Carlyle Extended/Randy's Revenge

[Kin]

Pretty obviously, moves were made with 'fit in the coach's system' as their primary justification.

I don't think that's obvious or even true. I think "He fits in with the system" or some variation of it is something that you'll find GM's or front office staff saying about just about any move ever made. It's certainly not a smoking gun that indicates that Nonis wasn't making moves based on who he thought were the best players for the team he was building out of deference to Carlyle.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Ownership favored firing Bylsma as of Wednesday, the sources said.

Read more: http://triblive.com/sports/penguins/6101755-74/sources-bylsma-sherok

Wait, are we still doing this?

 

[mr grieves]

Pretty obviously, moves were made with 'fit in the coach's system' as their primary justification.

I don't think that's obvious or even true. I think "He fits in with the system" or some variation of it is something that you'll find GM's or front office staff saying about just about any move ever made. It's certainly not a smoking gun that indicates that Nonis wasn't making moves based on who he thought were the best players for the team he was building out of deference to Carlyle.

Yeah, we've been around this one before too. And I agree. It's likely Carlyle hockey is exactly how Nonis wants the team playing and those are, for him, "the best players." The difference between building "out of deference to Carlyle" and "privileging potential 'fit' with a style of play easily denoted by saying 'Carlyle' over other factors used to evaluate players" isn't, for me, as significant as it is for you. Either option points to poor management making poor decisions that are more likely than not to result in failure.

 

[Kin]

Yeah, we've been around this one before too. And I agree. It's likely Carlyle hockey is exactly how Nonis wants the team playing and those are, for him, "the best players." The difference between building "out of deference to Carlyle" and "privileging potential 'fit' with a style of play easily denoted by saying 'Carlyle' over other factors used to evaluate players" isn't, for me, as significant as it is for you. Either option points to poor management making poor decisions that are more likely than not to result in failure.

Sure, except saying that the Clarkson signing was "all about" fitting into Carlyle's system is nonsense, designed to fit a narrative. Clarkson was, again, rated by a lot of people as the top free agent available and not just for his ability to fit into a particular system. What Clarkson was sold as, what a lot of pretty genuinely knowledgeable people believed him to be, was not the sort of player who is only valuable on certain teams or in certain areas. A physical winger who can score is not a system specific requirement and something that was pretty popularly described around these parts as something the Leafs specifically needed after the loss to Boston. 

And I agree that there's not a significant difference between those two ways of describing those moves but that's because they're both rephrasing your particular view of how the team was built. I don't think either are true. I don't think they valued "fit" over other methods of evaluation. I think they genuinely thought Clarkson was the best physical winger out there, that Bozak was a better option than Grabo moving forward(which they seem to have been right about) and that Bolland was a positional fit, rather than a system fit.

 

[jdh1]

I see Carlyle taking the team next year untill they stumble...he gets relieved of his duties...one of the new assistants take over in a temporary coach untill the end of the season or playoffs (maybe) and then Babcock gets hired next year.

Someone may have mentioned this already so I apologize in advance but that's possibly  the plan.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

hire both a GM and coach who will provide stability and success to the team that fans have been waiting for, for over 10 years.

You had me until this part.  Leafs GMs all the way back to Ferguson (or even Quinn, Fletcher) have been under pressure to produce results in the short term and I don't see it changing the next rotation of this merry-go-round. 

Even if any of those guys (or the next guy) wanted to provide the stability and have the patience you are talking about, they are pushed to make hasty moves by the 1 series of playoff revenue expected on corporate balance sheets.  The entire attitude from the top down is toxic to long term success. 

Shanahan...did they hire him to change this or just reinforce it?  We'll see but I'm not getting hopes up again like I did for Burke who in his arrogance fell right into the trap, got chewed up and spit out by this failure machine.

All I am saying is that since Quinn, no GM the Leafs had was able to establish any success to the Leaf organization.   

 

[bustaheims]

Ownership favored firing Bylsma as of Wednesday, the sources said.

Read more: http://triblive.com/sports/penguins/6101755-74/sources-bylsma-sherok

Wait, are we still doing this?

Bylsma for assistant/associate coach?

 

[Rebel_1812]

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/

Maybe, but it doesn't exactly give Leafs fans much hope for anything to change.

Fiercely loyal to Randy Carlyle, who survived last week?s purge, Gordon said he believes part of what led to this season?s collapse was simply a sense of complacency among the players.

After taking the Boston Bruins to Game 7 in the playoffs last spring and starting the season 10-4-0, he explained, the team never fully heeded their coaches? message about the way they were winning games.

So.... the team was ignoring the coaching staff for over 80% of the season. Yeah, that's a ticket to success.

And you've also got to question the source - a coach putting all the blame on the players, not his coaching.  I'm not saying absolve the players, it's almost certainly a shared blame, but it's not altogether surprising to read that from him.

The thing is what the coachs were saying is what most of this board was saying too.  You need to lower the shots against and play better defense.  Even thought the coach is hated on the board he is preaching what the board wants to see and what needs to be done for success.  Problem being players aren't listening.  The solution to that is trading players which is easier said then done.

