Habitforming Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 True, but at this point in their carreers shouldn't they know what they are doing without coaching? At least to the point of not totally sucking anyway. I don't think we had a defensive coach under Bowman, but I maybe mistaken. This isn't football where you always have one. Regardless of how bad the defense was, Price stunk, from the get go. He has no clue how to goaltend at this level and shows that every outing. He is down early, doesn't just go down, but slides out on his knees like a peewee goalie. That shows he is too deep in his net, hiding.There is no control in his movements. He stinks, plain and simply. You watch successful butterfly goalies, they drop into a butterfly, not slide into one. He puts himself off balance and out of position on almost every shot he takes. He is clueless in there and should not be in the NHL at this time.ECHL maybe, but even there, sliding around like that they will light him up. If he is going to play butterfly he should learn the technique. It requires positioning and control. You can't throw yourself 5 feet on your knees and expect to get back into position for the next shot. I know I am not the only goalie/exgoalie on this site and you guys know what I mean. He is throwing himself at pucks and waving as they go by. That is what we in the field call a sieve. Demote him if possible, bench him at least. If Halak is healthy, keep Denis up and make Price a healthy scratch. He isn't worth the Price of his plane ticket! I know, he is toted as being the next best thing. So was Racicot! The vast majority of kids who are excellent Jr goalies can't make the jump. Sometimes even star Jr goalies can't. I am starting to believe that is the case here, although like I said, I will save final judgement until he is a full grown man. If anyone of our players had made as many mistakes or played as poorly as he has this year, not one person would defend him. I will not defend a p-poor goaltender. He may have it in him to one day be an NHL goalie. He isn't one at this point. He is a sieve and ever team we play is real happy when we start him. Our team isn't. They have no confidence in him and it shows by the effort they put out in front of him. The 76/77 team couldn't have won with that much suckage in nets. So 150 NHL scouts are wrong and you are right? oy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 So 150 NHL scouts are wrong and you are right? oy If they scouted last night or the last bunch of Price's starts and said he is a potential number one, then Yep! I never said he didn't have potential, I said at this point of time he sucks and any scout who disagrees should find a new job. Smarty pants! Where did you get the 150 figure from by the way? Making up numbers I would say. I played nets for years, studied the position and was taught for more than 3 decades and have a better than average idea of what I see in a goalies play. So yes, I am better informed than most scouts who played out when the were young. IMHO. No do something creative, make a point but don't attack other peoples points. OK? What makes you think you are more informed than me? Ever play nets? At what level? Scouts also said Racicot was a future number 1 goalie, just to use the extreme example. Guess theywere right there too? What a foolish statement. Jr potential is one thing, and they,all 150 of them and myself as well saw that potential in Price. He isn't developing into that number 1 though. Not yet, and the NHL isn't the place for him to develope, unless the organization is willing to have 5-6 goals against every game until he does. Did you watch the game last night? Did you see this kid sliding around on his knees? Now watch a top goalie and see how the drop without sliding which allows them to be in control to stand up or move to the other side. He isnot an elite goalie, at this point in his life. When did he ever look like one for more than a short stint? Last year in the playoofs, not. Beginning of this season, yes for 2 weeks. Great a 2 week great carreer. Lalime was by far the better goalie last night and so far this season. Oh, well, you go on wearing blinders. I am calling it as it is, not as I want it to be or as it could have been if he had continued to develope into a top goalie. He is a sieve, more wholes than a block of swiss cheese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The GM says what he has to say to the press. I have no doubt he made every effort to acquire what we need. Carbo, on the other hand... I like Carbo. I always have. When he first came here, he struck me as the kind of coach who could really pull this team together and send us flying forward. However, I'm at the point where I can say that Carbo is just not our guy. We've had players improving steadily, guys getting more and more mature, and still we have absolutely no clue in the defensive zone. You can argue all you want about the players not buying in - I completely disagree. There comes a point where you have to take a step back and