Custom Search

Maple Leaf coaching change changes….nothing?

In firing Randy Carlyle, the Leafs did something many felt should have happened at the end of last season. But there’s not much point in debating now whether that was or wasn’t the right move, though it does give pause. Was Shanahan hoping that the players who clearly were disinterested in Carlyle’s message a year ago would tune back in somehow this season?

I think we can try to make a few simple predictions here, which may or may not prove accurate. One is that the next coach will be more of a so-called “player’s coach”.  That’s the way things often go in sports.  When the taciturn, ‘my-way-or-the-highway’ guy is let go, management brings in someone with a track record of being player-friendly. If that happens, I have little doubt the Leafs will respond favourably for a while and win a number of games. (The historical side note here is that Paul Maurice was a player’s coach, though demanding.  Ron Wilson was supposed to be even tougher, and Carlyle harder to play for still. Nowadays, most any coach preaches discipline, defense and being hard to play against. There aren’t many around who will just let the players do whatever they want…)

When a new coach is hired in Toronto, at that point we will no doubt hear the players rave about what a good communicator he is; how the new system is a breath of fresh air and so easy to follow. These will be subtle digs at Carlyle, all the while ensuring they take none of the blame for unsatisfactory results. 

I haven’t read the stories today, only the headlines. Often, players in these circumstances will say (at least for public consumption), “we didn't do our jobs…".  That said, I doubt this group will even bother to try and make that claim.  They will likely be relieved that they are not being held accountable.

Coaching changes can make a difference, of course. History is filled with instances in all sports where, when the right person hits town, things can change in a hurry. It happened in the NFL with Vine Lombardi when I was a youngster back in 1959. Heck, in that same era, Punch Imlach, pictured at right, essentially hired himself back in the early stages of the 1958-’59 NHL season when he was Toronto’s assistant General Manager, and that turned out pretty well for Leaf fans…)

But often times, the uptick in a team’s play under a new coach is temporary.  Old habits are hard to break, especially if the players (and the team’s leadership) are more about words than a genuine commitment to doing all the little things that make winning in the NHL so difficult.

The Leaf roster has been turned over several times since the 2006-’07 season. But some guys have been here long enough to have seen coaches come and go.

My question is: now that those Leaf supporters who wanted Carlyle gone (I was on the fence, though I could understand why some fans wanted a change) have had their wish come true, will we now turn our attention to the guys on the ice?  Will we set the bar of expectation higher, finally?

Someone here made a relevant comment the other day about Steve Yzerman in his early (first ten years, almost) Detroit days. He was an excellent offensive player and the Red Wings were a nice team. But they weren’t winning anything and weren’t going to until their best players played at both ends of the ice every night.  Scotty Bowman eventually made sure that was the case.

Now, Scotty’s not coming in to coach the Leafs. But regardless of who does, it is up to the players to deliver.  We can all hope that Mike Babock will indeed come here, but even if he does, that’s no guarantee he is “the one”. (I don’t see a Lidstrom in this lineup, much less an Yzerman, Chelios, Draper, Maltby, etc.)

Yes, sometimes a new coach can inspire the troops, understood. And every once in a while, the commitment to changing habits does last. It happened with Yzerman and Mike Modano and many others, who learned over time that championship teams are not built on personal stats, but on grinding your way to wins. You need skill, for sure, but teams that win have 20 guys (or close to it) who will skate through a wall to make a play.

So yes, a new coach can motivate players. But ultimately, that motivation also has to come from within.  Does this group in Toronto have the will to do what it takes?  Or will they be what they have been for years—a nice team that, when the mood strikes, can score and win some games when their goalie is really good?

I’ve long said here I’m looking not so much behind the bench, but at the players.  I still am.


  1. I thought the most interesting words today were from Ron Wilson. He carefully waited for someone else to get fired to say , "See, it happened to may replacement. I was not the problem." He then went after Kessel saying that he is inconsistent, over emotional and difficult for his team mates when in a slump.

    Perhaps this is Kessel's time for that Yzerman style defensive epiphany?

