the Boston series to adapt the Leafs to the way Boston was playing.  They started implementing a chip clearing attempt up the middle of the ice after Game 2 that really put the Bruins on their heels.  The Leafs would flip the puck up high and then attack with their speed and it really showed how much faster the Leafs could play than the Bruins. They really havent' done that at all this year, including when they have played slower teams like the Bruins, or even LA (who they have beaten).

The moving Kessel around actually showed some acceptance at being adaptive with his lines.  I felt the strategy worked really well.  It's not something that you do all of the time, but in comparison to this year I feel like he just makes the same 2-3 lineup changes over and over again.  Clarkson to the 2nd line...Clarkson to the 3rd line.  Kulemin to the 2nd line...Kulemin to the 3rd line.  Orr in the lineup.  Orr out of the lineup. 

 

[Kin]

I think you also need to have a coaching staff that is at least keenly interested in advanced statistics, even if they don't necessarily make them the #1 priority in assessing team performance, so many other organizations are on that bandwagon now that "old school" hockey isn't good enough.  With shootouts and half of games seeming going to extra time there are too many points flying around to allow your team to be slightly behind any other organization in that regard.

I think the Raptors have set a pretty good precedent that should maybe filter through to the Leafs where they seem to be pretty proactive in terms of accumulating and analyzing your more modern forms of data but where they realize that there's still a long way to go between interpreting that information and implementing it in any meaningful way.

 

[slapshot]

I'll concede at this point that he isn't the coach for this group, but I take issue with those calling him an idiot, and other disparaging comments. He's been good with the media, the younger players have gotten good ice and a chance to improve, and he's won a cup in this league.

Fans are allowed to overreact, but the difference between this team competing with the best in the league isn't the coach. Its primarily the resolve of the organization not to commit to drafting high in a proper rebuild, which is the template for success for virtually all top teams.

Like Edmonton? I prefer the Detroit approach better, giving their young players longer time to develop in the minors, scout and draft smartly, regardless of where you finish.
The fire coach mantra is simply the easy scapegoat for long suffering fans, who need to punish someone, anyone with the guillotine. Understandable to some extent, but it's like waving a magic wand and thinking the fairy God coach will appear. What they need and what Carlyle has said all season long, they need to up their "compete" level, win battles, that's what it comes down to at this time of the year, where speed and transition are less a factor than tight-checking and bearing down. If it takes a few personnel moves to get some new troops and send a message to the rest of them, so be it. I'd prefer that to the merry-go-round coaching excuse.

Agree 100% with your coaching opinion, but regarding teambuilding, I'd argue Detroit is the anomaly having long term success with a poor draft position, while Edmonton is the contrary anomaly. Most of the NHL powerhouses over the last ten years have built via cornerstone players that have been drafted in the first round and have been retained.

Toronto management haven't bought into this concept as of yet, and results are pretty much as expected. We need another 3 years of Morgan Reilly types, and then fill in the gaps with high priced FAs.

Thanks for the concurrence on the coach. I guess we agree to disagree on the draft. I am a non-believer in the tanking method. To me it's a non-reality to begin with. The Leafs have too much good young players to finish last or near last. If they did, there are no guarantee. Washington is much like Edmonton, they had their high picks Ove, Backstrom and others, yet no real progress. Boston is more like Detroit, not a lot of high picks, Seguin but he's already gone. LA had some good high picks, but also need some key trades with Philly to get them over the top. Chicago, yes, a couple of great picks. Same with Pittsburgh, but only one cup from them to show for Crosby and Malkin so far. I'm just saying getting a few breaks in the draft from good scouting or a guy just blossoming somewhat unexpectedly would really help the Leafs.

 

[princedpw]

Sometimes "he won the cup" does mean those things above, but sometimes I get the feeling that it really does just mean "he won the cup."  I'd like to hear more about those things that he did do to win the cup.  For example, I appreciated the fact that Carlyle tried moving Kessel around last year in the playoffs to try to do his best to avoid Chara.  I thought that was a nice bit of strategy and surprise on Carlyle's side that panned out, even though they lost the series.

He did a few things in the Boston series to adapt the Leafs to the way Boston was playing.  They started implementing a chip clearing attempt up the middle of the ice after Game 2 that really put the Bruins on their heels.  The Leafs would flip the puck up high and then attack with their speed and it really showed how much faster the Leafs could play than the Bruins. They really havent' done that at all this year, including when they have played slower teams like the Bruins, or even LA (who they have beaten).

The moving Kessel around actually showed some acceptance at being adaptive with his lines.  I felt the strategy worked really well.  It's not something that you do all of the time, but in comparison to this year I feel like he just makes the same 2-3 lineup changes over and over again.  Clarkson to the 2nd line...Clarkson to the 3rd line.  Kulemin to the 2nd line...Kulemin to the 3rd line.  Orr in the lineup.  Orr out of the lineup.