ask why the same things continually happen. Sure, there are a lot of things that can be dealt with through personnel moves alone, but the overall picture of the club? I dont think that's the problem. You say we've had guys improving steadily... well we also have guys declining steadily. Higgins, for one, is baffling me. 2 years ago he was a promising 2-way forward who was looked up to score 30+ goals this season. Now look at him: lost a step, cant control the puck in traffic, etc. Koivu declined a lot too, half his passes are off target. So individual improvement isnt really an issue here. Last season everyone was talking about how we had a dream season. Then we started this year the same way; everything looked rosy in the sky. Does anyone here recall *how* we did so well last season and early this year? We stole games because of one or two players, because we were lucky quite often. The bottom line is that our record last season was very flattering, and our record early this season was astoundingly flattering. The PP helped us tremendously last season, for one. Then the players felt they had something to prove. They played like Kovy played: their pride needed to be defended. There was a fight in them they dont have this season. We allow more rubber to hit our goalies than Circuit Gilles Villeneuve allows to hit its tarmac. We offer up the blueline to attackers like a 14-year old buying his first hooker. Our defensive zone coverage is closer to chickens with a fox in the coop than it is anything cohesive. The few times when he manages to get everyone on board for a game, we actually look semi-reasonable, but even in those games, there are significant mental breakdowns. That's been a problem long before Carbo. Theodore won a Hart & Vezina with that. We used to joke about the rope-a-dope tactic. Fact is: that's how the defense was built. Give the blueline but cut the passing lanes and push the forwards to the boards. That's how Gorges & Bouillon got to be regulars. Souray was let go because, hey he wouldnt give the blueline, but he was a pilon too. Its a team choice, not a coach's strategy. I'm not at all on board with that. There *is* a giant leadership problem on this team, and it comes from the coach. Anticipated comeback for that comment: But Julien was the coach here and he didn't get the kind of results he's getting in Boston! Answer: Julien had a very young Komi - still going up and down to the farm, he had a Markov who couldn't speak English, he had more kids than a daycare - and was terrified to play them for fear of losing his job with losses, and he had three attitude problems which were promptly shipped out! Add to that the fact he now has had plenty more experience and has had tons of time to analyze and adapt to the mistakes he made in his *first* coaching job in the NHL, and it's fairly evident, at least to me, that Julien then and Julien now are two different things. This team needs a Mike Keenan-type, pure and simple. We need a mean SOB who doesn't take any crap and makes these little buggers earn every single cent in their paycheck. We need someone who will hold EVERY player accountable, not just those he's not intimidated by. What makes coaches like Keenan oh-so-great is the same reason that gets them fired after 2-3 season. You think tough coaches would get more out of their players? Nah-han! Its the coaches that get quit on the fastest. This isnt the 70's anymore, even Scotty Bowman knew coaches had to mellow out and take a different approach. Best approach is the Lindy Ruff approach. Now it's the coach that has to adapt to the players; not the other way around. Ruff coached a defensive team built around a franchise goalie and an offensive team built on speed. He had to build a system with the horses he was given. But notice that the longer he stayed in place, the easier the players were broken into the system. That's the key. That's the only way a coach gets real influence nowadays: longevity. Besides, leadership comes from the bench, not from behind the bench. Coaches guide, orient, but it's the players that have to lead the rest there. Hockey is like dogsled racing. The coach when crack is whip as much as he wants, if the dogs in front wont pull together, the sled wont go nowhere. When the most talented and influential guy on the team won't do the little things asked of every player; he's not leading. When the captain takes bad penalties at the worst of times, he's not leading. When your star defenseman isnt jumping a guy that just flattened his teammate, he's not leading. Leadership is the dogs in front running faster when they have to. Sadly, with this team, the dogs in front prefer to cower and pout when things dont go their way. The problem with the team isnt the system. It's the players giving up when the going gets hard. And that points to leadership, players leadership. If Bob Gainey has one major flaw, it's that he's married to Carbo. One gets the impression he's going to live or die with that decision, and sadly for us here in Montreal, it's looking more and more