    1. That's the kind of epiphany Leaf fans would no doubt look forward to, DP!

  2. Well.... the fan base got their pound of flesh here, but it will be interesting to see the fallout. I think Randy had to go, just because there was too much water under the bridge under his tenure... too many fractured relationships with the current roster, and too many losing streaks. Having said that though, to imply that this is "THE solution" is delusional. There have been so many long term signings made by this management group (some with Burke, some with Nonis) that you can't ignore the failure to offer the coaching staff the best chance to win. A big contract extension to John Michael Liles while he was injured made no sense, nor did Lupul getting a big contract when he was actually an active roster player between injuries. Add to that Grabovski being signed to a $27.5 million dollar deal, only to get bought out shortly after. No point mentioning Clarkson, as we've beaten that horse enough.

    It's always easy to beat on the coach and support the players in any sport, as the players offer the product we love watching, and we have a far higher emotional connection to them, but there comes a time when we need to call out the on-ice product as well. Look at Jake Gardiner, for instance. If anyone suggests that the reason Jake has been soft in his own zone and often looking disinterested is because he wasn't a fan of the guy behind the bench, then Jake isn't the sort of player I want on my Maple Leafs team.

    I would love to see Shanahan pop his head up and offer his thoughts right now. This guy has all sorts of currency and relevance in the mind of today's players, as he's not that far removed from the game, at 45 years old. His resume includes 3 Stanley Cups, an Olympic Gold, Hockey Hall of Fame inclusion, and a highlight reel of tough play that matches his scoring output. In other words, the perfect guy to hold a team meeting, and drag a few of these guys across the carpet. I expected him to operate in the background a little bit, but enough is enough.

    John Shannon had a good point this afternoon, stating that Pat Quinn was the last management figure that understood fully, and was capable of running this particular team, based on the unique marketplace. Pat's worst record as a coach was 90 points during his 7 seasons, and he topped a 100 three times, complete with plenty of playoff runs. He could coach the roster, entertain the media, and stonewall the suits in the boardroom, and the Leafs can't presently put together a large team of executives that can do what Pat handled alone. Maybe too many (overpaid) people stirring the pot here?

    The Babcock talk is obviously going to fill newspaper columns, blogs and chat rooms for months to come. I just hope that as fans we don't think this roster is a new coach away from success, as the problems here are layered.

    Incidentally, I feel bad for our great Junior squad, as they went from being the BIG story to relative obscurity, once the Randy news went public. Nice job, boys!!

    1. I agree, Russ, that Shanahan has the credibility to relate to and influence the players, though he may well stay in the background. (Though who knows, he may well speak to the players before a new coach is hired...)

      Ironically, Shanahan the player is precisely one of the kinds of players the Leafs need now- a true power winger who could score, make plays, fight, and compete all over the ice.

      I'm with you on Quinn. That was an under-appreciated era in Leaf history. Entertaining, winning hockey.

  3. Hi Michael,

    To get to the point, no I don't think that changing the coach today changes the team. In my opinion what it does is take away a layer of excuses. For the players, and for Dave Nonis.

    It gives the Leafs a period of time to evaluate what they have with a guy who improved Florida's possession rates after he took over on an interim basis last year. Free from all the usage, systems, and small appliance questions that plagued Carlyle. Peter Horacheck seems like a capable enough fellow for that task. Is he the guy Shanahan wants behind the bench long term? Probably not. I fail to see any way in which the Leafs haven't improved behind the bench today. He should get an uptick in buy in level from the team solely by being the new sheriff.

    I think that its obvious that the majority of those involved with the team would be looking at Mike Babcock being the guy they want. Lots of reasons for him to be that guy. The biggest, to me anyway, is credibility. He has it in spades. With management, with coaches, and with players. His resume is simply the best in the business. No one else comes close. If you are his GM and he comes to you and says this guy is garbage, trade him. You make the trade, you trust his judgement. If you are a player and don't believe that Mike Babcock knows what he is talking about the answer is really easy. As a player you are a moron, and need to be traded.

    I do believe that this puts pressure on the players. This is the third head coach for the core of this team. They either put up, or they shut up and get traded. This is great in my opinion. Phil Kessel, Dion Phaneuf, Lupul, JVR, Kadri, Clarkson, all need to be more committed to team game, and each other. If they prove they aren't willing and able to do that, trade them. A meaningless draft pick, and the cap space that comes with shedding the contracts would be worth it, if it is determined that these aren't the players you can win with.

    Dave Nonis, the light is on you my friend. You didn't look so good during the presser this morning. Looked a little under the weather, so to speak. Good luck, I think you will need it to make it to the entry draft in charge of this team. I don't believe you have done a good job here, but there certainly is room for improvement.

