Carlyle Extended/Randy's Revenge

[Kin]

Sure, from where we sit now, Carlyle looks like a lame duck coach, waiting for the first prolonged losing streak of next season to get turfed. But, with the right mix of guys brought in via trade, brought up from the Marlies, and with no Olympic distractions, perhaps a new captain, more familiarity with the coach, (not to mention just plain growth and maturity as a team) And let's not forget league PARITY.

Heck, and if I was born the King of France I could have Birthday Cake for Breakfast every day.

Saying things could improve if massive changes are made could be said regardless of who's coaching the Leafs. What you're responding to is the idea that Carlyle, at some point, does have to speak to things like the shots against and his unwillingness to use a 4th line to ice legitimate hockey players.

 

[L K]

I also think its a fair observation to make, that changing coaches in this situation probably doesn't get you the desired results either.

I don't. For starters I don't think there's a "probably" here. To the extent that there is, I think the evidence is pretty well stacked against Carlyle.

Sure, from where we sit now, Carlyle looks like a lame duck coach, waiting for the first prolonged losing streak of next season to get turfed. But, with the right mix of guys brought in via trade, brought up from the Marlies, and with no Olympic distractions, perhaps a new captain, more familiarity with the coach, (not to mention just plain growth and maturity as a team) And let's not forget league PARITY.

Things can change for the good just as quickly as fall apart. Despite popular belief that keeping Carlyle assures us of another disastrous season, it doesn't mean that things can't vastly improve under his leadership either. In fact, the more capitulation I see from Leaf fans regarding Carlyle and this team, the more I'm convinced that keeping him might not be such a bad idea after all. Either way, expectations for next year are certainly tempered. Things can only get better from here.

There is a limit to what you can do with limited talent, but honestly, if our arguments in favour of Carlyle are "if we change a significant portion of the team, maybe he can work" that's a pretty piss poor justification for retaining him.  Carlyle isn't a guy with a reputation of development.  If anything, he's a guy that seems to have issues with younger players
(Ryan, Lupul, Kadri, Gardiner, Reimer......)

 

[mr grieves]

Things can change for the good just as quickly as fall apart. Despite popular belief that keeping Carlyle assures us of another disastrous season, it doesn't mean that things can't vastly improve under his leadership either. In fact, the more capitulation I see from Leaf fans regarding Carlyle and this team, the more I'm convinced that keeping him might not be such a bad idea after all. Either way, expectations for next year are certainly tempered. Things can only get better from here.

Someone's sure capitulated.

 

[Redleaf]

Sure, from where we sit now, Carlyle looks like a lame duck coach, waiting for the first prolonged losing streak of next season to get turfed. But, with the right mix of guys brought in via trade, brought up from the Marlies, and with no Olympic distractions, perhaps a new captain, more familiarity with the coach, (not to mention just plain growth and maturity as a team) And let's not forget league PARITY.

Heck, and if I was born the King of France I could have Birthday Cake for Breakfast every day.

Saying things could improve if massive changes are made could be said regardless of who's coaching the Leafs. What you're responding to is the idea that Carlyle, at some point, does have to speak to things like the shots against and his unwillingness to use a 4th line to ice legitimate hockey players.

Where did I outline massive changes? I'm talking about some tweaking. But, yes, it would certainly go a long way if Carlyle comes into next season with a few new game plans as well. Perhaps his new assistants can help convince him to try some different approaches next season??

 

[L K]

It's not like the best coach on the planet would have had this team contending.

No, but we certainly have people open to the idea of 'hey, Mike Babcock might be available next year.  And we certainly had people open to the idea of Ken Hitchcock.  We certainly seem to have a relative agreement that there are good coaches and bad coaches.  The difference between a good coach and bad coach probably isn't a Stanley Cup (unless you have two very good teams that face off in the Championship and the better coach gives his team that extra edge by putting the right matchups on the ice).  But that difference is there. 

Shanahan's flaw in this situation, to me, is that all decisions being made at this point are on the basis that the coach isn't enough of a problem to consider a change.  I think that's a grave mistake because the coach has to be responsible for player development, especially if the Leafs are going to tout their young age every single time they try and dismiss the flaws of the roster.  I think under those circumstances that any flaws in the coaching staff should be examined extremely closely. 