 

[Redleaf]

I see Carlyle taking the team next year untill they stumble...he gets relieved of his duties...one of the new assistants take over in a temporary coach untill the end of the season or playoffs (maybe) and then Babcock gets hired next year.

Someone may have mentioned this already so I apologize in advance but that's possibly  the plan.

From Hope-Smoke:

There is no organization that would ever be dumb enough to go through an entire season on the hope that maybe Babcock is available next year

I think Babcock is a good coach. I don't think he's the second coming that many are making him out to be. Great coaches are available now.

 

[bustaheims]

The thing is what the coachs were saying is what most of this board was saying too.  You need to lower the shots against and play better defense.  Even thought the coach is hated on the board he is preaching what the board wants to see and what needs to be done for success.  Problem being players aren't listening. The solution to that is trading players which is easier said then done.

I don't buy that in the slightest. Every group of players on the team played the same way in the defensive zone. That wasn't an accident. The mistakes the team made all season weren't from lack of structure. They were pretty clearly playing a system that was implemented by the coaching staff. They were doing what they thought the coaches were telling them to do. Either the system the coaching staff tried to put in place wasn't working or the coaching staff did a really poor job of teaching the team how to play it.

 

[2badknees]

I think Babcock is a good coach. I don't think he's the second coming that many are making him out to be. Great coaches are available now.

Really? I dunno. I'd put Babcock as head and shoulders over any coach currently available, or speculated to be available this summer. He's a top 3 in the league, imo.

I like Carlyle, but I sort of get the idea that he's pretty much been set up to be the fall guy by shanahan/nonis. I can't see him lasting through next summer.

 

[Tigger]

I think Babcock is a good coach. I don't think he's the second coming that many are making him out to be. Great coaches are available now.

Really? I dunno. I'd put Babcock as head and shoulders over any coach currently available, or speculated to be available this summer. He's a top 3 in the league, imo.

I like Carlyle, but I sort of get the idea that he's pretty much been set up to be the fall guy by shanahan/nonis. I can't see him lasting through next summer.

Lame duck, red herring?

 

[jdh1]

I see Carlyle taking the team next year untill they stumble...he gets relieved of his duties...one of the new assistants take over in a temporary coach untill the end of the season or playoffs (maybe) and then Babcock gets hired next year.

Someone may have mentioned this already so I apologize in advance but that's possibly  the plan.

From Hope-Smoke:

There is no organization that would ever be dumb enough to go through an entire season on the hope that maybe Babcock is available next year

I think Babcock is a good coach. I don't think he's the second coming that many are making him out to be. Great coaches are available now.

If you were a GM or President of a NHL team..and you had a chance to get a coach that may get you 2 or 3 points extra in a season or more.And that coach could very well be available in a years time,a proven Gold metal ,Stanley cup winner that's still in his prime of career...tell me that you would turn that opportunity down and take another coach when money is no obstacle in hiring that person.

I would say that teams do that, waiting for UFA players that are coming up a year in advance.

Besides keepng a coach and firing all the assistants seems a bit strange to me.

 

[mr grieves]

The thing is what the coachs were saying is what most of this board was saying too.  You need to lower the shots against and play better defense.  Even thought the coach is hated on the board he is preaching what the board wants to see and what needs to be done for success.  Problem being players aren't listening. The solution to that is trading players which is easier said then done.

I don't buy that in the slightest. Every group of players on the team played the same way in the defensive zone. That wasn't an accident. The mistakes the team made all season weren't from lack of structure. They were pretty clearly playing a system that was implemented by the coaching staff. They were doing what they thought the coaches were telling them to do. Either the system the coaching staff tried to put in place wasn't working or the coaching staff did a really poor job of teaching the team how to play it.

On that, from G&M's interview with Shanahan:

Q. Have you talked to any of the players about that? Was that part of what informed you about what was happening with the assistants?
A. ?Yeah. The players supported the coaching staff. I think a lot of them felt confused and not confident with the ? there?s a defensive style they played I guess last year called The Swarm that has been successful with certain other teams and wasn?t successful here. That?s something that the players felt ? I think with five games to go [the coaches] tried to switch to more traditional defensive zone coverage, but it was probably a little bit too late by then.

source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/shanahan-doesnt-intend-to-tear-leafs-down-and-rebuild/article18674088/?page=all

 

[TML fan]

It's really sad that it took them 77 games to figure it out.

 

[rdowdall]

The thing is what the coachs were saying is what most of this board was saying too.  You need to lower the shots against and play better defense.  Even thought the coach is hated on the board he is preaching what the board wants to see and what needs to be done for success.  Problem being players aren't listening. The solution to that is trading players which is easier said then done.

I don't buy that in the slightest. Every group of players on the team played the same way in the defensive zone. That wasn't an accident. The mistakes the team made all season weren't from lack of structure. They were pretty clearly playing a system that was implemented by the coaching staff. They were doing what they thought the coaches were telling them to do. Either the system the coaching staff tried to put in place wasn't working or the coaching staff did a really poor job of teaching the team how to play it.

