Arguments for Defending Carbo?

[markierung]

I just want to begin by clearly stating that I don't think they should Fire Carbo as coach just yet. This thread is not about calling for the coach's head. I simply want something made clear to me.

There are various people in the Montreal Media and many fans which would like for coach Carbo to get fired. There are also a lot of people who think that they should keep him. I would like to know what the arguements for keeping him are, and what good has he done since he has got here. We all know the reasons why in theory, he should be a great coach.

1. He's a passionate guy who is supposed to inspire and light a fire under his players.

2. Great defensive player that should help increase team defense.

3. Great Penalty killer, should be able to teach it to the players

4. Great Faceoff man, should make our centermen better.

Now, what has he accomplished in his time in Montreal.

1. There has not been a single player on this team that is playing over his head. Great coachs inpire their players to play over their heads (Ted Nolan) Half our guys play to their limits, (Koivu, Begin, Plekanec, Higgins) while the other half are underacheiving compared to their talent level (Ryder, Somlinski, Bouillon, Steit)

2. The Habs are a minus team. Horrible defensively.

-3. The penalty kill is in the bottom quarter in the league.

4. Our faceoff percentage stinks. Koivu, and Pleks haven't improved since he got here.

5. Numerous controversies in the locker room. He calls his guys out in the media instead of in private. Doesn't tell Begin when he's getting benched. I heard someone describe the locker room last week like a country club atmosphe

I simply don't see any good things that he has done. We're in the same position we were in when he took over, struggle to make the playoffs. I also think that we can all agree that the overall talent level is superior to when he took over:

Ryder is Older

Higgins is Older

Pleks is older

Smolinski better than Bonk

Kostopolous is a better grinder than Mike Johnson

Kostisyn is better than Perezhogin

Huet is more experienced

Price is better than Abby

No internal Theodore distractions

I'm not syaing we should fire him right away. But we should consider the positives that he has contributed.

And to any possible rebuttles:

- The assistant coaches run the PowePlay, not carbo

- Smolinski has been a more productive player than Bonk his entire career before he came to Montreal

- Kostisyn is a better offensive player than Perezhogin ever was and meshes better with Kovalev

- And don't tell me that he gets more out of Kovalev. Less that a point per game still isn't good enough for a guy making over 4 million.

- And please don't tell me that the coaches we fired all did better because we didn't give them enough time.

Vignealt would have a last place team without Luongo

Therrien was given Crosby, Malkin, Staal and a plethora of young stars int he making

Julien has a team in the same place we're in

I won't even mention Mario Tremblay

Edited December 10, 2007 by markierung

[ShortHanded]

I don't have arguments for defending him. I feel similar to you. He *should* be fantastic at his job, but I don't feel he respects the players and I don't feel he is fair with them. One treatment for some guys (begin not being told he's benched before the media finds out) and another for others (smoke deserving to be benched and not being benched, etc). I don't think he had any right to call out Markov last week and DENYING the guy was injured. it's different than saying "he's got to play better". If he'd said that, I could respect it. but he basically accuses markov of caring more aobut the all-star game than the team. That loses my respect and doesn't get you anywhere...

[Prime Minister Koivu]

Not to mention that when Gainey took over last year as coach the team picked up their game and was vastly improved in about a week. So much so that we almost made the playoffs despite loosing almost every game for 2 months solid.

Respect.

It is tough to respect an asshole (my perception of Carbo).

The best scenario would be for Bob to step back behind the bench.

[simonus]

Not to mention that when Gainey took over last year as coach the team picked up their game and was vastly improved in about a week. So much so that we almost made the playoffs despite loosing almost every game for 2 months solid.

Respect.

It is tough to respect an asshole (my perception of Carbo).

The best scenario would be for Bob to step back behind the bench.