Ron Wilson had the right idea with his opening press conferences where he talked about his role being organizational development and setting the table for future success.  His execution was lacking (whether that was because of bad goaltending or his system just not working) but the sentiment was the right one.  I don't really see Randy having that kind of impact on this team.  I'm not seeing guys really develop and to be honest the guy talks about the things he wants but doesn't reward the guys who are actually doing it.

 

[bustaheims]

Things can change for the good just as quickly as fall apart. Despite popular belief that keeping Carlyle assures us of another disastrous season, it doesn't mean that things can't vastly improve under his leadership either. In fact, the more capitulation I see from Leaf fans regarding Carlyle and this team, the more I'm convinced that keeping him might not be such a bad idea after all. Either way, expectations for next year are certainly tempered. Things can only get better from here.

I think you're confusing capitulation with begrudging acceptance of something that fans really have no say in.

 

[Kin]

Where did I output line massive changes? I'm talking about some tweaking.

The right mix of guys, plural, being brought in and up, changing up the captaincy...those aren't small tweaks. Even then, though, I was giving your argument the benefit of the doubt. If your argument is that small tweaks can lead to vast improvements then there's really no way I can disagree more. What was wrong with the Leafs last year wasn't a small problem that can be fixed by different 3rd liners and who gets an extra letter on their jersey.

At some point arguments do have to have legs to stand on. Saying "it might get better" isn't a reason to keep someone, especially someone who should have been able to work out those new "game plans" a few weeks into the season(before then, really, as Orr-Mclaren weren't good the year before either). That lack of flexibility and adaptability is a good argument for a new coach.

 

[Redleaf]

I also think its a fair observation to make, that changing coaches in this situation probably doesn't get you the desired results either.

I don't. For starters I don't think there's a "probably" here. To the extent that there is, I think the evidence is pretty well stacked against Carlyle.

Sure, from where we sit now, Carlyle looks like a lame duck coach, waiting for the first prolonged losing streak of next season to get turfed. But, with the right mix of guys brought in via trade, brought up from the Marlies, and with no Olympic distractions, perhaps a new captain, more familiarity with the coach, (not to mention just plain growth and maturity as a team) And let's not forget league PARITY.

Things can change for the good just as quickly as fall apart. Despite popular belief that keeping Carlyle assures us of another disastrous season, it doesn't mean that things can't vastly improve under his leadership either. In fact, the more capitulation I see from Leaf fans regarding Carlyle and this team, the more I'm convinced that keeping him might not be such a bad idea after all. Either way, expectations for next year are certainly tempered. Things can only get better from here.

There is a limit to what you can do with limited talent, but honestly, if our arguments in favour of Carlyle are "if we change a significant portion of the team, maybe he can work" that's a pretty piss poor justification for retaining him.  Carlyle isn't a guy with a reputation of development.  If anything, he's a guy that seems to have issues with younger players
(Ryan, Lupul, Kadri, Gardiner, Reimer......)

I'm not defending the decision to keep Carlyle. I'm just saying that it may not be as terrible an idea as everyone else is suggesting.

I mean, is it really so far fetched to suggest that the Leafs may actually improve next season, make the playoffs, and perhaps even win a round or two with Randy behind the bench? I think there's a very good possibility that that can happen. I guess I'm just baffled how quickly a coaching decision can snowball into such a doom and gloom scenario...

 

[Redleaf]

Where did I output line massive changes? I'm talking about some tweaking.

The right mix of guys, plural, being brought in and up, changing up the captaincy...those aren't small tweaks. Even then, though, I was giving your argument the benefit of the doubt. If your argument is that small tweaks can lead to vast improvements then there's really no way I can disagree more. What was wrong with the Leafs last year wasn't a small problem that can be fixed by different 3rd liners and who gets an extra letter on their jersey.

At some point arguments do have to have legs to stand on. Saying "it might get better" isn't a reason to keep someone, especially someone who should have been able to work out those new "game plans" a few weeks into the season(before then, really, as Orr-Mclaren weren't good the year before either). That lack of flexibility and adaptability is a good argument for a new coach.