Except that a system isn't this static thing.  It evolves as the season goes along from game to game and adjustments need to be made.  Yes, for standard positioning and that sort of thing, there should be a system.  I feel that the biggest problem the Leafs had, was that when the system broke down, all hell broke loose.  A lot of replays that I watched on goals that the leafs allowed during a cycle happened after they lost puck possession in their zone and couldn't get it back.  Then the players just couldn't figure out what to do after that.  The other factor in allowing goals was bad decisions in the offensive zone.  Lots of odd man rushes the other way, caused by a bad pinch, or a blocked shot. 

The leafs aren't going to make it through a season without allowing a goal or without allowing  a shot.  I think the biggest problem the Leafs need to address moving forward is when they lose the puck in their own end, how do they get it back?  What do they do in order to stop the cycle?  If they can fix that problem first, then they should cut down on some of the shots they are allowing and hopefully some of the goals they are allowing. 

 

[bustaheims]

Except that a system isn't this static thing.  It evolves as the season goes along from game to game and adjustments need to be made.  Yes, for standard positioning and that sort of thing, there should be a system.  I feel that the biggest problem the Leafs had, was that when the system broke down, all hell broke loose.  A lot of replays that I watched on goals that the leafs allowed during a cycle happened after they lost puck possession in their zone and couldn't get it back.  Then the players just couldn't figure out what to do after that.  The other factor in allowing goals was bad decisions in the offensive zone.  Lots of odd man rushes the other way, caused by a bad pinch, or a blocked shot. 

Sure, but that's also not necessarily a result of the players not listening. It's more about them not having a plan about what to do when things break down or not understanding what the coaching staff was trying to impart. The impression I get is that the coaching staff did not do a particularly good job of getting their message across to the players, because, based on everything else, it looks to me like the players listened and tried to understand what they were being told, it just didn't work.

 

[TML fan]

The thing is what the coachs were saying is what most of this board was saying too.  You need to lower the shots against and play better defense.  Even thought the coach is hated on the board he is preaching what the board wants to see and what needs to be done for success.  Problem being players aren't listening. The solution to that is trading players which is easier said then done.

I don't buy that in the slightest. Every group of players on the team played the same way in the defensive zone. That wasn't an accident. The mistakes the team made all season weren't from lack of structure. They were pretty clearly playing a system that was implemented by the coaching staff. They were doing what they thought the coaches were telling them to do. Either the system the coaching staff tried to put in place wasn't working or the coaching staff did a really poor job of teaching the team how to play it.

Except that a system isn't this static thing.  It evolves as the season goes along from game to game and adjustments need to be made.  Yes, for standard positioning and that sort of thing, there should be a system.  I feel that the biggest problem the Leafs had, was that when the system broke down, all hell broke loose.  A lot of replays that I watched on goals that the leafs allowed during a cycle happened after they lost puck possession in their zone and couldn't get it back.  Then the players just couldn't figure out what to do after that.  The other factor in allowing goals was bad decisions in the offensive zone.  Lots of odd man rushes the other way, caused by a bad pinch, or a blocked shot. 

The leafs aren't going to make it through a season without allowing a goal or without allowing  a shot.  I think the biggest problem the Leafs need to address moving forward is when they lose the puck in their own end, how do they get it back?  What do they do in order to stop the cycle?  If they can fix that problem first, then they should cut down on some of the shots they are allowing and hopefully some of the goals they are allowing.

The number one reason the system constantly broke down was fatigue. They spent too much time chasing the puck in their own end because the system allowed for the opposition to control it for long periods of time. It's not the initial shot that was the problem. It was the 2nd and 3rd shots in the same possession that were killing them. By taking a less passive approach, they will take away time a space from their opponents, thus limiting quality chances and, perhaps more importantly, secondary opportunities.

Also, by being more aggressive, they will force their opponents to play a little more conservatively. If there's one thing the Leafs proved last year it was that they pack a very dangerous counter-punch. If they can force the defence to back off the line, they will reduce the amount of time they spend in their own end.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Except that a system isn't this static thing.  It evolves as the season goes along from game to game and adjustments need to be made.  Yes, for standard positioning and that sort of thing, there should be a system.  I feel that the biggest problem the Leafs had, was that when the system broke down, all hell broke loose.  A lot of replays that I watched on goals that the leafs allowed during a cycle happened after they lost puck possession in their zone and couldn't get it back.  Then the players just couldn't figure out what to do after that.  The other factor in allowing goals was bad decisions in the offensive zone.  Lots of odd man rushes the other way, caused by a bad pinch, or a blocked shot. 

Sure, but that's also not necessarily a result of the players not listening. It's more about them not having a plan about what to do when things break down or not understanding what the coaching staff was trying to impart. The impression I get is that the coaching staff did not do a particularly good job of getting their message across to the players, because, based on everything else, it looks to me like the players listened and tried to understand what they were being told, it just didn't work.

We do know that these guys have been playing extremely competitive, highly skilled hockey for much of their lives. It's not like they're being shown a new game.

 

[bustaheims]

We do know that these guys have been playing extremely competitive, highly skilled hockey for much of their lives. It's not like they're being shown a new game.

Sure, but, things break down and there isn't a plan in place, they run on instinct, and not everyone's instincts are on the same page.