Even if he were willing to fire Carbo, I can't imagine Bob would want to be the coach again. He was damn good at it and I think he could really help out the team, but I think BG viewed the interim coaching move as a way to shield Carbo from association with a faltering team. This was BG's way of getting his guy behind the bench. Now he has his guy and I doubt he'd pull the same move to bring in another guy.

The whole interim coaching thing was a great way to ease an inexperienced coach in, I doubt BG would see it as necessary when bringing in a more experienced guy. I guess there aren't that many viable coaching options who are unemployed at this moment and I doubt that BG would want to take over the reigns without having a very good idea as to who would take over and when.

That all being said, I think BG has a lot of faith in Carbo and wants him to grow into his role just like the younger players on the team. Whether I agree with that philosophy is another matter.

[Chris]

Everytime i try to defend him he does something crazy to make look like a fool. Dandy is now the RW of the day on the first line. (Read it on another site).

Markov and Koivu need some heat for there play. They have been awfull. GC needs to be fair to everyone, stop caling out the 20 year olds when the vets suck worse.

His other problem he can't turn a Ford Fiesta into a Ferrari.

[Wamsley01]

Even if he were willing to fire Carbo, I can't imagine Bob would want to be the coach again. He was damn good at it and I think he could really help out the team, but I think BG viewed the interim coaching move as a way to shield Carbo from association with a faltering team. This was BG's way of getting his guy behind the bench. Now he has his guy and I doubt he'd pull the same move to bring in another guy.

The whole interim coaching thing was a great way to ease an inexperienced coach in, I doubt BG would see it as necessary when bringing in a more experienced guy. I guess there aren't that many viable coaching options who are unemployed at this moment and I doubt that BG would want to take over the reigns without having a very good idea as to who would take over and when.

That all being said, I think BG has a lot of faith in Carbo and wants him to grow into his role just like the younger players on the team. Whether I agree with that philosophy is another matter.

I think you nailed it on the head. Carbo was never going to have a short leash. I think you will have to see another mid season stagger next season before he fires him.

[Chris]

Also, the played better under BG because it was there boss 2 feet behind them. Everyone who works knows that if the owner was sitting by you all day your behavior would immediately improve. Like posting here on my lunch break.

[simonus]

Also, the played better under BG because it was there boss 2 feet behind them. Everyone who works knows that if the owner was sitting by you all day your behavior would immediately improve. Like posting here on my lunch break.

That argument makes a lot of sense for me. As a corollary I'd say that having a coach with a lot of influence with the front office would have a similar effect. If Carbo were to say something like "I don't want this guy on my ice" and that dude was in hamilton or the waiver wire the next day, perhaps the players would see that Carbo was the arbiter... I tend not to like such draconian measures, but this funk is starting to drive me mad.

PS - be careful, Chris.

Edited December 10, 2007 by simonus

[Wamsley01]

Also, the played better under BG because it was there boss 2 feet behind them. Everyone who works knows that if the owner was sitting by you all day your behavior would immediately improve. Like posting here on my lunch break.

I agree. But Gainey is also a better/more experienced coach.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I agree with Markierung form the most part. But still, here's one argument for Carbo:

1. For a few weeks at the start of this season, he had this team playing better than any Habs team has done since about 1995. The defence was tight, the shots against controlled, the team play excellent. I think back to that Florida game which we lost because of Vokun. It was 58 minutes of total domination by a team playing an absolutely devastating system. Those 3-4 weeks showed me that Carbo can do it, and if he can ever do it consistently, we will be deadly.

And here's some arguments against firing him:

A. The only way these players, with their track record and culture of failure, will learn accountability is if they, not the coach, are held primarily responsible for performance. Gainey mentioned this (is his typical veiled way) last season, in explaining his refusal to make a move at trade deadline. He basically argued that the problem was one of team play - implying, to my mind, that he was not going to allow players to take the onus off themselves by offering them a 'saviour' from outside.

