Jacques Lemaire hired as Special Assignment Coach

[dappleganger]

Does anyone feel like the Leafs are going to keep spinning their wheels? Kinda like Detroit the last few years?

Babcock will make this team good enough (better than the sum of their parts) but not good enough to be a real threat in the playoffs?

Better hope Marner and Nylander are the real deal. Adding all these high profile coaches and execs doesn't necessary mean a recipe for success. There's been a lot of talk around Leaf land about the need for a No. 1 center but we haven't had an elite goalie since Belfour either. Leafs will need so many much, better players.

I don't understand fan logic sometimes. Nothing necessarily leads to anything in hockey, but that doesn't mean it's better to not surround your team with the best staff available.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

I don't understand poster's logic sometimes.

 

[herman]

Jacques Lemaire talks about his role with the Leafs in the upcoming season.

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2015/08/17/jacques-lemaire-on-role-with-the-toronto-maple-leafs-the-thing-you-have-to-do-is-respect-the-coach/

McCown: The term special assignment coach you understand puzzles some people. It?s not a term that we understand totally because it can mean a variety of things. How have they explained the job definition to you?

Lemaire: First of all, Mike is the head coach and will make all decisions about how the team plays and who is going to go on the ice, who is going to play on the powerplay. My role is, first of all, I will be watching all the games and giving him my input on the players on everything that goes on, just so that he gets more information. I worked like that in the past with people and it works well. It just gives you another idea, another different opinion on people, and, like I said, all the decisions will come from Mike.

 

[rdowdall]

Well, I also think there are some people who think of coaches as being like teams where, you know, the 1st place team is a little better than the 2nd place team who are a little better than the 3rd place team and on and on and the effect is cumulative so that the gap between, say, #1 and #15 gets to be pretty significant.

But what I think is more accurate is, like I said to Busta, the coaches in the league who are a real drag on their team are few and far between at this level. That effect isn't cumulative. So it's more like a slight edge, maybe, on the majority of teams in the league but that ultimately will pale in comparison to the difference in talent between clubs.

Agreed.  I was going to say that if you could graph it, the graph would probably look like some sort of logarithmic or exponential scale of coaches ability as it pertains to on ice success of a club.

Really, I think people sometimes buy into the idea of a coach as a major difference maker because:

A) People like basic, easy to follow narratives and "The coach played a major role" is one.

B) Sports fans like to divine real meaning from outcomes and are uncomfortable with the huge role that random chance plays in things.

So when a team wins unexpectedly, people go looking for explanations like "Player X's veteran leadership blah blah blah" or "The coach's strategy was a stroke of whatever" when really, you know, dice simply come up snake eyes from time to time.

Again I agree.  I also think people tend to look at things like effort and say "Well a better coach would get a better effort" and therefore that would translate in to wins.  In cases like that though, I don't think it's a better coach, but rather just a different coach.  They tend to point to team turn arounds, where a coach gets fired and the team goes on a winning streak.  That's typically a case where a team is underachieving because of the incumbent coach, who is probably a good coach but has lost a little something.  So now the incoming coach just really has to come in and say a couple of things that sound cool to the players to get buy in.  Once the buy in happens ,the talent that was under performing, is now performing at the level where it should and the wins start happening.  People look at the results and they say "Well it's obviously the coach, because that's all that changed".

I mean look at the Senators from last year.  Some people like to point to Dave Cameron as being the reason of the turnaround, but really it was the fact that they placed a 27 year old rookie in net, and he got hot, and only lost 2 games down the stretch.  Nobody planned for that, because if they had, then Dave Cameron would have started the season as coach, and Hammond would have been on the big club.

 

[Redleaf]

I witnessed the structure in Phoenix when Detroit played the Yotes and I can tell you, that everyone on that team knew where to be on the ice all the time. So if you can't learn you are out.

Except that's complete hogwash. I've watched Red Wings games with Babcock coaching them. Their players made mistakes. They get out of position or forget to cover their man. And not guys who then got shipped out the next day either.

One mans hogwash is another mans bible. Isn't that how the saying goes?

 

[rdowdall]

I witnessed the structure in Phoenix when Detroit played the Yotes and I can tell you, that everyone on that team knew where to be on the ice all the time. So if you can't learn you are out.

