Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Kin]

Cox's article is full of self-created "facts" (like you "have to" give an experienced coach 3 full seasons ... really?) delivered in his usual patronizing way.

No, he describes three full seasons as "a reasonable leash (if you're of) the more hair trigger" variety. That's not a fact and it's not stated as such.

I think the fundamental premise of Cox's article is fine. Carlyle is relatively early into his tenure, the team isn't much better than their record and so a coaching change would be seen by some as being the result of unrealistic expectations. I don't think he devotes enough time to the fact that Carlyle's decisions are exacerbating the problem or the larger question of how desperately a team that has the talent level to compete for a playoff spot "at best" should be trying to wring every last single point out of a season but it's a fair point that fans in this market tend to over rely on the idea that a coaching change will fix the larger problems with the team.

 

[ZBBM]

Cox's article is full of self-created "facts" (like you "have to" give an experienced coach 3 full seasons ... really?) delivered in his usual patronizing way.

No, he describes three full seasons as "a reasonable leash (if you're of) the more hair trigger" variety. That's not a fact and it's not stated as such.

I think the fundamental premise of Cox's article is fine. Carlyle is relatively early into his tenure, the team isn't much better than their record and so a coaching change would be seen by some as being the result of unrealistic expectations. I don't think he devotes enough time to the fact that Carlyle's decisions are exacerbating the problem or the larger question of how desperately a team that has the talent level to compete for a playoff spot "at best" should be trying to wring every last single point out of a season but it's a fair point that fans in this market tend to over rely on the idea that a coaching change will fix the larger problems with the team.

It's presented as the foundation for the article and his entire tone (typical with him) is that you have to be stupid to disagree with him.  Functionally equivalent to stating it as a fact (as in when he tells us to "get real"). 

Anyway, I disagree with him (and apparently with you) that a change isn't warranted.  But it's not because I'm an idiot, or have a hair-trigger, or any of the other insults Cox likes to project on fans.  It's because I don't think Carlyle is coaching the team well and I would like to give somebody else a chance.

 

[gunnar36]

Well Damien, when you have a coach known for his stubbornness and not willing to change his tactics to adapt to the personnel he has on the roster, isn't the next step to maybe look for someone new who can tactfully develop a system that utilizes the strengths that they have?

 

[Kin]

It's presented as the foundation for the article and his entire tone (typical with him) is that you have to be stupid to disagree with him.  Functionally equivalent to stating it as a fact (as in when he tells us to "get real").

I mean, you're free to read it that way if you want but I don't think that really adds up. If I were going to present my opinion as a fact and imply that someone was stupid to disagree with me, I probably wouldn't state my opinion using the word "probably"(see what I did there?) as Cox does. 

Anyway, I disagree with him (and apparently with you) that a change isn't warranted.  But it's not because I'm an idiot, or have a hair-trigger, or any of the other insults Cox likes to project on fans.  It's because I don't think Carlyle is coaching the team well and I would like to give somebody else a chance.

My opinion on whether or not Carlyle should coach the team remains a complete indifference which, technically I suppose, means we do disagree with me although not quite the way you put it.

Regardless of whether or not you think Carlyle should be fired, though, the question remains a fair one. If the Leafs do fire Carlyle and a replacement is brought in, what reasonable length of time should be set on him "coaching the team well" before the new guy gets fired? I agree it doesn't have to be 3 or 4 years but...one? Two? Should we fire the replacement if he doesn't get them going in a couple weeks?

Carlyle hasn't yet had a season where he took a Leafs team to camp and then coached them for an entire 82 game season. Not one. He got the tail end of a Wilson season, a shortened year and now 45 games of this. I mean, even if we buy the assumption that Carlyle was brought in to win and win now, we should at least put those expectations on the table. The next coach of the team should be brought in knowing that if this time next year the team's not satisfied with his results he's on the next bus to Hamilton.

 

[Kin]

Well Damien, when you have a coach known for his stubbornness and not willing to change his tactics to adapt to the personnel he has on the roster, isn't the next step to maybe look for someone new who can tactfully develop a system that utilizes the strengths that they have?

Provided the long term organizational goal is the #6 seed, sure.

 

[TML fan]

I don't think size on the wings is an issue. They are losing puck battles because they don't support the puck. But what do you do with the puck once it's been won? Often times won puck battles are resulting in giveaways because there's nobody to give the puck to once its been won.

 

[2badknees]

I think in a lot of respects, the worst thing long term for the organization was making the playoffs and pushing the bruins to 7 games.