B. Organizational stability is imperative after all the years of chaos. IF you believe that Carbo will grow into the role - admittedly, harder and harder to sustain - then it's better to endure his growth pains than to continue to send a signal to UFAs and the players themselves that Montreal is a revolving door Gong Show.

C. Carbo's real problem is that he seems to panic when the team tanks. One of his first reactions has been to bench veteran, heart-and-soul guys; he did it to Rivet last year, and this season to Begin and Kostopolous. I can't understand that logic, except as a strategy to jolt the team (or maybe, pathetically, to show himself as some fearless bad-ass Boss). The net effect is simply to alienate the team's leaders. Another example: when we slumped, he started talking about the need for offence. This may have helped to get us off the solid defensive game we played early on. He should have kept his cool and continued to preach the ancient habs maxim that if you play good D, the goals will come.

However - and this is point C - the REASON the team tanks may not be Carbo. As I keep saying, the key variable is Saku Koivu's personal pattern of extended slumps. If that's right, then a roster change alleviating this Achillies' Heel might soften the pattern of epic collapses, and thus avoid exposing this weak flank in Carbo's coaching style. In other words, Carbo isn't the fundamental problem, and if we can address that problem, we might see more of the kind of scenario I describe under 1, above.

Edited December 10, 2007 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[smon]

I doubt he's going anywhere (barring a catastrophe this year, then who knows?)

But you're right, it's troubling that the team is not improving in the areas where he seems to place a lot of emphasis. Lots of talk about defense, but the team allows a lot of shots per game. Weak penalty kill. Weak faceoffs. It just doesn't really add up.

I'd like to believe the guy could be a good motivator to the younger guys and he seems to have handled Komisarek well, anyway. At least he's better in that department than Julien.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I doubt he's going anywhere (barring a catastrophe this year, then who knows?)

But you're right, it's troubling that the team is not improving in the areas where he seems to place a lot of emphasis. Lots of talk about defense, but the team allows a lot of shots per game. Weak penalty kill. Weak faceoffs. It just doesn't really add up.

I'd like to believe the guy could be a good motivator to the younger guys and he seems to have handled Komisarek well, anyway. At least he's better in that department than Julien.

Good point. Julien was awful with the kids. He had Higgins toiling away as a 4th line checker, for God's sake. Carbo hasn't worked miracles, but most young players made progress under him last season. That's a huge point in his favour.

[kaos]

I cannot think of any reason to keep Carbonneau as a coach other than the fact that he needs more expierence and might one day be a good coach.

But for this organization and this point in time he is the wrong coach. He should have spent time in the AHL with Hamilton like Jarvis and others learning how to become a coach. He's too inexpierenced, spends too much time bitching to the refs and panics with line changes too much for an NHL coach.

Loyal Gainey will probably keep him till the end of the season, but much like the rest of the team, the coaching position needs a major shakeup.

Hopefully the pressure from the fans and media will force a change sooner rather than later.

[saskhab]

Someone asked who has blossomed under Carbo?

I'd say Plekanec definitely has. And, to some extent (though it seems like a natural progression) Komisarek has. I also think Carbo has handled Latendresse well.

As per Julien... I don't know why he was so hesitant with Higgins, Plekanec, and Komisarek. He had a lot of patience to see Ryder and Riberio develop, and even gave freaking Dagenais a lot of opportunity.

[johnnyhasbeen]

Not to mention that when Gainey took over last year as coach the team picked up their game and was vastly improved in about a week. So much so that we almost made the playoffs despite loosing almost every game for 2 months solid.

Respect.

It is tough to respect an asshole (my perception of Carbo).

The best scenario would be for Bob to step back behind the bench.

That was 2 years ago. replaced Claude. Guy coached all of last year. Sorry but Guy almost got us in, Bob did , we lost to Canes round 2

Carbo is not responsible for the current situation. He didn't sign Smoke or Samsonoff last year. He didn't sign Breezer, Koivu, Ryder or Kovy either. He is a coach and can only work with what he has which ain't alot. Lots of prospects, not much gravy. Someone on here said a couple weeks back, if he had a number one centre he may look like a genius. He was doing great in all your eyes a few weeks back when the team was buying in.