Except that's complete hogwash. I've watched Red Wings games with Babcock coaching them. Their players made mistakes. They get out of position or forget to cover their man. And not guys who then got shipped out the next day either.

One mans hogwash is another mans bible. Isn't that how the saying goes?

So if Nik responds to this, are you going to get mad at him if he makes a flippant remark?

 

[bustaheims]

One mans hogwash is another mans bible. Isn't that how the saying goes?

That doesn't change it from being hogwash. Truth is not in the eye of the beholder. It is fact. It is absolute. It doesn't need to be accepted or believed to remain true. It's not someone's perspective. It's the reality of what is.

 

[Highlander]

I have not responded to Nik's continued insults and I do appreciate RedLeafs post. I really don't give a rats behind on what Nik has to say about my post. I know what I saw and I am not saying the Wings were perfect or made mistakes, no sports team in history has played a totally perfect game, all I am saying is Babcock demands great positional play and I saw amazing structure in their play. Oh and by the way 2-0 for Wings against the Yotes with the Monster in net.
And I would prefer Hogwarts to Hogwash.

 

[Leaflifer]

What's hogwash is the idea coaching/staff makes no difference. Nobody is saying here that coaching makes contenders. It has the ability to make any team better as opposed to the wrong coaching.

And just because a team won a cup with 2 different coaches means zero. Some teams are just really good.

The question with the Leafs is with a crap roster can the coaching staff get a few wins by means of better practices, better communication, better PP/PK strategies, attitude change?...enough to even out the loss of Kessel?(or at least soften the blow). Most would say no, flat out, that no Kessel = 30 less goals.

I'm not entirely sure.

Don't get me wrong, The Leafs are going to be terrible in the standings for a few seasons, but I doubt they will be any worse than the last year.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Not saying anything about overall standings but expect a lot more from this team on a no quit level.

That's exactly where I expect Babcock to lead.  He is one who demands leadership & example from veterans, learning & hard work from the youngsters and a general overall team cohesion.

Perhaps in that regard, one can say that's what distinguishes or what will  distinguish a 'bad' coaoh from a 'good' one, at least in the Leafs' case, the difference being what one or more coaches could not accomplish even with  a roughly similar roster.

Of course, this is all hypothesizing because Babcock has yet to coach a single game yet behind the Leafs bench.  What Babcock achieved with Detroit stays with Detroit.  To Babcock right now, the Toronto Maple Leafs  are nothing but foreign.

Which is why, surrounding oneself with other experiened and in-depth knowledgeable people, such as the likes of Lemaire and to a certain extent Lamoriello et al,  as the saying goes, every little bit helps.

 

[Kin]

Again I agree.  I also think people tend to look at things like effort and say "Well a better coach would get a better effort" and therefore that would translate in to wins.  In cases like that though, I don't think it's a better coach, but rather just a different coach.  They tend to point to team turn arounds, where a coach gets fired and the team goes on a winning streak.  That's typically a case where a team is underachieving because of the incumbent coach, who is probably a good coach but has lost a little something.  So now the incoming coach just really has to come in and say a couple of things that sound cool to the players to get buy in.  Once the buy in happens ,the talent that was under performing, is now performing at the level where it should and the wins start happening.  People look at the results and they say "Well it's obviously the coach, because that's all that changed".

Exactly. Again, people tend to look for convenient narratives. You could have two players, both of whom scored 80 points in a season but one did it with a torrid hot streak at the beginning of the season and the other with a hot streak at the end of the season and the first guy's a choker and the second one is a hero despite identical influences on their team's position in the standings.

Teams playing well over their head or well under their head will probably, over the course of a season, regress to the mean. They'll have hot streaks and cold streaks. Coaches get fired during cold streaks, new guys get credit when they inevitably right the ship.

 

[Kin]

I know what I saw and I am not saying the Wings were perfect or made mistakes, no sports team in history has played a totally perfect game, all I am saying is Babcock demands great positional play and I saw amazing structure in their play.

Except that's not what you said. You said that every Red Wing player knew where to be "all the time". Which just isn't true. You can back pedal to a more reasonable statement if you like, but all I can do is respond to what you actually write.