The basis of the argument is that I don't think it would take a whole lot of change to swing the momentum in the other direction.

 

[Kin]

The basis of the argument is that I don't think it would take a whole lot of change to swing the momentum in the other direction.

Which leads me back to the idea that arguments need weight behind them to be persuasive. Momentum, or the lack of it in a positive direction, doesn't seem to be something that most people are comfortable attributing the Leafs' struggles to.

I mean, I'd call it an intangible but it's not even that. It's a conceptual intangible. You might as well say the Leafs could win more if they just get groovier vibes.

 

[louisstamos]

The basis of the argument is that I don't think it would take a whole lot of change to swing the momentum in the other direction.

Which leads me back to the idea that arguments need weight behind them to be persuasive. Momentum, or the lack of it in a positive direction, doesn't seem to be something that most people are comfortable attributing the Leafs' struggles to.

I mean, I'd call it an intangible but it's not even that. It's a conceptual intangible. You might as well say the Leafs could win more if they just get groovier vibes.

It worked in the Love Guru.

 

[Kin]

It worked in the Love Guru.

Nothing worked in the Love Guru.

 

[Redleaf]

The basis of the argument is that I don't think it would take a whole lot of change to swing the momentum in the other direction.

Which leads me back to the idea that arguments need weight behind them to be persuasive. Momentum, or the lack of it in a positive direction, doesn't seem to be something that most people are comfortable attributing the Leafs' struggles to.

I mean, I'd call it an intangible but it's not even that. It's a conceptual intangible. You might as well say the Leafs could win more if they just get groovier vibes.

I don't really care if I persuade you one way or the other. I'm not convinced keeping Carlyle was all that bad of a decision. What more do you require? You can either agree or not, but Im not going to lay out a 1000 point dissertation about it...

 

[Kin]

I don't really care if I persuade you one way or the other.

It's not about persuading me, it's about the fundamental nature of discussion. If all you wanted to do is write your own opinions without being subject to critical evaluation then you'd write a blog.

 

[Redleaf]

I don't really care if I persuade you one way or the other.

It's not about persuading me, it's about the fundamental nature of discussion. If all you wanted to do is write your own opinions without being subject to critical evaluation then you'd write a blog.

What...do you have time to kill today or something Nik? :

 

[Kin]

What...do you have time to kill today or something Nik? :

Hey, if you just want to state your own opinions and not have them responded to go to town. It's just a little confusing to me when you quote a post of mine in response to someone else to do so. I'm happy to confine my posts to responses to people who do go for that critical evaluatin'.

 

[Redleaf]

What...do you have time to kill today or something Nik? :

Hey, if you just want to state your own opinions and not have them responded to go to town. It's just a little confusing to me when you quote a post of mine in response to someone else to do so. I'm happy to confine my posts to responses to people who do go for that critical evaluatin'.

I don't mind having people respond to my posts at all. I just don't see a need to endlessly critique them. I'm not sure you understand the difference.

 

[Rebel_1812]

What...do you have time to kill today or something Nik? :

Hey, if you just want to state your own opinions and not have them responded to go to town. It's just a little confusing to me when you quote a post of mine in response to someone else to do so. I'm happy to confine my posts to responses to people who do go for that critical evaluatin'.

I don't mind having people respond to my posts at all. I just don't see a need to endlessly critique them. I'm not sure you understand the difference.

lol, everyone is a critic and then there are some that take it too far.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Since I know some were interested in him, Kirk Muller is going to St. Louis to be an assistant coach.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Maybe this will put the Carlyle vs. Gardiner stuff to rest for good?

?There?s this perception that Randy doesn?t like Jake Gardiner, and it?s comical,? Gordon said. ?I can?t tell you how many times that Randy has said that the thought of trading Jake can?t even be discussed until he?s played 300 games [in the NHL].

?He personally thinks it takes 300 games for a defenceman to get to the point where you can make a decision on them.?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/fired-leafs-assistant-coach-scott-gordon-speaks-out-complacency-killed-us/article18637941/