I get crapped on for this every season but will go at it again. We need a "CANADIAN" captain. I will stand by that opinion, right or wrong until some foriegner proves me wrong by leading his team to a cup. Not saying trade Saku, we wouldn't get much for him worth having anyway, Just strip the "C" off him and demote him to 4th line where he belongs at this time.

Q: Don't want to look it up, but did we ever miss the playoffs with Carbo as "C".

Saku has lead this club nowhere for too long. Love him but his Captaincy should be over.

Fire the coach? No ditch the under achievers.

Edited December 10, 2007 by johnnyhasbeen

[simonus]

Someone asked who has blossomed under Carbo?

I'd say Plekanec definitely has. And, to some extent (though it seems like a natural progression) Komisarek has. I also think Carbo has handled Latendresse well.

As per Julien... I don't know why he was so hesitant with Higgins, Plekanec, and Komisarek. He had a lot of patience to see Ryder and Riberio develop, and even gave freaking Dagenais a lot of opportunity.

I think every coach identifies players who he sees as worthy of patience. In Dagenais' case, I think Julien felt that he was a known quantity who could score (on yet another goal starved team) and had a good effect with Ribeiro. Julien might also have felt limited by the Dagenais/Ribeiro on-ice relationship. If Dags was Ribeiro's best chemistry option, what was the point of putting Dags anywhere but on a line with Ribs?

Coaches often have a certain method of dealing with players, or a certain type of feedback that they understand to be positive. For certain players, this method will be viable, for others not so much. There is also a lot of confirmation bias when trying to analyze player performance. Once you believe that Higgins is a defense first energy guy, it is easy to dismiss a goal as a happy, but not consistent, result of that energy; once you believe that Dags is a secondary sniper, every time he scores a goal, you see that sniper.

Different coaches will always have a somewhat different quality and degree of influence on different players. We are all somewhat victims of confirmation bias. Carbo was defensively aware and a great faceoff man, so the team should be able to shutdown opponents and be great at faceoffs. To what degree, however, is defensive awareness or faceoff acumen teachable? Who will be able to learn the lessons the way that Carbo teaches them? It might be to Carbo's detriment that he doesn't know how to tailor his message differently to different players, it is also to the players' detriment that they are unable to learn how to extract the maximum amount of useful information from Carbo. I think we all know teachers or mentors from whom we learned great lessons while our friends could not assimilate those same lessons. Conversely, I know I have dealt with professors whom my fellow students regard highly and have found mysefl unable to get anything from them.

Whether the fault lies in the coach or the players is always difficult to gauge. Would anybody else do any better? I honestly have no idea. I bet that some players would perform better, some worse. Maybe insulting Markov makes him determined to prove Carbo wrong, maybe it makes him quit on you, maybe it makes him scared to screw up so as to avoid your acrid tongue. Maybe Koivu needs to be deferred to in order to keep the confidence of other players, maybe players think that if Koivu gets away with substandard production, the coach has lost the moral authority to scold them for theirs.

The one thing I am sure of is that a coach cannot treat players "equally." Everybody is different and some player's history merit patience, others' do not. It is generally agreed that whipping Kovalev yields an unproductive Kovalev... why then whip him? Maybe a whipped Begin yields a productive Begin. I cannot begin to know what works for each player, but I am certain that there is no uniform method for dealing with everyone.

Edited December 10, 2007 by simonus

[brobin]

I disagree with some of your basic assumptions.

1. I don't that talent is any better now then before. It might even be worse.

2. How do we know if a player is playing over their heads or not? Pleks is playing much better then his stats or I thought he would. Perhaps Carbo is responsible for that. What about Higgins? What about Lats? Perhaps the youth are playing better then under another coach.