like a sinking, wallowing death. It's time for a coaching change in Montreal. Thanks for your service, Guy, we still love you here, but you just aren't cutting it behind the bench. Not by a long shot. No. Sorry Colin, but you're just mistaking there. Blaming the coach is the easy way out. Blame Vigneault, Blame Therrien, Blame Julien, Blame Carbo. Repeat the same false conclusion again and again... and then wonder why the same problems keeps happening under the new coach. Here's why: because coaching isnt the problem. It's time for a leadership change, a captain change, a top dog change. The Florida Panthers had years and years of mediocrity under the captainship of Olli Jokinen, even after they changed coaches multiple times. It's not the new coach effect. DeBoer is to Martin was Carbo is to Gainey: an philosophical extension of the GM. What changed is that they decided to do awat with their 5-years long captain and look toward other players for leadership. Look at them now. Best season in years, just 1 pts behind us, with only 4 assistants, no captain. It's baffling that there's still fans willing to go back to the poisoned well of blaming the coaching staff when it's so obvious that the one common link between all the bad teams we've had is and can only be the leadership, starting with the captaincy. We've changed GMs, we've changed coaches, we've changed goalies, we've got more talent and size then ever before. The only thing left to change is the captaincy. It's more than time to deal with the real problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l<OV4L3V Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 It's more than time to deal with the real problem. AMEN to that. Its time for the dead weight to be moved at the end of the season...Don't resign Koivu let him go to Minnesota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 It was either him or Denis... The problem is that Price still hasn't got his head right. I think he can only be really faulted for one, maybe two goals, but if he was playing with the confidence he had before, you have to believe it would have been much closer. I think he needs to be put in nets against a soft team that doesn't have much offense to help his confidence back. Atlanta would be ideal, but Carbo's gotta start Halak. It's the better move for the team, especially since his streak never really ended. For the record, Buffalo was that soft scoring team. They have been brutal lately at scoring goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 I think he needs to be put in nets against a soft team that doesn't have much offense to help his confidence back. Atlanta would be ideal, but Carbo's gotta start Halak. Look at Kovalchuk's stats over the past month and tell me you want a goalie with a fragile mindset facing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I am on the same page wrt to Koivu. I want to see a new number 1 centre, a new captain. I will judge Carbo after that. I think Koivu is a nice guy, inspirational on a personal level, and once upon a time, a great little hockey player. His time has passed... I have often wondered if Ribs would be our number one centre today, if Morrow was our Captain a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenadian Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Is it possible to send the whole team coaching staff home for a couple of days? Bring up the Dogs to fill in................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) I dont think that's the problem. You say we've had guys improving steadily... well we also have guys declining steadily. Higgins, for one, is baffling me. 2 years ago he was a promising 2-way forward who was looked up to score 30+ goals this season. Now look at him: lost a step, cant control the puck in traffic, etc. Koivu declined a lot too, half his passes are off target. So individual improvement isnt really an issue here. But are the bulk of his problems confidence-related? How do you inspire confidence in your players when they have no clue what line they'll be on from one shift to the next, let alone one game to the next. I understand your point here, Higgins has struggled this season, but have his skills declined? No, he's just fighting the game right now. He has zero confidence, and it's my opinion that he hasn't been *placed* in a situation where he can nurture his confidence. I find Carbo's tactics, in particular his reluctance to stick with a line for an entire period, let alone a game, to be nothing but negative towards this team. He says now and again that he's looking for that chemistry, but it seems the only chemistry he's interested in seeing is the magical kind that's created in two shifts, and if that doesn't work, he's not willing to wait. Real chemistry comes after weeks, months, and *years* of playing with the same guys. It's knowing where your linemates go, knowing what they're thinking, and knowing how to put that together to advantage. I don't know if you've played team sports before, but I've done this my whole life, and