It cut short any idea of a proper rebuild, set fan expectations of success in the here and now, which offseason aquisitions were signed to support, and put a target on Carlyle's back as soon as the inevitable regression occurred.

 

[dappleganger]

Actually a very good article by Cox about RC and why he won't be fired and what he needs to do.  A nice perspective actually and with the effort last night we can take some solace in the fact that the boys can actually play some good hockey:
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/2014/01/10/maple_leafs_need_new_tactics_not_a_new_head_coach_cox.html

The fact it's Cox suggesting the Leafs shouldn't fire Carlyle probably means the Leafs should fire Carlyle.

 

[bustaheims]

DamoSpin: Leaf GM Dave Nonis today on Randy Carlyle: "His job is not in jeopardy."

And there's the dreaded vote of confidence.

 

[Al14]

A vote of confidence from Nonis is likely not a death notice for Carlyle's job like it would be elsewhere.

That is, if Leiweke stays out of the discussion!

 

[drummond]

DamoSpin: Leaf GM Dave Nonis today on Randy Carlyle: "His job is not in jeopardy."

And there's the dreaded vote of confidence.

So if according to Nonis it is not Carlyle it implies the team is bad, or at least unable to buy what Carlyle is selling.

 

[mr grieves]

DamoSpin: Leaf GM Dave Nonis today on Randy Carlyle: "His job is not in jeopardy."

And there's the dreaded vote of confidence.

Dreaded for us, you mean. Because the guy who gave away two 60-point forwards and signed David Clarkson to the biggest UFA contract of the summer is probably dumb enough to mean it.

 

[bustaheims]

So if according to Nonis it is not Carlyle it implies the team is bad, or at least unable to buy what Carlyle is selling.

No. It's really just a standard statement. He's not going to say Randy's job is in trouble and then not fire him in short order. He can't very well say "Firing the coach is something we're considering right now" because it takes away whatever authority the coach may have. All it really means is that he's not firing Carlyle this weekend.

Make no mistake, though. The fact that Nonis is publicly addressing the situation means the clock over Carlyle's head is ticking.

 

[13th fan]

Where's this guy when you need him?  :

 

[hockeyfan1]

Actually a very good article by Cox about RC and why he won't be fired and what he needs to do.  A nice perspective actually and with the effort last night we can take some solace in the fact that the boys can actually play some good hockey:
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/2014/01/10/maple_leafs_need_new_tactics_not_a_new_head_coach_cox.html

Basically says that the Leafs shouldn't fire Carlyle, but either the players need to figure out Carlyle's system after 100+ games or Carlyle needs to change everything that he's doing.

From the article:
Adaptability is the mark of a good NHL coach, and we?ll see if Carlyle can do that.

That too is my word for Carlyle.  Always was, and will be.  Because it has been one of  the hallmarks of many a good coach in the league throughout time.

 

[ZBBM]

It's presented as the foundation for the article and his entire tone (typical with him) is that you have to be stupid to disagree with him.  Functionally equivalent to stating it as a fact (as in when he tells us to "get real").

I mean, you're free to read it that way if you want but I don't think that really adds up. If I were going to present my opinion as a fact and imply that someone was stupid to disagree with me, I probably wouldn't state my opinion using the word "probably"(see what I did there?) as Cox does. 

Anyway, I disagree with him (and apparently with you) that a change isn't warranted.  But it's not because I'm an idiot, or have a hair-trigger, or any of the other insults Cox likes to project on fans.  It's because I don't think Carlyle is coaching the team well and I would like to give somebody else a chance.

My opinion on whether or not Carlyle should coach the team remains a complete indifference which, technically I suppose, means we do disagree with me although not quite the way you put it.

Regardless of whether or not you think Carlyle should be fired, though, the question remains a fair one. If the Leafs do fire Carlyle and a replacement is brought in, what reasonable length of time should be set on him "coaching the team well" before the new guy gets fired? I agree it doesn't have to be 3 or 4 years but...one? Two? Should we fire the replacement if he doesn't get them going in a couple weeks?

Carlyle hasn't yet had a season where he took a Leafs team to camp and then coached them for an entire 82 game season. Not one. He got the tail end of a Wilson season, a shortened year and now 45 games of this. I mean, even if we buy the assumption that Carlyle was brought in to win and win now, we should at least put those expectations on the table. The next coach of the team should be brought in knowing that if this time next year the team's not satisfied with his results he's on the next bus to Hamilton.

As someone else suggested I would be happy with an interim coach for the rest of this season (Gordon would be fine) so that Nonis can have a shot at a much wider field in the summer. 