Right, I figured I'd avoid posting about the things I didn't like about Randy's work because that is a bit old hat.  Clearly, the reason to fire him is because he has not be able to make any progress on the Leafs defensive issues.

As for stats, I'd go beyond the coaching staff and make stats and data collection an organizational priority.  Even if I wasn't sure how best to use them right now, I'd be damn sure I wasn't getting behind.  The organization doesn't seem to understand the scientific method.  That is a huge concern going forward.

 

[AvroArrow]

While this is probably true I think that there is something to be said about how a coach interacts with the media and how it relates to our experience as fans. It doesn't impact results, no, but results being equal I'd rather someone like Maurice than someone like Wilson.

Since we need results, this is irrelevant, like I said.

Saying that you think players should be getting more time isn't really a counter-point to someone saying players have gotten a considerable amount of ice-time. Gardiner's at nearly 21 minutes game, Rielly's at almost 18(with each getting about 2 minutes of PP ice time a game) that's a lot of ice time for young defensemen. Kadri's also at about 18 minutes a game which, time on the PK excluded, is almost double what McClement is getting.

There's been too many games where guys like McClement and even Clarkson have gotten as much or more ice time than Kadri.  Considering their uselessness, it's such a waste.

As for Reilly and Gardiner, these guys should be owning the PP, given how inept Phaneuf and Franson have been.

I'll concede these guys aren't being mismanaged as poorly as the Marlie bunch, but it's still mismanagement.

A fair argument can be made that the Marlies you mention should be in the line-up(although, when healthy, it'd be pretty hard to give all of those guys enough ice-time to justify them being with the big club).

I'ts really not that hard.  D'Amigo - Holland - Ashton could run a third line for 12 or so minutes per night.  That's more than adequate to acclimatize them and give them the opportunity to develop and contribute.  Raymond/Bodie - Bolland - McClement/Clarkson can draw in for 8-10 minutes.

It doesn't help us now but it is something to consider when examining what the Leafs should do going forward. If Carlyle has proven an ability to win in this league given the right talent but he can't win here then it does bring the players into question as much as the coach.

I get that you want a guy with experience who's won the cup, but he's clearly not working here.  His experience isn't doing us any good.  Is his cup ring going to fix our systems?  Our PK?  Our shots against?

 

[Kin]

Since we need results, this is irrelevant, like I said.

I don't think a club's relationship with its fans is ever irrelevant.

I'll concede these guys aren't being mismanaged as poorly as the Marlie bunch, but it's still mismanagement.

I don't agree. Or, at the very least, I think this contradicts your point re: the guys on the Marlies. We've seen a ton of Rielly and Gardiner on the PP this year and I don't think their play has demanded a bump to the first line there. I can agree that it would be nice to see that tried out but I'm not going to label it mismanagement as if it were a fact. They're certainly not being used in a way that will hamper their development.

I'ts really not that hard.  D'Amigo - Holland - Ashton could run a third line for 12 or so minutes per night.  That's more than adequate to acclimatize them and give them the opportunity to develop and contribute.  Raymond/Bodie - Bolland - McClement/Clarkson can draw in for 8-10 minutes.

Like I said above, I think this contradicts your point re: Gardiner and Rielly. Sure, you could put that line out there but I genuinely think that a third line of Raymond-Bolland-Bodie would be better for the club. So, ultimately, I'm not sure if you're coming at this from a "the Leafs should do everything they can to get the most ice time for their young players as they possibly can" perspective or from a "The Leafs should be doing everything they can to win right now" perspective because it strikes me as your views here being at cross-purposes.

I get that you want a guy with experience who's won the cup, but he's clearly not working here.  His experience isn't doing us any good.  Is his cup ring going to fix our systems?  Our PK?  Our shots against?

I can't win if Carlyle's struggles are being compared to the Deus Ex Machina who's going to fix all of the Leafs problems with a wave of his magic coaching wand and so I'm not interested in trying. I've repeatedly said I don't care if Carlyle is fired or not and so my point here isn't that he should be kept, it's that this losing streak, to me, has very clearly reinforced my belief that the problem with the club is much larger and runs much deeper than just who the coach is.

For the whole year we heard about shot differentials and how important they were. Then see this streak where the team, outside of the San Jose and St. Louis games, aren't badly outshot. Are the results better? Does the defense look better? If the criteria is "fixing" the shots against the over the last 10 games, outside of two games against vastly better teams, it does look like Carlyle has been able to address that. The only problem is he's not able to singlehandedly change the fact that this isn't a very good collection of players.