jumping from one set of teammates to the next inevitably makes everyone look just a little worse until they start understanding how to play with each other. That's been a problem long before Carbo. Theodore won a Hart & Vezina with that. We used to joke about the rope-a-dope tactic. Fact is: that's how the defense was built. Give the blueline but cut the passing lanes and push the forwards to the boards. That's how Gorges & Bouillon got to be regulars. Souray was let go because, hey he wouldnt give the blueline, but he was a pilon too. Its a team choice, not a coach's strategy. That's an interesting analysis and one that bears more thought. If it's the case, though, then it's a strategy that's prone to large error as it must put more pressure on the defense. It allows the other team to gain the blueline in control and that inevitably puts more pressure on the guys at the back. But what about the comment that keeps coming up regarding the Habs defense: get the puck deep and forecheck them because they'll make mistakes. Hamr didn't make those mistakes in Calgary. Markov and Komi have all the skille and hockey sense to avoid those errors. As I see it, when Montreal gains control of the puck, there's no concrete plan to getting the puck out of the zone. Well, that's not entirely true: there is a plan, and it involves long passes to the wings which get cut off as much as they're successful. Carbo, I guess, wants the team to play fast hockey, to build on a strong transition game, the issue I have is that the transition game he's chosen involves us losing the puck on the sideboards all too frequently. Gap control is a massive, massive issue in Montreal, and that, in my opinion, is a coaching issue. They have to be drilled day in and day out to keep that gap to a minimum rather than having it so wide you could park a battleship in there. On the rare occasion their gap control is manageable, they are successful - they just don't keep it that way. You can argue that it's the players not listening, and to a degree that's a valid argument, but ultimately, it's the coach who needs to put his foot down and ensure that everyone is doing what he says, no exceptions. Now players go out there, make mistakes, and you can visibly see their confidence take one step lower. Carbonneau - not the players - has to clamp down to get these guys to make the simple plays which will ultimately allow the confidence to slowly grow. Remember when Komi was benched often early in the Julien days for making one little mistake? His confidence tanked. Now the opposite is happening - he makes a mistake, and instead of getting the coaching he needs, he's just put right back out there - lowered confidence at all - and told not to make a mistake this time. What makes coaches like Keenan oh-so-great is the same reason that gets them fired after 2-3 season. You think tough coaches would get more out of their players? Nah-han! Its the coaches that get quit on the fastest. This isnt the 70's anymore, even Scotty Bowman knew coaches had to mellow out and take a different approach. Best approach is the Lindy Ruff approach. Now it's the coach that has to adapt to the players; not the other way around. Ruff coached a defensive team built around a franchise goalie and an offensive team built on speed. He had to build a system with the horses he was given. But notice that the longer he stayed in place, the easier the players were broken into the system. That's the key. That's the only way a coach gets real influence nowadays: longevity. No doubt. You can't have a Keenan-type for longer than a couple of years. Players start to tune you out and you lose the dressing room as fast as you lose respect. But, over the short-term, that's *exactly* what these guys need. An absolute no-nonsense approach to whip them into shape. Once you have them back playing, then you get yourself a more tactically sound coach - and one who can better deal with players long-term. Any coach I would suggest has to be short-term, because I totally agree with you, it's not long before they're tuned out. Regarding Ruff, I completely agree. Lindy is a great coach and if he had ownership and a GM who were competent and able to consistently provide him with top-notch players rather than running them out of town, they'd be perennial favourites a la Detroit. When the most talented and influential guy on the team won't do the little things asked of every player; he's not leading. When the captain takes bad penalties at the worst of times, he's not leading. When your star defenseman isnt jumping a guy that just flattened his teammate, he's not leading. Leadership is the dogs in front running faster when they have to. Sadly, with this team, the dogs in front prefer to cower and pout when things dont go their way. ... No. Sorry Colin, but you're just mistaking there. Blaming the coach is the easy way out. Blame Vigneault, Blame Therrien, Blame Julien, Blame Carbo. When the coach sees these things happening and allows them to continue happening, that's not good leadership. Koivu has a 