Nonis didn't hire Carlyle, and, if memory serves, Burke didn't hire Wilson.  Sure, they each accepted the coach, and for all I know they would have hired them anyway in an open search.  But that notwithstanding, I don't get why any GM should be beholden to someone's else pick to be coach. 

I think it makes more sense to give a GM several years to show he's taking a team in a winning direction.  If the coach isn't getting it done, particularly if he has never really had success with the team he's currently coaching, then I see no reason to give somebody a set amount of additional time just because ... well, there really is no good reason.

EDIT: I forgot to add that my yardstick of success is not "win now" (if by that you mean win the Cup).  I want to see a coach molding a team to its strengths and getting guys to compete every night.  If he does that, this roster has enough talent that they'll win more than lose.

 

[Hampreacher]

Carlyles needs to coach using the talents he has. He refuses to change when obviously it is not woking. Second he needs to use the fourth line more as most other teams usually do.That means playing Holland and sitting Orr and or McClement. Frazer just is not effective this year whether it is because of injury or teams have figured him out. They need to use the offensive talents of Gardiner and Reilly with the philosophy the best defense is a good offence. Not that one neglects defense but teach and grow through mistakes. I think Bernier and Reimer can bail them out. The offensive fire power is their with Kadri, Raymond, Holland etc.

 

[Kin]

Nonis didn't hire Carlyle, and, if memory serves, Burke didn't hire Wilson.  Sure, they each accepted the coach, and for all I know they would have hired them anyway in an open search.  But that notwithstanding, I don't get why any GM should be beholden to someone's else pick to be coach. 

I don't think that a GM should be beholden to any coach, whether he hired him or not. That said, it doesn't really answer what I asked you. Unless you think that the sort of aims you have for a coach are ones that can be easily achieved overnight then surely there has to be some sort of set length of time a coach has before he figures out how to make his players compete hard every night before he gets fired. Regardless of what that amount of time is it should at least be on the table when a GM is in the process of hiring a new coach or when that GM makes the decision to keep the incumbent head coach around.

So if Nonis ends up not firing Carlyle I think we can safely say that Nonis is looking at a slightly longer term picture here and that Carlyle not "adapting to suit the talent he has" is, perhaps, secondary to the idea that Nonis believes Carlyle is the guy to coach the team with the talent he eventually wants.

I think it makes more sense to give a GM several years to show he's taking a team in a winning direction.  If the coach isn't getting it done, particularly if he has never really had success with the team he's currently coaching, then I see no reason to give somebody a set amount of additional time just because ... well, there really is no good reason.

Well, I make the case for the "because" you're looking for above but this is where I become a little less clear on your rationale here. Carlyle did, smoke and mirrors or luck or whatever, did coax a pretty respectable performance out of the club in the only start to finish season that they've had under him. So if the criteria is that success buys a coach a little bit of rope then Carlyle at least should have more rope to work with than any coach since Pat Quinn. Maybe not the leisurely 46 games of rope some people are advocating but some nonetheless.

But even beyond that, I'm still more interested in the question I asked you. If Carlyle got fired and a new coach was brought in in the summer, Gordon as the permanent hire or someone new, how much time should they get next season before the sword starts dangling over their head? Because it sounds a little to my ears that you are advocating that a couple bad weeks of poor performance should doom a coach regardless of how long he's been here and while I admire that in a sort of Robespierre-esque revolutionary sense I think an organization who took that policy would have a very hard time attracting coaching candidates of real quality.

EDIT: I forgot to add that my yardstick of success is not "win now" (if by that you mean win the Cup).  I want to see a coach molding a team to its strengths and getting guys to compete every night.  If he does that, this roster has enough talent that they'll win more than lose.

No, by win now I really just mean the gap between where the Leafs are right now in the standings and where they'd have to be for Carlyle's job to be pretty inarguably safe. Which is...8 points? 10? Less? If the Leafs had 6 more points, the difference of three games, they'd be in the playoffs with a 5 point edge on the Red Wings.

 

[princedpw]

I wouldn't judge a coach based exclusively on the number of points the guy's team currently has in the standings.

 

[Kin]

I wouldn't judge a coach based exclusively on the number of points the guy's team currently has in the standings.

I don't think anyone's advocating you do. That particular bit of dialogue was connected to an earlier bit I said about an assumption that Carlyle was brought in to win and win now. If that were the criteria from above, I think it's fair to say it would really only be measured by the amount of games won, woefully unadvanced a metric though it may be.