    Lastly, Randy Carlyle wasn't the cause of all the Maple Leafs problems. He certainly wasn't the solution to any of them either.

    1. I'm sure Shanahan will have an interest in Babcock, Jim. I still wonder if the Wings will re-sign him, though.

      Shanahan knows it takes the kind of commitment you referred to above to to be a contending team. That's the kind of team he no doubt intends to build.

  4. Once it became clear our little win streak was an anomaly, it was game over for Carlyle. It was unbelievable to me that he got rehired last summer, since he'd clearly lost the room, but that's life in MLSE land, I guess. And it's hardly the only puzzling deal Dave Nonis has made!
    James Mirtle made a good point today - one problem the Leafs face going forward is that their key guys, like Kessel and Phaneuf, have been asked to be the type of player they've NEVER been. They shone on their previous teams because those teams had a bunch of good centers, responsible defensive play, and committed teammates. So until we get a bona fide #1 center and #1 Dman, for a start, we're not going to see a whole lot of change.
    My gut tells me that this is just the beginning of the next big change for the Leafs. I guess we'll see how ing the Horachek honeymoon lasts, but when news of a major trade breaks in about a month, I won't be surprised. Just as I won't be surprised when Nonis is let go. It's time.

  5. Unfortunately, it now feels late to try and build around Kessel and Phaneuf, Gerund. Some of the pieces we need (top centre, first line defenseman, etc.), we have needed for a long time.

  6. I think the 'core' guys better take note this time... they just lost their buffer zone with the firing of Carlyle. I almost think that was one of the potential plot lines when he was re-signed. It may well be that decisions on core players have already been made, and the potential 'good times' transition away from the coach who was 'too hard' may just provide a window to still 'sell high' (as possible) on the guys who don't fit for the future.

    It seemed clear that some players don't enjoy their jobs working under Randy (but at the same time, didn't really seem to 'buy in' to their defensive responsibilities). I wonder if they would have enjoyed winning consistently and grown to like him more in such a scenario, or if he just 'sucks the life' out of their enjoyment of the game (as reported by previous players/teams). With that aspect now departed, the 'excuses' are gone.

    Let's see if there's any 'buy in' with the good guys who are left behind. Who knows... the present staff may have learned enough to try some new things and garner some success. If not, some core guys are going bye-bye. Personally, I'm leaning toward the possibility of a resurgence of short-term effort and commitment that may be enough to create a market for the departure of guys about whom they've already made their decisions. Could bring a significant change (even plural) over the coming weeks leading up to the deadline... perhaps that will be the most exciting thing that happens this year!

    There really should be a market for a few core guys who could complement a different system or team's needs, so I'm guessing and hoping we won't have to 'sell low' (at least, not at the bottom).

  7. Just listened to the interview with J. S. Giguere - seems like he was exercising some leadership skills from afar and sending a message to some of the core guys. He walked a fine line and didn't directly throw anyone under a bus, but the message is well worth hearing, because it is an insider perspective that's quite 'telling':

  8. I don't think too many people think that this is going to be a magic wand fix. BUT the team does have to start somewhere and this is as good a place to start as any...and much easier than "changing the core of the team" which we all know will be challenging based on our previous discussions around how hard trades are these days. It all needs to be done though if the team ever wants to compete for a cup and not just make the playoffs. I firmly believe Shanahan and Nonish both want more than just "make the playoffs".

    1. I have always believed that every GM and every coach here- going back to forever, has always wanted to win. Carlyle wanted it very badly and he just couldn't connect with the players, it seemed- though again, players are a big part of the problem. Shanahan and Nonis want to win, too, just like their predecessors. Whether they can find a way to revamp this roster so it can compete with the best teams in the league, we'll see. Thanks Pep.

  9. It's been a while since I've commented here, and Carlyle beeing fired seems like a good time to start again.

    I too thought he should have been fired at the end of last season. Of course the players are to blame as well, but I think the blame falls mostly on the coach. He wanted "his kind" of players, and did indeed get some to play the defensive game he wanted. Players coming from the stronger western conference accustomed to that style of hockey didn't forget how to play. Maybe it was the system, or maybe Carlyle couldn't (or didn't know how to) get the message across.