3. You mention his personal talents as a player and make the implicit suggestion that the team should reflect that. Gretzy is a coach, does that team all his players should be offensive machines? Carbo can't make players play with grit. Carbo can't make a guy a top face off specialist. He can't make a great shot blocker out of a guy scared to block a shot. Over time he can nudge them in that direction, but he can't make it happen unless he has the raw materials.

Do I think Carbo is a great coach? Nope. Do I think he is a lousy coach? Nope. Do I think he is the biggest problem? No way.

I would suggest that a coach is no different then a player. They can take several years to develop, why can't a coach? When do you trade a struggline rookie? When you can trade him for a proven vet.

Unless Gainey has a proven vetern coach in the wings, I say that we should ride Carbo as we ride the rest of the youth. Most of our young guys seem to be doing reasonably well under him, in general, its our vets that suck.

Granted, I think this is a bubble team in terms of talent, and we are on the plus side of the bubble. So I can't really suggest firing Carbo because our team is not a top contender.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

Well this in response to a very specific category of the thread but you guys seriously need to lay off Koivu. He does not belong on the fourth line, he belongs on a line with actual 1st line calliber players. There's much praise for Kosty and Plekanec, and yet while I really like both of them who knows where they would be without each other/Kovalev. Replace Plekanec with Koivu and I assure you he'd be having a career season. Right now this line is carrying the team, but that's simply due to a lack of depth. If we'd be able to play Koivu with someone of (let's say) Kovalev's skill, and have room to have any offense on another line, I don't see how Koivu wouldn't look like a "captain". We surround Koivu with players like Latendresse, Dandenault, Ryder and even Higgins. People may argue that Higgins could potentially be a first liner on other teams in the NHL I but honestly can't buy that as of his current skill level; not on a contender at least. People expect players to produce simply because of the line they represent, not the actual talent that occupies them.

As for Carbo, he's only been on the job for a relatively short period of time. I've not been a fan of many of his decisions, but I'm sure I would be if the team was playing well. They have the capability of playing well under his wing, which leads me to believe that the players need to take responsibility. If the team is playing well, he has no reason to call anyone out. The habs are on a slump and like simonus said, different methods have different impacts on different personalities. That being said, Carbo really does need to hit the panic button less often, because some of his mid and post-game theatrics hinder us more often than not.

[MAK]

Carbonneau needs to shut up in front of refs. he always look like the penalties montreal receive are all bad refs call. when you're preaching deiscipline you should let your actions speak 1st.

stop juggling the lines. you dont like ryder?? fine, but put someone permanently on the 1st linr and GIVE IT TIME. good thins happened when guillaume was there last year.

stop singling out players in fornt of the media. once in a while its fine but it's not a long term solution.

teach the centre on how to win faceoffs. guy was good, share the knowledge.

[johnnyhasbeen]

Well this in response to a very specific category of the thread but you guys seriously need to lay off Koivu. He does not belong on the fourth line, he belongs on a line with actual 1st line calliber players. There's much praise for Kosty and Plekanec, and yet while I really like both of them who knows where they would be without each other/Kovalev. Replace Plekanec with Koivu and I assure you he'd be having a career season.

He has had Kovy as a line mate, they didn't get along. I only said right now he should be dropped to the fourth as that is how he is playing. No he is not a 4th liner, but he has to step up and put up points.

The team had the right idea early this year. SHOOT THE PUCK AT THE NET !!!

What happened to that?

[ShortHanded]

He has had Kovy as a line mate, they didn't get along. I only said right now he should be dropped to the fourth as that is how he is playing. No he is not a 4th liner, but he has to step up and put up points.

The team had the right idea early this year. SHOOT THE PUCK AT THE NET !!!

What happened to that?

They got along fine. They played together at the beginning of the season with Perogie two seasons ago. The only reason they were broken up was to "distribute" the offense, because none of the other lines were scoring.

