All Purpose Coaching Thread - Maurice, Assistants, Potential Replacements etc.

[Whileee]

Bad teams are built by bad GMs, who hire bad coaches. It's the circle of life!

Really, though, it's a "results based business" so how does a guy who's rarely managed to put together very good W-L results stick around? Is it more likely that he's a good coach with bad luck or he's a bad coach with good (employment) luck?

Coaching the Whalers and dregs-era Leafs doesn't seem like good luck to me.

 

[Maukkis]

So far this season the following people are responsible for Laine "not being put in a position to succeed" according to his most hardcore fanboys:

* Little for playing an "old school" north-south game, trying to cycle the puck which for inexplicable reasons isn't conducive to "skill players", & not having the "vision" to find PL
* Ehlers for playing a "selfish and greedy" game, being too impressive with his skating abilities, not passing to Laine and not having the "iq" to make plays
* Wheeler for being a "selfish veteren" and "bullying" the coach into giving him top line minutes with Scheif and a key role on the PP. (Also not passing to Laine)
* Byfuglien for being tunnel visioned on the PP and not passing to Laine enough
* Trouba for shooting too much from the point and not passing to Laine (that not passing thing comes up a lot doesn't it?)
* Chevaldayoff and Mark Chipman for secretly undertaking a conspiracy to suppress Laine's point totals
* Maurice for not putting Laine with Schiefele, putting him with Little, not forcefeeding Laine top minutes every night inspite of his defensive issues, and in general not tailoring the entire team to maximize Laine's point totals

Expected to join this list in the foreseeable future:
* Kyle Connor



Maurice has this team playing like an elite team by pretty much all metrics since mid-November and deserves respect for that. Maurice is getting great results and looking the like the coach of the 14-15 Jets. I was critical of him to start the season but credit must be given where it's due. He did get lucky in that he was able to get KC in the lineup due to an injury despite sending him to the minors to start the season but props to Maurice for putting Connor in a position to succeed.

Now if only he can get the PK on track, it's not killing us yet but that's a clear area of improvement. Esp against skilled PPs

Accurate. I find it pathetic how some people literally refuse to give Maurice any credit for anything. But oh, wait until he makes a mistake, and you'll see a horde of posts bashing him and his very existence and questioning why he has ever been employed by anyone.

While the scoring has gone up from last year, this team has somehow been considerably better at defense. I have been told that it is only due to natural growth of the players (how do you quantify this?), a better injury situation (agreed, but we have had some tough injuries this year), a massive improvement in the goalie department (which is an over-exaggeration; from .904 to .916 equates to 15 less goals given up, which is a big amount, but we'll have to remember that our improved defensive structure boosts these numbers too.) and a better bottom six (funnily enough, Hendricks is the only bottom 6 forward who was not in the roster last year. Could this possibly have something to do with Maurice finding the right combinations and deploying them in a better way?)

Hate Maurice all you want, but the way things have gone this year, solely criticizing the guy looks very uneducated.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

It's evident PMo is a players coach and the guys are playing hard for him right now. It would have been easy for team to fold after Scheif injury but good leadership at the top with coach, and down to cappies (yes, even glue Hendy no matter how we all laugh at glue, the new voice in the room helps) means the room is strong as others follow. Our special teams have improved and so have the stupid penalties for the most part so I have to give credit where it's due across the board to all staff. Let's hope for the same into the new year.

I still dislike some of the things Maurice is doing. As good as the team has been, I think it could be better - but I agree with what you are saying. He's got all the boys in the canoe and paddling in the same direction. They have the 'look' of a well coached team, at least most of the time.

That look doesn't necessarily come from things like systems or line combinations, IMO. It comes from leadership which just might be the most important part of coaching. Maurice has gotten improvements in the PP and PK. The PK is still not good but it is better than last year. I think better goaltending has played a part there. The team discipline is better, by quite a bit. Special teams and penalties were the 2 biggest failings laid at his door last year, IIRC. Credit where it is due. Both are much better this year.

I still think he could have handled his goalies a little better and I still don't like some of his lines. But I'd be worried if he had me completely pleased.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Not sure what the relevance Maurice's past is TBH. The only thing that matters right now is the team's record this year. I fail to see how his time in Hartford has any effect on our results this year.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

I tip my hat to those who have been critical of Maurice, yet can still recognize and appreciate his current success. You gotta look over your opinions in the face of new evidence. Otherwise we're all just talkin' and nobody's watching or listening.

There's been some solid posts about the relevance of Maurice's win-loss record. One thing I'd like to add - Maurice was only 28 when he got his first NHL head coach gig. Nevermind that his teams weren't very good, but he was about as young of greenhorn as they come. A person can change a lot between 28 and 50. You ain't the same coach over all that time.

I agree - it's far more important to look at what Maurice is doing now, than to dwell on numbers from decade(s) ago. Most successful people will tell you there's a lot of failures and face-planting along the way. Hopefully Maurice is over most of his.

 

[Ducky10]

Not sure what the relevance Maurice's past is TBH. The only thing that matters right now is the team's record this year. I fail to see how his time in Hartford has any effect on our results this year.

Can't wrap my head around this one, other than it allows people to focus on the negative in the face of positive results. It really makes me question whether the success of this team is the number one priority, or the conviction of their beliefs and being right.