    So as we wait for Mike Babcock, or Dan Bylsma (who will help but not be saviours) should the Leafs "tear it down" now or continue tweaking? I'm thinking maybe they should do it now. Our best guys could still be part of a contending team.

    So as a possible subject for tomorrow: We keep Kessel, JVR, Bozak, Kadri, Komarov, Reily, Franson and Bernier. The rest can go.

    1. Good to hear from you, portuguese leaf.

      I thought before the 2013-'14 season that Nonis had provided Carlyle with the kind of team Randy wanted. And for a while, it looked as if that group might well make the playoffs.

      This year, I sense everyone was waiting for the team to slip, so Shanahan could make a move. Now he has. A new coach now or before next season can help, but to me, the players have to look at themselves and decide if they want to make the effort to be a good team.

  10. I just think this had to be done. Shanahan asked Carlyle to change and I'm sure he tried. It's not easy for a coach to change the way he's always done things in a small amount of time and it won't be easy for a team to change how it has always played. We saw a glimmer of what might be possible. The Leafs may not be better under a different coach but they won't be worse either. At least we'll get to see and Shanahan may have some answers. Inconsistency, big wins followed by big losses, is the mark of a "bubble" team, a team that simply isn't good enough and a management team that, over the years and despite spending to the cap, has failed to produce anything much better than what it started with. If we hadn't had Kessel, Reimer and more recently, Bernier, Toronto would probably have won the lottery a few years in a row. I had hoped to hear something from Shanahan yesterday, or Dubas--anyone but Nonis.

    I still think this is a team that can make the playoffs and any experience gained there is worthwhile.

    The one thing I would try, something that both Wilson and Carlyle refused to do, re-make the 1st line, support the the pure offensive players better and use the core players to the best advantage. I don't know how it's possible to evaluate a core that's always been used the same way, year after year. If they aren't playing "the right way" then why would you not insert players like Santo, Winnick or Komorov who can and do? They will learn or they won't.

    There was talk of someone else joining Horachuk and Spott behind the bench--Staios, Hunter, or someone from the Marlies (Eakins?) though I doubt that will happen in time for tonight's game. It will be something to watch for. Once again, Michael, lots to discuss. I wonder what Chicago fans talk about...

    1. Thanks Colleen- fans want more than a bubble team, for sure. We'll see if the coaching staff tries some different combinations to shake things up.

    2. Colleen, it was announced last night that Steve Staios would be joining the team as an assistant coach. I saw today that he will indeed be behind the bench for tonights game. Also, the forward lines at practice were all new, perhaps that is a nice change of direction as well.

  11. P.S. I don't understand Carlyle's parting shot before he was fired. He may not have gotten the players he wanted but he had complete control over his roster. Last year he chose Orr and McLaren on a line he never used. There were better choices he could have made, but didn't.

    1. Carlyle had hit his limit and saw the writing on the wall so decided he had nothing to lose I guess. He was brought in my Burke during the team's "truculence" era and that obviously fit Carlyle well. It was his choice to dress two face punchers and staple them to the bench most of last season when most teams didn't even dress one.

      Carlyle's biggest issue was his lack of ability or stubbornness or both to change and adjust with the times. Many thought Hitchcock (cut from the same old school cloth as RC) would have the same issues when he was hired in St. Louis but Hitch was very clear from day 1 during his time off work he studied why others coaches were successful and he was bringing a new mindset to the job. And he has followed through with that. Carlyle said some of the same things but no where near as strongly worded and it was obviously lip service and not much more.

      And as you so very well stated Colleen, RC would change lines and when things went a big sideways would right away go back to the same old first line that gave up as many goals as it scored (or worse) during 5v5 play.

      Anyone can manage things in life when things go well. What defines us is how we manage things when things do not go so well. I think we saw a pretty clear definition of Randy Carlyle. The game has changed and passed him by and I don't see him ever being a successful head coach in the NHL again.

    2. It was an odd parting shot for sure, Colleen, but at least Randy didn't do one of those bizarre, team sanctioned press conferences to get grilled about his firing. Those events seem to be the flavor of the day, and I personally don't get what anyone has to gain from it. We had Burkie laying into Steve Simmons during his conference (probably deserved, but not taking the high road, and sounding very petty), then we had Paul MacLean in Ottawa quoting Taylor Swift during his bizarre presser. Next was Dallas Eakins, turning his into the Mac-T love-in, despite many in Edmonton thinking Mactavish was as big a part of the Oilers' woes as anyone. I just don't get it.