'C'. It's a letter on his shirt. Yes, he's expected to do more than the average player. (Hell, maybe it was him that called that closed-door meeting a few weeks back, we don't know.) However a player can only do so much. It's the coach who is in charge. The coach who gives instruction. The coach who has the ultimate ability to reward and punish as needed. Even if Koivu yelled and screamed and pulled out his hair when someone played like crap, he can't bench the guy. He can't threaten to put him in the cheap seats to watch a game. I *do* understand why some may not like Koivu as captain. He's not the kind of guy who does his thing in a very visible manner, short of playing hard every shift. But to put the blame on his shoulders for his teammates not performing... I've played on provincial teams, and let me tell you, it's not the captain that leads. Yeah, sure, he can be an inspiration at times, and he can dress you down when you don't perform. But ultimately, it's the coach who holds everyone accountable. No one is accountable in Montreal. ... lol Vigneault was a fantastic coach. He also was coach of the Habs when they were worse than the Leafs. He just got so much out of that team and they played so far over their heads that it was a miracle bordering on walking on water. I reiterate: Juha Lind, Johan Witehall. For that team to *ever* make the playoffs? Coach of the year. Ten times over. The issue in Montreal was the GM there. Julien? Terrified of playing kids. Go back and look through the boards and you'll see that theme repeated over and over and over again. We have great kids! Why doesn't he play them? Because he was expected to take the team to the playoffs and win with them. He didn't think the kids could help. Even if he was great with them in the AHL, and even if that's part of the reason he became an NHL coach, he didn't know how to handle them efficiently in the NHL - because the expectations were different. Therrien? Terrible coach. Sorry to all Therrien fans out there, but he couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag. He inherited a Pittsburgh team with Crosby, Malkin, etc, etc, etc, and these were kids who were just coming in and trying to prove themselves - the team was underrated and overlooked by the opposition. The one thing he allowed them to do was to play their way. Eventually, when the league figured out how to deal with them better, his lack of any consistent plan resulted in the end of his coaching tenure there. I would not be surprised if he never coached in the NHL again. It's time for a leadership change, a captain change, a top dog change. The Florida Panthers had years and years of mediocrity under the captainship of Olli Jokinen, even after they changed coaches multiple times. It's not the new coach effect. DeBoer is to Martin was Carbo is to Gainey: an philosophical extension of the GM. What changed is that they decided to do awat with their 5-years long captain and look toward other players for leadership. Look at them now. Best season in years, just 1 pts behind us, with only 4 assistants, no captain. .... It's baffling that there's still fans willing to go back to the poisoned well of blaming the coaching staff when it's so obvious that the one common link between all the bad teams we've had is and can only be the leadership, starting with the captaincy. We've changed GMs, we've changed coaches, we've changed goalies, we've got more talent and size then ever before. The only thing left to change is the captaincy. It's more than time to deal with the real problem. How can you say it's not the 'new coach' effect? Don't get me wrong, I don't know one way or the other, but how can you say that so definitively. Sure, DeBoer is an extention of Martin, but he's also a good coach; he has the team playing solid, fundamental hockey. Can you say that Carbo has the Habs playing solid, fundamental hockey? The fundamentals are completely lost here, at the moment. .... I find this shocking. You're boiling the franchise's problems down to one player. Even through the years when they were fielding the equivalent of an ECHL team, you're indicating the problem was the captain. Incidentally, there are other threads through the years. Scott Livingstone, the equipment guy, the secretary in 3B. Just saying... I'm sitting here, paused at the computer now, thinking about this. That Montreal's problems could come down to one player and the letter on his shirt. A letter that was voted to him by his peers, no less. When he's not in the lineup, I don't see the team playing any better fundamentally. Sure, others step up: certainly Kovalev is a strong example. When Montreal had a "great season" last year, was the reason we didn't win a Cup really the captain? Did we lose to Philedelphia because of the underlying issues that he brings the team? "I've never won anything, and it sits on my shoulders and I'm resigned to this fate." - and therefore the team picks up on it and plays like crap? Price allows beach balls to hit the back of the net because the captain doesn't kick him in