[johnnyhasbeen]

They got along fine. They played together at the beginning of the season with Perogie two seasons ago. The only reason they were broken up was to "distribute" the offense, because none of the other lines were scoring.

You are right, my bad

[Wamsley01]

I disagree with some of your basic assumptions.

1. I don't that talent is any better now then before. It might even be worse.

2. How do we know if a player is playing over their heads or not? Pleks is playing much better then his stats or I thought he would. Perhaps Carbo is responsible for that. What about Higgins? What about Lats? Perhaps the youth are playing better then under another coach.

3. You mention his personal talents as a player and make the implicit suggestion that the team should reflect that. Gretzy is a coach, does that team all his players should be offensive machines? Carbo can't make players play with grit. Carbo can't make a guy a top face off specialist. He can't make a great shot blocker out of a guy scared to block a shot. Over time he can nudge them in that direction, but he can't make it happen unless he has the raw materials.

Do I think Carbo is a great coach? Nope. Do I think he is a lousy coach? Nope. Do I think he is the biggest problem? No way.

I would suggest that a coach is no different then a player. They can take several years to develop, why can't a coach? When do you trade a struggline rookie? When you can trade him for a proven vet.

Unless Gainey has a proven vetern coach in the wings, I say that we should ride Carbo as we ride the rest of the youth. Most of our young guys seem to be doing reasonably well under him, in general, its our vets that suck.

Granted, I think this is a bubble team in terms of talent, and we are on the plus side of the bubble. So I can't really suggest firing Carbo because our team is not a top contender.

There is a HUUUGE difference in trying to teach a player to do what Carbonneau did and teaching a player what Gretzky did.

You cannot turn Steve Begin into a 50 goal scorer, but you can certainly make him a great defensive player. What Gretzky did cannot be taught, defensive responsibility can, and IS all the time. Jacques Lemaire, Pat Burns, Ted Nolan, Ken Hitchcock have all taken teams and molded them into lockdown defensive units. They did not change their personel, they just convinced them to buy into their system.

It is pretty obvious what the organization wants. Gainey is the GM and they have a coaching staff of Jarvis, Muller and Carbonneau. They are not preaching firewagon hockey. How long does Carbo get to get them to buy in his system? 80, 100, 140, 160 games? At what point is this team going to believe in his philosophy? And if Gainey is going to keep Carbo then how long before he identifies the players who are not buying in and ship them out of town?

I am willing to bet they have already identified the problem. It is how they deal with it that I am interested to see.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Wamsley01

[ShortHanded]

There is a HUUUGE difference in trying to teach a player to do what Carbonneau did and teaching a player what Gretzky did.

You cannot turn Steve Begin into a 50 goal scorer, but you can certainly make him a great defensive player. What Gretzky did cannot be taught, defensive responsibility can, and IS all the time. Jacques Lemaire, Pat Burns, Ted Nolan, Ken Hitchcock have all taken teams and molded them into lockdown defensive units. They did not change their personel, they just convinced them to buy into their system.

It is pretty obvious what the organization wants. Gainey is the GM and they have a coaching staff of Jarvis, Muller and Carbonneau. They are not preaching firewagon hockey. How long does Carbo get to get them to buy in his system? 80, 100, 140, 160 games? At what point is this team going to believe in his philosophy? And if Gainey is going to keep Carbo then how long before he identifies the players who are not buying in and ship them out of town?

I am willing to bet they have already identified the problem. It is how they deal with it that I am interested to see.

so in your opinion, what have they identified the problem to be? just curious.

[Habsfan]

ONe thing is for sure...Carbo is not the major problem on this team. WE can't replacing caoches every 2 1/2 years. It's not good. the players need to know that no matter what, the coach will be aroud for a long time, so they won't be able to have him fired.

Look at Nashville. They've had Barry trotz for the past Decade(almost) and they are fine. Look at Buffalo, they've had Lindy Ruff for 10 years(not all of which they were contenders) and they are fine.