      Many "insiders" spoke today of Carlyle's lack of personal relationships with the entire roster, never having any one-on-one sit-downs, and not maintaining an open door policy for players. I think you can still be a hard ass when when needed, but also have a personal and supportive relationship with your players as well. Pat Burns did it, back in the day. In today's day and age, these young and elite players grew up with an interactive relationship with their coaching staff, and a one-way, dictatorial approach just doesn't work. Whether that's right or wrong is open to debate, but the reality is that times have changed for professional athletes, and coaches need to adjust, or be shown the door.

      Instead of just randomly barking at everyone on the ice, there's nothing wrong with taking a promising player aside and saying "I love your talent level buddy, but your kinda killing us on some nights. Let's talk about what both of us can do to turn the ship around." You might actually get some decent feedback from the player as well, to combine with your assessment. I've heard interviews with Hitchcock the past couple of years, and he's definitely modified his behaviour. He openly admitted numerous times that he had turned into a bit of a dinosaur and recognized it, and simply changed his ways. Ken is no purring and cuddly kitten now, but certainly a moderated version of what he once was.

      I just read Pep's response while proof reading mine, and now realize that he mentioned Hitch as well, so maybe that's a sign of great minds thinking alike!! I'm bracing myself for your plagiarism lawsuit, Pep!

  12. heheheh... great minds.. I need to get my wife to read this :)

  13. The news of Randy Carlyle’s dismissal has been greeted with almost unanimous approval across the Leafs blogosphere. Amateur statisticians that run some of the more prominent Leafs fan-sites (like, and everyone’s favourite and most visited have been calling for Carlyle’s dismissal since long before last season’s collapse and now they’ve finally got what they wanted. Next in line is Dave Nonis (who is clearly no longer in charge of the team), and then ‘the core’ of the team, namely Kessel and Phaneuf.

    The problem with the Leafs, voices in unison are singing, is that Burke, Nonis and Carlyle have been building an out-dated hockey team that relies heavily on physical hockey and the first line scoring, we’ve wasted draft picks on ‘pylons’ and ‘plugs’, Randy’s been wasting roster spots on the same, not even playing them and that is why this team is middle-of-the-pack, average and going nowhere in a hurry... If only we would let the younger players play, banish our first-line center into the desert, field the fourth line that plays over 10 minutes per night, if we were to forget about shut-down defensemen and promote the ‘mobile’ ones etc. we’d have something, but above all we need good players and we can’t have any because Nonis wasted cap-space on Clarkson, Robidas, Kessel, Bozak, Phaneuf and Lupul. So, in short, we’re screwed and there’s really nothing we can do.

    What’s actually happening is ‘the core’ that Burke and Nonis built is pretty good and finally approaching maturity, while the young draft-pics and traded-for talent is slowly beginning to be able to make contributions. (This is the first season in which Kadri is actually playing some defense and Gardiner is still making rookie mistakes on nightly basis.) They’ve finally been surrounded by a cast of hard-working, role-playing veterans (like Robidas, Polak, Winnik, Santorelli and Komarov) who are helping them grow and the team is finally beginning to play the type of hockey that Carlyle’s been asking them to play for 2 years now. Leave it alone, let Randy do his thing and we’re set to take one the battle.

  14. The problem, however, is that Shannahan and the analytics nerds whispering in his ear will not rest until they’ve destroyed everything Burke has built and are choosing to make the destruction a long drawn-out process with some of the work being done in the summer, some more (Carlyle) mid-season and more to come in the future... The cowards don’t even have the guts to come out and explain themselves. What I’ve feared in the summer is coming true – Shanny and the stats boys are slowly chopping away at the Burke/Nonis/Carlyle team, everyone’s working under enormous pressure and is in fear of being fired and what we have is an organization resembling something from a dystopian novel, some kind of caricature of Stalin’s Soviet Union – apparatchik/bureaucrat who’s been doing the dirty work for the higher-ups grabs a hold of power and now everyone is looking over their shoulder, is made to back-stab each other and knows that ultimately, they too will be axed – it’s just a matter of time. Nonis will be gone, Horachek will be gone, Spott will be gone, Kessel, Phaneuf, Bozak etc. slowly but surely until only the ‘yes men’ are left standing.