the pads? Because there's no air of 'winning' coming off the captain? Are you deifying Koivu? Should he have some godly powers? I mean, didn't we outplay the Flyers last year and only lose because their goalie out-performed ours? And let's say, for argument's sake that that's the case. That would mean Koivu did a fine job last year. But the year before he must have sucked as captain, and this year he must suck as captain. So essentially, when we're winning, he's either doing the right things, or we're winning *despite* him, and when we're losing it's basically all on his shoulders and the club would probably be a Cup contender if that 'C' weren't on his shirt. Well, I don't have the answers to that. None of us do. To be fair, I have to concede the possibility. Maybe there's that much... let's call it stigma surrounding him that what he does is that influential in a negative way. I'll have to put myself in the category of seriously doubting it, but again, I could never prove otherwise. No, for me, anyhow, I'm firmly convinced that we need a non-rookie coach who can crack the whip. How about a coach that knows how to win, for starters. A knock on Koivu is that he's never won anything so doesn't know how to win. When did we last have an NHL coach who knew how to win as coach at the NHL level? Carbo is a work in progress, and he has some great potential. But I stand firm with my belief that it's time he was replaced in Montreal. I think we need some *real* leadership behind the bench; someone who will make everyone accountable and who will bring out the best in the players. Edited March 5, 2009 by Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 I got hungry reading that post and gave up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I got hungry reading that post and gave up. Yeah. All I could hear when I was reading was "NOM NOM NOM!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Good post Colin. I don't think we can realistically replace Carbo though. The assistants may prove more expendable though, and having an experienced assistant coach may be the best compromise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 If Gainey did fire Carbo and then took over as coach for the rest of the season, would there be a big impact on this team? I bet my nuts there would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 If Gainey did fire Carbo and then took over as coach for the rest of the season, would there be a big impact on this team? I bet my nuts there would be. I think the best possible coach for us would be Gainey himself simply because he's a badass in the league of Joe Pesci. But I doubt he wants to spend his time on both jobs long term so this doesn't seem feasible. I definitely don't think it's time to fire Carbonneau yet. Barring a huge collapse - and if you think that we're already suffering one, then let's word it "a disastrous collapse" - he should at least be given the chance to finish the season and start the next one. For one thing, firing the coach of a streaky team (still in a respectable 5th seed in the East) the year after winning the conference is a bit harsh. For another, the make up of the team is likely to be vastly different next season (without Koivu and/or Kovalev) and it's our chance to find out whether it was "the problem" that everyone talks about was a lack of leadership from the coach or from the captain/leaders. Carbo's earned that chance. I think what are problem is is that we have a whole bunch of offensive players but that Carbo wants us to play a defensive system - or that he isn't sure whether we should be an offensive team or a defensive team. In his first season with the team, Buffalo was leading the league with a highly offensive strategy. The Habs had a group of attacking players and a lot of fans were upset that Carbonneau insisted on having his team play a defensive game when our team just wasn't built for that. The following year we'd finally started to emulate the Sabres model and play a run-and-gun approach; we won the East, led the league in goals, had the best powerplay in the NHL - but - we sucked 5-on-5 and were mediocre defensively. Not just the defensemen, but our team defense was weak, every line on the team was prone to making horrendous lapses in judgement. (How often did we see inexplicable blown coverage resulting in a goal against?) This year was supposed to be our year. This year, Gainey added more offense to the best O in the league and Carbo tried to improve on our main weakness: team defense. He again tried to get the team to buy into a defensive system that would improve their goal differential at even-strength. It worked. Then a whole bunch of things led into a big team slump (pick your scapegoat) and Carbo kinda sorta panicked. Lines were juggled too often: I thought it was a great idea when he re-united the Kostitsyn-Plekanec-Kovalev line but he split it up too quickly, and using role players like Dandenault on the top line hurts you more than it sends a message. But not only has he juggled the lines, but he's been