So now that we're all on the same page that Babcock's doesn't imbue his team with super powers, we're back to the central point. The differences here are going to be incremental and, almost certainly, not immediate. So the people wringing their hands about how Babcock(and even more ridiculously, Lemaire) will have a major effect on where the team finishes can rest easy.

 

[Redleaf]

I witnessed the structure in Phoenix when Detroit played the Yotes and I can tell you, that everyone on that team knew where to be on the ice all the time. So if you can't learn you are out.

Except that's complete hogwash. I've watched Red Wings games with Babcock coaching them. Their players made mistakes. They get out of position or forget to cover their man. And not guys who then got shipped out the next day either.

One mans hogwash is another mans bible. Isn't that how the saying goes?

So if Nik responds to this, are you going to get mad at him if he makes a flippant remark?

You do know there's a difference between flippant and derogatory, right?

 

[rdowdall]

I witnessed the structure in Phoenix when Detroit played the Yotes and I can tell you, that everyone on that team knew where to be on the ice all the time. So if you can't learn you are out.

Except that's complete hogwash. I've watched Red Wings games with Babcock coaching them. Their players made mistakes. They get out of position or forget to cover their man. And not guys who then got shipped out the next day either.

One mans hogwash is another mans bible. Isn't that how the saying goes?

So if Nik responds to this, are you going to get mad at him if he makes a flippant remark?

You do know there's a difference between flippant and derogatory?

Actually there isn't a real big difference between the two:

de?rog?a?to?ry
dəˈr?ɡəˌt?rē/
adjective
showing a critical or disrespectful attitude.

flip?pant
ˈflipənt
adjective
not showing a serious or respectful attitude.

Even if there was, as your post points out, that is completely in the eye of the beholder.  Calling someone on what they post as being inaccurate isn't a crime and therefore not derogatory in my eyes.  He didn't insult Highlander, he dismissed what he said.  If he had said "Hey Highlander, you are a complete and total moron for posting that" then yeah, defend Highlander.  He didn't do that though.  He called the post hogwash and said why he felt that it was hogwash and backed his claim up. There is a difference.  I'll take that over someone posting "Leafs suxors!!! You gay!!" any day of the week.  I get it, sometimes I get a little heated when debating stuff on this board, but that's because I don't like being wrong.  That's my problem though. 

What I find funny is there are lots of people here who do the same thing as others, and then point the finger when someone does it to them.  If you are going to dish it out, then be prepared to take it is all I am saying.  You can say what you want about some of the posters here, but when they start something, they will see it through.

 

[Redleaf]

I witnessed the structure in Phoenix when Detroit played the Yotes and I can tell you, that everyone on that team knew where to be on the ice all the time. So if you can't learn you are out.

Except that's complete hogwash. I've watched Red Wings games with Babcock coaching them. Their players made mistakes. They get out of position or forget to cover their man. And not guys who then got shipped out the next day either.

One mans hogwash is another mans bible. Isn't that how the saying goes?

So if Nik responds to this, are you going to get mad at him if he makes a flippant remark?

You do know there's a difference between flippant and derogatory?

Actually there isn't a real big difference between the two:

de?rog?a?to?ry
dəˈr?ɡəˌt?rē/
adjective
showing a critical or disrespectful attitude.

flip?pant
ˈflipənt
adjective
not showing a serious or respectful attitude.

Even if there was, as your post points out, that is completely in the eye of the beholder.  Calling someone on what they post as being inaccurate isn't a crime and therefore not derogatory in my eyes.  He didn't insult Highlander, he dismissed what he said.  If he had said "Hey Highlander, you are a complete and total moron for posting that" then yeah, defend Highlander.  He didn't do that though.  He called the post hogwash and said why he felt that it was hogwash and backed his claim up. There is a difference.  I'll take that over someone posting "Leafs suxors!!! You gay!!" any day of the week.  I get it, sometimes I get a little heated when debating stuff on this board, but that's because I don't like being wrong.  That's my problem though. 