    Why this couldn’t be done in the summer all at once is anyone’s guess. My hope was that Shannahan was actually aware of the fact that he and his boy Dubas have no experience running an NHL franchise and should leave coaching to coaches and managing to managers. Now it’s looking more like they were just enjoying watching their pray (Carlyle, Nonis and ‘the core’) gasp for air before being mercifully finished.

    The irony is that it’s now when everything is starting to come together (‘the core’ is under 30! and Carlyle was just beginning to be able to do what he wanted to do with a roster that is finally capable of competing in the NHL with good veteran presence, a solid goalie and young players that are not 18-19-year old rookies) we’re seeing a complete overhaul of the organization.

    Getting rid of Carlyle will hurt this team as will the gag order on Nonis and his soon-to-come dismissal. If, or more likely, ‘when’ Kessel, Bozak and Phaneuf are sent packing along with anyone that is over 6 feet tall and has been known to hit or fight, and the management is firmly in the hands of the old Red Wings old boys club, we’ll be facing the future akin to what the Oilers’ present looks like. God help us. This feels like a Greek tragedy.

    1. That's a different perspective than what most Leaf supporters seem to have these days, leafdreamer, but it's no less important to share observations from those who look at things against the grain.

  15. I'm more hopeful now than Leafdreamer ( who has managed to stay more positive than I the past year and a half--that's always a good thing) for the future but what do I know?

    The Leafs looked completely shell-shocked tonight against Washington--to the core, I guess you could say.
    A strange and very difficult half season so far for this team, with the negative media coverage right from the start, the trade rumours, the fans, the jersey tossing, twitter, #salutegate and now the firing and re-adjusting which has only just begun. The latest was Feschuk --well-known for calling Reimer's Mom once to get his story--actually chasing Phil. It seems to have carried straight over from the end of last season, even as the Leafs showed a fairly good record. I felt sorry for them tonight. Most of these players truly want to be Leafs. They want to be successful in Toronto and I've never doubted that.

    I read a lot more hockey articles now than I used to, and we have discussed the media in part but I'm wondering, Michael, has it always been this bad? We've all been frustrated and critical of the team and management and posted our thoughts in this safe and very respectful environment, but I can tell you--it's a bit scary out there.

    1. Your question is difficult to answer in a way, Colleen. I've observed (and briefly was part of, many years ago) the Toronto area "media" for decades. It's always competitive in large markets- Montreal is similar- and reporters/columnists are always looking for a story a day, a different angle, a bit of controversy that might attract readership/viewership.

      I remember that Scott Young, the well regarded longtime columnist for the Globe & Mail, resigned from the paper during the 1979-'80 hockey season. He was upset that the Globe had allowed anonymous sources (if I recall the situation correctly) to be used in an article that was highly critical of then GM Punch Imlach. It seemed to be a matter of principle with Young, and he left the paper, though the use of anonymous sources was not unusual- Watergate being a prime example. (I should note that Young was close with Imlach, having authored a book with him years before; they did another book together after Punch left the Leafs in the early '80s, I believe.)

      Short answer: Toronto has always been a demanding market, in terms of expectations. When a player, GM or coach is under scrutiny, it can become unfair and a bit much.

    2. Thanks, Michael.
      I think what bothers me, and you already mentioned "anonymous sources", is that much is implied or taken out of context. There's no way to defend yourself when you're often not sure what the attack is about let alone why. Players etc are sheltered from the white noise as much as possible, and a legitimate question is fine, but players are forced to respond to a story-line they know nothing about. They could say "I can't comment on that--we don't read these articles" but they'd still be pushed until they answer. There's no protection during these scrums. Many reporters aren't taken to task when they are proved to be wrong, especially when a contract is being negotiated. None apologize. I have seen that a few good reporters do call them out but unfortunately that's never the article that fans remember. Maybe that's a choice on our part.

    3. Well said, Colleen. The reporters do tend to have a pack mentality, and I think they generally fail to question those in their own profession that are just gossip diggers, and rumour spreaders. I honestly don't care too much about dressing room or management politics, as I'd rather they focus on the on-ice product, but I guess dozens of Leaf media types trying to fill a 24 hour news cycle tend to run out of ammunition half way through the work day, and that's when the half truths and speculation rears its ugly head.