juggling the system. He doesn't seem to be able to decide whether we need to buy into his defensive system or whether we need to let loose and fly at the other team. So long as we're losing. When we're winning - even if it's an artifical 4-game winning streak thanks to a hot backup goalie. It somehow calms him down and gets him thinking straight. What Carbo needs to do is stop panicking whenever we hit a slump and gain some composure. He needs to find a fundamental plan and stick with it even when we lose a game. Notice how the lines always change the same after a win (not a bad policy) and always change after a loss? He needs to implement some stability. Small changes can be made along the course of the season but he tries them too often when we start to lose. But as I've said, don't fire him unless you can be 100% sure we've got Joe Pesci signed and in the bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I think what are problem is is that we have a whole bunch of offensive players but that Carbo wants us to play a defensive system - or that he isn't sure whether we should be an offensive team or a defensive team. The following year we'd finally started to emulate the Sabres model and play a run-and-gun approach...but our team defense was weak, every line on the team was prone to making horrendous lapses in judgement. (How often did we see inexplicable blown coverage resulting in a goal against?) This year was supposed to be our year. This year, Gainey added more offense to the best O in the league and Carbo tried to improve on our main weakness: team defense. He again tried to get the team to buy into a defensive system that would improve their goal differential at even-strength. It worked. Then a whole bunch of things led into a big team slump (pick your scapegoat) and Carbo kinda sorta panicked. Lines were juggled too often: I thought it was a great idea when he re-united the Kostitsyn-Plekanec-Kovalev line but he split it up too quickly, and using role players like Dandenault on the top line hurts you more than it sends a message. But not only has he juggled the lines, but he's been juggling the system. He doesn't seem to be able to decide whether we need to buy into his defensive system or whether we need to let loose and fly at the other team. So long as we're losing. When we're winning - even if it's an artifical 4-game winning streak thanks to a hot backup goalie. It somehow calms him down and gets him thinking straight. What Carbo needs to do is stop panicking whenever we hit a slump and gain some composure. He needs to find a fundamental plan and stick with it even when we lose a game. Notice how the lines always change the same after a win (not a bad policy) and always change after a loss? He needs to implement some stability. Small changes can be made along the course of the season but he tries them too often when we start to lose. I've listed your major points and I should like to comment on each. 1. So, what you're saying is that we have certain pieces that the coach seemingly cannot use because they don't actually fit his scheme. Apparently it's fine that he cannot adapt. 2. Every line on the team was prone to defensive lapses. So it wasn't certain players, it was every line. In other words, something in the system was faulty. 3. He improved our team defense at even strength. Yes. For a time, that worked - almost despite themselves. You do remember how lucky there were to win games early on, right? 4. In this point you talk about how all sorts of things when wrong and put in the interesting words, "pick your scapegoat." Then you proceed to enumerate points where you feel Carbo has been incorrect in what he's done. In fact, you call him out for not even following the system you think he's trying to follow. 5. And next he calms down because of an artificial winning streak (where Halak steals wins, I presume). So, in effect, you're saying he's not recognizing the obvious. 6. And then, once again, you call him out for panicking and not sticking to any one plan. Well, gotta say, BTH, for making an argument FOR Carbo, you sure did a great job reinforcing all the reasons why he should be fired. I have to hand it to you, the analysis is pretty solid and I have to agree with the bulk of it: Carbo is wishy-washy, can't figure out what he wants to do, and doesn't hold anyone accountable. Is this reverse psychology? If it is, can you send it to Bob? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I didn't say I was going to make a case FOR Carbonneau, just one for him not being fired immediately. You're probably referring to my YIM comment where I said I would "counter" your long ass post but at the time I wasn't sure what exactly I was going to say. I don't think he's a bad coach and I don't think we should fire him. Unless... as I said... we can get either Gainey or Joe Pesci to fill the position long-term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I didn't say I was going to make a case FOR Carbonneau, just one for him not being fired immediately. You're probably referring to my YIM comment where I said I would "counter" your long ass post but at the time I wasn't sure what exactly I was going to say. I don't think he's a bad coach and I don't think we should fire him. Unless... as I said... we can get either Gainey or Joe Pesci to fill the position long-term. Where "counter" = agree with me in not so many words? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Where "counter" = agree with me in not so many words? I find it pretty sad that your post was so long that my really long post is "in not so many words." Next time, just write an article for the main page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 1st good morning to all. Guy isn't the problem here in my opinion, anymore than Jullien was. After rifling through coach after coach and still not getting consistancy we really have to look at leadership qualities of key senior players. Not there likability (don't think that is a word) but the results they get out of their team. Saku's pic is still over my desk, so is Jean Beliveau's. I don't think he should be our captain now either. When your time comes, it is time to move on. I asked this months back and put it to you again. "If Beliveau was captain of this team, would they play like this?" Think about that and the implications of the answer. It isn't always up to the coach to call for accounability from the players in the locker room. True, it isn't neccesarily up to the captain either. However that is definitely a trait I would look for in my captain if I was coach. Somebody stated earlier that he was voted in to captaincy by his peers? I believe the coach/manager assigns letters at this level, correct if wrong, and even if it was by vote of his peers, there are none of them left on this team! As for a replacement coach, as stated by others, Bob himself or Scotty. That put's Guy in some pretty good company and makes him the only real choice. We need to not sign Saku and Kovalev next year and replace them with a real presence in the locker room. The type of player that other guys have problems looking in the face after a bad shift. Who is that leader? I wish I knew, but put their combined pay into him whoever he may be. I would rather a 8 mill player that gets results and accountabilty from his teammates than those two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 "If Beliveau was captain of this team, would they play like this?" Think about that and the implications of the answer. I should like to counter here: "If Gainey was coach of this team, would they play like this?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I find it pretty sad that your post was so long that my really long post is "in not so many words." Next time, just write an article for the main page. *laughs* Half way through I thought it was getting a little lengthy and wondered whether I shouldn't just modify it lightly to be an actual article for the site. Thing is, when stuff gets posted on the site, as a writer you don't get a lot of feedback other than, "Well done, good sir," or "You#@$(*)#$#, you couldn't write your way out of a #%$#%#$ paper bag and your ideas suck harder than a #$%##@ at a @#$@#." When it's posted on the forums, you get continual feedback and the back and forth that I much prefer: With posts like yours and Kozed's and the one this morning from Johnny, I feel I'm learning something - which I much prefer over just putting my opinion out there as 'gospel.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I should like to counter here: "If Gainey was coach of this team, would they play like this?" Touche! I agree they probably would play better, but why keep firing coaches when the problem is so obviosly not that. If it takes someone of gaineys stature to behind the bench to get results we are doomed because his type are GM's not coaches. Ditch the uncoachable elements, my thought. Other than that I take it you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 *laughs* Half way through I thought it was getting a little lengthy and wondered whether I shouldn't just modify it lightly to be an actual article for the site. Thing is, when stuff gets posted on the site, as a writer you don't get a lot of feedback other than, "Well done, good sir," or "You#@$(*)#$#, you couldn't write your way out of a #%$#%#$ paper bag and your ideas suck harder than a #$%##@ at a @#$@#." When it's posted on the forums, you get continual feedback and the back and forth that I much prefer: With posts like yours and Kozed's and the one this morning from Johnny, I feel I'm learning something - which I much prefer over just putting my opinion out there as 'gospel.' Actually, with the comment section currently broken on the site, I haven't received a single bit of feedback from the site since I started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Actually, with the comment section currently broken on the site, I haven't received a single bit of feedback from the site since I started. Toronto sucks anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.