What I find funny is there are lots of people here who do the same thing as others, and then point the finger when someone does it to them.  If you are going to dish it out, then be prepared to take it is all I am saying.  You can say what you want about some of the posters here, but when they start something, they will see it through.

If you are referring to just that one post, than you're right. It wasn't derogatory. I'm not sure why you would think I'd get mad about a response to my post unless it was unnecessarily derogatory. Unless that was what you were expecting?

 

[rdowdall]

I witnessed the structure in Phoenix when Detroit played the Yotes and I can tell you, that everyone on that team knew where to be on the ice all the time. So if you can't learn you are out.

Except that's complete hogwash. I've watched Red Wings games with Babcock coaching them. Their players made mistakes. They get out of position or forget to cover their man. And not guys who then got shipped out the next day either.

One mans hogwash is another mans bible. Isn't that how the saying goes?

So if Nik responds to this, are you going to get mad at him if he makes a flippant remark?

You do know there's a difference between flippant and derogatory?

Actually there isn't a real big difference between the two:

de?rog?a?to?ry
dəˈr?ɡəˌt?rē/
adjective
showing a critical or disrespectful attitude.

flip?pant
ˈflipənt
adjective
not showing a serious or respectful attitude.

Even if there was, as your post points out, that is completely in the eye of the beholder.  Calling someone on what they post as being inaccurate isn't a crime and therefore not derogatory in my eyes.  He didn't insult Highlander, he dismissed what he said.  If he had said "Hey Highlander, you are a complete and total moron for posting that" then yeah, defend Highlander.  He didn't do that though.  He called the post hogwash and said why he felt that it was hogwash and backed his claim up. There is a difference.  I'll take that over someone posting "Leafs suxors!!! You gay!!" any day of the week.  I get it, sometimes I get a little heated when debating stuff on this board, but that's because I don't like being wrong.  That's my problem though. 

What I find funny is there are lots of people here who do the same thing as others, and then point the finger when someone does it to them.  If you are going to dish it out, then be prepared to take it is all I am saying.  You can say what you want about some of the posters here, but when they start something, they will see it through.

If you are referring to just that one post, than you're right. It wasn't derogatory. I'm not sure why you would think I'd get mad about a response to my post unless it was unnecessarily derogatory. Unless that was what you were expecting?

No that's not what I was expecting.  I was basing what I thought was going to happen on stuff that I have observed in the past.  The observation I had was that you would be having a conversation with someone in which Nik would post a comment, usually with a piece that was a little more exact and to the point than most.  In response it would appear that you would get angry at Nik for the response and fire back a post in defense of what you had posted.  I had always assumed that the reason that you took issue was because Nik was now interjecting in to your conversation to tell you that he felt your post was inaccurate.

In this case though, Nik and Highlander were having a conversation, and you interjected to tell Nik that you felt his position was wrong.  I wondered if Nik chose to respond to your post with one that you felt was flippant if you would still get angry, or if you would realize that you sort of brought it on yourself by interjecting in to the conversation.

 

[Kin]

What's hogwash is the idea coaching/staff makes no difference. Nobody is saying here that coaching makes contenders. It has the ability to make any team better as opposed to the wrong coaching.

But no one said it makes "no difference". What's being said is:

1) It makes less of a difference than people are saying

2) Most teams have good coaches, so it's not a big gain relative to the league

3) It probably won't have an immediate impact, as this is pretty clearly a team designed to not stick around for the long haul

 

[Redleaf]

I witnessed the structure in Phoenix when Detroit played the Yotes and I can tell you, that everyone on that team knew where to be on the ice all the time. So if you can't learn you are out.

Except that's complete hogwash. I've watched Red Wings games with Babcock coaching them. Their players made mistakes. They get out of position or forget to cover their man. And not guys who then got shipped out the next day either.

One mans hogwash is another mans bible. Isn't that how the saying goes?

So if Nik responds to this, are you going to get mad at him if he makes a flippant remark?

You do know there's a difference between flippant and derogatory?

Actually there isn't a real big difference between the two:

de?rog?a?to?ry
dəˈr?ɡəˌt?rē/
adjective
showing a critical or disrespectful attitude.

flip?pant
ˈflipənt
adjective
not showing a serious or respectful attitude.