      I'm actually surprised that more athletes haven't lost their marbles during those combatant press scrums. Since vultures tend to circle when things are bad, it's usually a player being swarmed when he's already pissed of at his own performance, so I can see why they snap occasionally. I'm not trying to get out the tiny violins here, and overly sympathize with millionaires getting paid highly to play a game, but those reporters have to realize that sometimes you get what you give.

      Michael mentioned Scott Young, and I put Steven Brunt in that category as well... guys that are actually great writers, and believe in the power of the written word, so they don't need to lean on sensationalism to attract readers to juicy gossip. Sadly, there aren't many great sports journalists left, yet ironically, there's 10 times more articles to wade through.

    4. I think you nailed it Russ with the "aren't many great sports journalists left". And that is a bit of a statement on society as a whole. We have turned into a "want it now" society so being first is more important than being correct. And then when everyone is trying to be first we get people trying to better that and be "the big story" and first. And we end up with that passes for journalism today. Very sad.

      I am surprised the majority of the players don't just totally ignore questions from the vulture type of reporters and just deal with the ones that aren't there trying to BE the story. I am pretty sure I would.

  16. Hello Michael;

    It's possible that Randy was the cause of the Leaf's lack of consistency. I remember when Pat Quinn took over the Leaf's reins from coach Murphy, the transition was tremendous.

    My gut feeling, though, is that the chemistry of our players is more of the cause. And this lies squarely on the shoulders of Nonis.

    I hope I'm wrong and the players turn over a 'new Leaf' with just a coaching change.

    1. Hi drgreg- A new coach can sometimes work with the same group of players and turn things around, whether it's a new "system", a jolt of self belief/confidence, etc.

      Most of us agree there is talent here, as there is on any club. A commitment to do all the things needed to win consistently has been lacking, unfortunately. Whether coaching is the answer, or this group just doesn't have the resolve to do what's required, is the question.

    2. I think we can learn a lot more about the players with Horachuk in charge. The Panthers became better defensively and a much more aggressive team in the short time he was there, and that's what we've been wanting to see.

      Horachuk spent some time with Phil during practice. He didn't look uncoachable to me. Hard to put that sort of tag on a player when I have never seen a coach spend any time with him at all. Kessel admitted Wilson never talked to him at all and I don't think that was any different with Carlyle. I don't think he's uncoachable, I doubt he's ever been coached.

      Some positive changes to ponder after last night's win. I hope they last. A difficult road trip ahead.

  17. Hi Michael,

    I've been pretty busy so I haven't been around this site for a while, but of course I've still found the time to watch Leafs games! I haven't finished reading the comments yet but I just thought I would throw in my two cents. I have no doubt that this has been universally noticed, but I am very impressed by the dramatic reduction in shots allowed in the last two games.

    I don't place a high level of importance on the stat, especially considering comments I once read from Reimer (I think) to the effect that the number doesn't matter, it's the length of time spent under pressure in the defensive zone (a statement with which, after many years as a goalie, my knees and thighs are in strong agreement). But it cannot be ignored that this is an issue that Randy Carlyle was trying to address for quite some time with no success, while Horachek has been able to make an immediate impact.

    I don't think this alone is necessarily an indictment of Randy Carlyle as an NHL coach, but it does seem to suggest that there was some kind of disconnect between him and the players. I don't know who was to blame for that, but I don't particularly care. It is very encouraging to see that coach-player barrier broken down. I don't expect any parades this year, but I'm sure we can all agree that this team is not very far away from being one of those teams that is more or less a lock to make the playoffs. Hopefully the coaching change will get them over that hump.

    I also like Horachek's apparent willingness to experiment with line combinations. It will be fun to see where that leads!

    1. Hi Oliver- glad you checked in!

      If there is a better connection between Horachek and the players, that might be a good start. The test may be whether the early positive vibe lasts when and if the team reverts to its earlier patterns.

    2. I really hope that Horachek is being given a truthful and realistic chance at the coaching job next year, and that he's just not a place holder that really isn't in the chase. Your line about failed player-coach relationships in the past 6 years with this team is spot on, Oliver, as this team hasn't had a coach that made any attempt to relate to the players since Paul Maurice. Paul is having a great run these days.

