Leafs Should Sign Horachek Long-term

[James_tanner123]

http://thehockeywriters.com/the-leaf...from-horachek/

[The Bottlenecker]

I don't think coaching is the biggest problem in Toronto, and the article certainly points out that luck, of the bad variety, seems to be the biggest culprit in the Leafs recent woes. But, it has been since '67 when the Leafs last had their best bout of good luck, and Horacek isn't going to change that anytime soon.

[rataylor22]

I didn't read the article because, you know, its a THW article, but what is your definition of "long term". There are maybe 5 couaches in the NHL who deserve "long term" deals. Babcock, Tippet, Julien, Quenneville, and Sutter. Long term being "more than 2 years". I would say these guys have proven enough "sustained success" to earn term on a deal. Otherwise, coaching is such a volatile position that quite a bit can change in 2 years. Hell, in 2 years Toronto went from a Wild Card team to a potential lottery team. Last year Minnesota, Colorado, and Dallas were all playoff teams and this season at lest 2/3 of those teams won't make the playoffs. Does that mean Yeo, Roy, and Ruff should be fired? No, not necessarily. Does results as good as last years mean they should enjoy they security of a 4 year contract? Definitely not. Very, very few coaches have done enough to warrant singing them to a long term deal. Peter Horachek is not on that very short list of deserving one.

[Axeman33]

I am so sick of hearing about the Leafs and their coaching issues. I don't consider anyone who can make it to the NHL as a coach as a "bad coach" so to call Carlyle (or Horacek to that matter) a bad coach is just ignorant. Bad coaches don't make it to the NHL.

The issue is, and always has been for a few years now, the players on the ice, not the coaching. The coach can only do so much. He can implement systems, set lines, create scenarios, but in the end it all falls on the players to execute. If the players do not execute on the ice, the team fails. The coach is there to design a system and try and accommodate the players strengths as best as he can but if the players go out and lay an egg, then there is little the coach can do. The players are just that; players. As long as Toronto continues to throw out the same players, there is little change coming to Toronto. The leadership is flawed (salute-gate anyone) in the dressing room and that translates to what happens on the ice. When your "best players" are not your best players, you are in trouble.

Until Toronto's best players actually play up to their skill set (and pay cheque), it won't matter if it's Peter Horacek or Peter Pan behind that bench, Toronto is going to continue to struggle. At least Carlyle, lucky or not, was getting them to score. And for the record, a coach can't create luck on the ice. Again, that comes from the players.

[ericdaoust]

Until Toronto's best players actually play up to their skill set (and pay cheque), it won't matter if it's Peter Horacek or Peter Pan behind that bench, Toronto is going to continue to struggle. At least Carlyle, lucky or not, was getting them to score. And for the record, a coach can't create luck on the ice. Again, that comes from the players.

Hence why Horacek should not be signed long-term. He hasn't proven to be a fit nor has he shown that the players respond to him. Coaches getting long-term deals is as much about fit and chemistry as anything else. The results have to be there.

[Axeman33]

Hence why Horacek should not be signed long-term. He hasn't proven to be a fit nor has he shown that the players respond to him. Coaches getting long-term deals is as much about fit and chemistry as anything else. The results have to be there.

Yep, agreed.

Normally, when a coaching change happens, that normally is turning a negative (old coach) into a positive (new coach). If anything, this has turned more negative with Horacek. Losing this many games under the new coach cannot be a positive in that locker room. God knows they have enough issues in there.

[rataylor22]

Yep, agreed.

Normally, when a coaching change happens, that normally is turning a negative (old coach) into a positive (new coach). If anything, this has turned more negative with Horacek. Losing this many games under the new coach cannot be a positive in that locker room. God knows they have enough issues in there.

Actually Rob Vollman did a study on the "impact" of coaching changes and predicted thing would get worse for the Leafs. IE normally a coach is fired after a long losing streak, and that streak is generally attributed more to really bad luck over a stretch than anything. In most scenarios, even without a coaching change the team would have rebounded anyways because their luck would have changed. But the Leafs were actually having relatively decent luck when Carlyle got changed and they have in a sense "fallen back to earth" on the luck scale and this is the result.

[Godin]

Hire Horachek long term? I really thought this was a joke. Tanner says, "they deserve to be over .500 based on how they’ve actually performed. That is an accomplishment." Really? They've scored 14 goals in 11 games under Horachek. 5 of those came in their only win. They were leading the league in goals, and now they're 12th in that category. Hey, they deserved to win the cup 2 years ago........but lost to Boston in the first round. I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you should find something to justify that statement.
Maybe Tanner should be excited about the fact that the last time the Leafs lost 10 straight was in 1967. The year they won the cup. There is hope!

[Axeman33]

There's an old quote that goes:

"Luck is created when preparation meets opportunity".

If you actually believe this quote then every game is an opportunity for the Leafs. I guess they aren't getting the preparation, and that comes from the coach right on down to the players. If the Leafs were "lucky" with Carlyle, then I guess they should have stuck with their only hope because Horacek isn't doing a very good job preparing them for the games.

[gainerama]

Assuming that they think Horachek is the right guy, which I really doubt since the players don't know how to score anymore, 2yrs would be considered an adequate/long term deal for a coach. Calgary is probably a good example of this. The team is grossly over-achieving, the players developing faster than expected and coaching seems to be really strong. What happens, Hartley gets extended for 2 yrs cause a lot can happen in that amount of time. The team dynamics change, players get burnt out or become unresponsive, or the coaching style no longer becomes effective. That's why NHL coaches are recycled every 2 or 3 years so anything longer than 2 yrs at a time doesn't really make any sense for a Coach contract.