Even if there was, as your post points out, that is completely in the eye of the beholder.  Calling someone on what they post as being inaccurate isn't a crime and therefore not derogatory in my eyes.  He didn't insult Highlander, he dismissed what he said.  If he had said "Hey Highlander, you are a complete and total moron for posting that" then yeah, defend Highlander.  He didn't do that though.  He called the post hogwash and said why he felt that it was hogwash and backed his claim up. There is a difference.  I'll take that over someone posting "Leafs suxors!!! You gay!!" any day of the week.  I get it, sometimes I get a little heated when debating stuff on this board, but that's because I don't like being wrong.  That's my problem though. 

What I find funny is there are lots of people here who do the same thing as others, and then point the finger when someone does it to them.  If you are going to dish it out, then be prepared to take it is all I am saying.  You can say what you want about some of the posters here, but when they start something, they will see it through.

If you are referring to just that one post, than you're right. It wasn't derogatory. I'm not sure why you would think I'd get mad about a response to my post unless it was unnecessarily derogatory. Unless that was what you were expecting?

No that's not what I was expecting.  I was basing what I thought was going to happen on stuff that I have observed in the past.  The observation I had was that you would be having a conversation with someone in which Nik would post a comment, usually with a piece that was a little more exact and to the point than most.  In response it would appear that you would get angry at Nik for the response and fire back a post in defense of what you had posted.  I had always assumed that the reason that you took issue was because Nik was now interjecting in to your conversation to tell you that he felt your post was inaccurate.

In this case though, Nik and Highlander were having a conversation, and you interjected to tell Nik that you felt his position was wrong.  I wondered if Nik chose to respond to your post with one that you felt was flippant if you would still get angry, or if you would realize that you sort of brought it on yourself by interjecting in to the conversation.

I'm not really sure what you think you're going to unearth here? 

If you're going to call someone out on a forum you better have all your facts together and go about your business with some integrity.

I mean, in fairness you will also need to call Nik out about some of his replies to posters on this board over the years too. Is that your next play?

If its just the dog days of summer getting to you, than suck it up man. At the end of the day, one mans observations and opinions are just that, and there are a world full of opposing ones.

 

[Leaflifer]

What's hogwash is the idea coaching/staff makes no difference. Nobody is saying here that coaching makes contenders. It has the ability to make any team better as opposed to the wrong coaching.

But no one said it makes "no difference". What's being said is:

1) It makes less of a difference than people are saying

2) Most teams have good coaches, so it's not a big gain relative to the league

3) It probably won't have an immediate impact, as this is pretty clearly a team designed to not stick around for the long haul

Agreed on all points.

One thing I may add (Re: point #2), and it's just speculation on my part, is that professional sports has a bit of what I call the "Max Power" effect. There are some people in management who are in their positions merely because of their A type personalities. They surround themselves with yes-men, don't like change, never admit a mistake, and generally run on confidence. These kind of guys build credibility by being associated with a skilled team that someone else (or luck) put together.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

What's hogwash is the idea coaching/staff makes no difference. Nobody is saying here that coaching makes contenders. It has the ability to make any team better as opposed to the wrong coaching.

But no one said it makes "no difference". What's being said is:

1) It makes less of a difference than people are saying

2) Most teams have good coaches, so it's not a big gain relative to the league

3) It probably won't have an immediate impact, as this is pretty clearly a team designed to not stick around for the long haul

Agreed on all points.

One thing I may add (Re: point #2), and it's just speculation on my part, is that professional sports has a bit of what I call the "Max Power" effect. There are some people in management who are in their positions merely because of their A type personalities. They surround themselves with yes-men, don't like change, never admit a mistake, and generally run on confidence. These kind of guys build credibility by being associated with a skilled team that someone else (or luck) put together.

Who do you think those people are? I'd love to know who's in their managerial position based solely on their personalities. I'm not being a jerk, just wondering who you're talking about.

 

[bustaheims]

Who do you think those people are? I'd love to know who's in their managerial position based solely on their personalities. I'm not being a jerk, just wondering who you're talking about.

Yeah, I don't buy that either. There may be guys who have jobs based mainly on their reputation, but I honestly can't think of any who are there merely because of their personality.