      One can certainly argue that the last two Leafs coaches were big name guys, obviously having tons of pedigree, with Wilson and Carlyle. Maybe it's time to give someone lower key a chance, where they can't just use the weight of their resume in an attempt to apply pressure and present ideas. Boudreau and Bylsma are example of recent coaches that had positive impact on their rosters, without being a veteran of the NHL head coaching ranks.

      I hope that Steve Spott survives through all this, as he seems like a fine coach that was doing a good job with the Marlies. Sometimes it's a curse to get called up to the big leagues, as a coach can flame out fast, and lose his footing in the AHL or CHL, where he was enjoying great success.

      Speaking of Leafs coaches, the worst one I ever saw live was John Brophy. I was behind the Leafs bench in 1987, at Maple Leaf Gardens for a game against Detroit, and Brophy was a real piece of work. He had a heckler needling at him, but it was really harmless stuff..... "You suck Brophy!", and that sort of thing. John's face went purple, and he was almost ignoring the on-ice action, spending most of his time offering "F-you" to the disgruntled fan beside me that was just having a little fun with him. It was really bizarre for anyone in earshot, to imagine an NHL coach being that affected by a little bit of white noise from the crowd.

  18. What can I say? I know I have gone out on limb a few times saying how good I believe the Leafs are. Now I have to say I thought the game yesterday was the best the Leafs have played in quite some time and I just hope they can keep it up on the west coast. So I am still very positive. I know they won't win the Cup this season but I still think they could win a few rounds, and then who knows? I still remember the Habs winning in 86 so anything is possible.

    I was also glad to see Shanahan tell Wilson he was no longer the Leaf coach so he should keep his mouth shut about Kessel. Scoring in the NHL these days is hard and Kessel can score and I have also seen him make some pretty good defensive plays lately as well. He is the one player the Leafs need to keep, give him a center like Toews and he will score 50 goals easily.

    I really don't know or have a clue on the coaching side of things. They say elite goalies and players make great coaches. You hear some players don't like Carlyle and even some Duck Cup winning players can't stand him so maybe changing the coach will make a difference in that aspect but I am not certain. Now Horacheck is preaching the 5-5-5 system and Leafs held the Jackets to 20 shots yesterday - and also looked pretty good doing it. The 5-5-5 system is really just another term for work really hard and keep pressuring the opposition with 5 guys always in the zone with the puck. Nice concept if you can get the players to do it. If the Leafs actually keep doing it they will win a lot of games but you have to wonder why they didn't do it for Randy. Maybe Randy was an old school coach and old school will not work these days.

    It really is mind boggling to me how they can ten games in a row and then the 18 wheeler goes off the cliff. They really have talent. I hate the Habs and there is no way the Habs should be better than the Leafs if you compare the talent. So if the Leafs are better on paper then they should also be better on the ice so maybe the coaching really is the problem. I still think something will click in and the Leafs players will get serious and the best (for this season) is yet to come.

    1. There's no doubt the first half (not that it was it terrible, just up and down with some concerning old habits) sou;d be forgotten if the Leafs made a move in the second half, Alton. I guess this all comes down to consistency and effort. There is enough skill here to make the playoffs in a weak Conference. It's a question of working hard all over the ice and not taking many nights off.

  19. Hi Michael,

    first of all: what good will it do to raise the bar of expectations even higher?

    I have to strongly insist that there is no player on this team even in a 1000 mile radius to Steve Yzerman.

    I was a bit shocked as I heard of Randy's firering. I do believe it is much more on the players than the coach.

    Somehow they managed to maneuver themselves in a bad spot now and it will by very hard to reach the playoffs now. They need somewhat around 24 wins and a few one point games or something similar to make the playoffs. There is no room for bad stretches anymore.

    Over the long run the coaching change will change nothing. The team is badly constructed and it needs change. They woke up now but in a few weeks or a longer time bad habbits will take over again. I wish Peter success with this team.

    After what went on the last two weeks the press subject came to the forefront again.

    I really don't know if Babcock woould be the right coach for this team.
    First of all he is with one of the best organizations in hockey. If he wants to collect rings and he really wants to leave Detroit perhaps he goes to a better team.
    And if he chooses Toronto this could really be a black mark on his resumee.
    And he is very demanding and insists on doing a lot of things that are not negociable. I know a lot of players find that he is not easy to play for.

  20. And then there is the question in which direction will Shanahan go with this team. If he decides to take a step back first, perhaps he wants another type of coach.