 

[nobody important]

I've been critical of Maurice in the past, as have others. I expect some of it is deserved. Maybe it's not as simple as good coach, bad coach. Just that some coaches do better with certain types of players, and vice versa. There seems to be a harmony that is working at the moment. There have been times when I thought, uh oh here it comes, the slide into oblivion. Yet each time, they turn it around. So, maybe we should just enjoy it instead of looking longingly at those greener pastures on the other side of the fence that may in fact be full of cow shit.

 

[Whileee]

I've had concerns about Maurice's excessive reliance on gritty vets, and have openly wondered whether he'd be able to coach a really talented roster.

However, I've been encouraged that he's moved the roster to use more skill. I think it's also significant that he's taken this young and talented team and is turning them into a very strong team in terms of shot metrics and shot quality. He has been proven more right than many fans thought in sticking with Copp, Lowry and Tanev over Petan, Matthias and Dano. I still don't get his Hendricks love, but the results have been good.

It's hard to argue with the development of the young core players so far, and he gets at least some of the credit for that.

His players still work hard consistently, even after a couple of tough seasons. He's good to give credit to Wheeler and other vets, who seem to like and respect him, too.

 

[Mud Turtle]

There are quite a few people on these boards that have been suggesting that the Jets should move on from certain players for quite some time, and they were right.
(I’m not talking about the people who just randomly dislike every player on the team at some point).
And eventually, Paul Maurice DID move on from most of those players. Stuart, Pavelec, Thorburn etc etc. But it took him a long time to see what many of us had seen for a long period of time
Now, in his Defense, there are many reasons that he may have held onto them longer. We may never know why. Maybe chemistry. Maybe depth wasn’t ready.
But I don’t hold it against the complaining fans for getting frustrated when they saw the same mistakes over and over again and seemingly nothing being done.

 

[scelaton]

So far this season the following people are responsible for Laine "not being put in a position to succeed" according to his most hardcore fanboys....

Can't wrap my head around this one, other than it allows people to focus on the negative in the face of positive results. It really makes me question whether the success of this team is the number one priority, or the conviction of their beliefs and being right.

The practice of blaming/scapegoating is as old as mankind and as powerful a driver as...testosterone. There is a whole branch of psychology built around it. When people (fans of a team, or, let's say, a certain player) are feeling angst (from losing or unmet expectations, or just being unhappy) it lets them displace their psychic pain on the victim and feel some relief, or vindication, or even domination.
I've brought this up before, but during all those seasons we were losing it was too raw to discuss.
Someone needs to go back to our PGTs of year's past and use them as the basis of a Masters thesis!

 

[Whileee]

There are quite a few people on these boards that have been suggesting that the Jets should move on from certain players for quite some time, and they were right.
(I’m not talking about the people who just randomly dislike every player on the team at some point).
And eventually, Paul Maurice DID move on from most of those players. Stuart, Pavelec, Thorburn etc etc. But it took him a long time to see what many of us had seen for a long period of time
Now, in his Defense, there are many reasons that he may have held onto them longer. We may never know why. Maybe chemistry. Maybe depth wasn’t ready.
But I don’t hold it against the complaining fans for getting frustrated when they saw the same mistakes over and over again and seemingly nothing being done.

I complained plenty. I think in retrospect some of the delay was letting younger players develop more fully, and some was to establish a team culture. I also think Maurice still values grit and glue a bit too much, but lots of good coaches seem to share that trait.

 

[Ducky10]

The practice of blaming/scapegoating is as old as mankind and as powerful a driver as...testosterone. There is a whole branch of psychology built around it. When people (fans of a team, or, let's say, a certain player) are feeling angst (from losing or unmet expectations, or just being unhappy) it lets them displace their psychic pain on the victim and feel some relief, or vindication, or even domination.
I've brought this up before, but during all those seasons we were losing it was too raw to discuss.
Someone needs to go back to our PGTs of year's past and use them as the basis of a Masters thesis!

I meant the relevance of his past record.........but good post regardless.

 

[Flair Hay]

Accurate. I find it pathetic how some people literally refuse to give Maurice any credit for anything. But oh, wait until he makes a mistake, and you'll see a horde of posts bashing him and his very existence and questioning why he has ever been employed by anyone.

While the scoring has gone up from last year, this team has somehow been considerably better at defense. I have been told that it is only due to natural growth of the players (how do you quantify this?), a better injury situation (agreed, but we have had some tough injuries this year), a massive improvement in the goalie department (which is an over-exaggeration; from .904 to .916 equates to 15 less goals given up, which is a big amount, but we'll have to remember that our improved defensive structure boosts these numbers too.) and a better bottom six (funnily enough, Hendricks is the only bottom 6 forward who was not in the roster last year. Could this possibly have something to do with Maurice finding the right combinations and deploying them in a better way?)

Hate Maurice all you want, but the way things have gone this year, solely criticizing the guy looks very uneducated.

Yeah man no doubt. The guy went against the way everyone here wanted the lineup constructed and it has worked beautifully in the bottom six. If people think too highly of themselves to think their armchair decisions would be doing better this year...says a lot about them and how much they actually know vs what they think they do

 

[KingBogo]

I complained plenty. I think in retrospect some of the delay was letting younger players develop more fully, and some was to establish a team culture. I also think Maurice still values grit and glue a bit too much, but lots of good coaches seem to share that trait.

Agreed, but they also get to see what goes on behind closed doors. The guy who keeps guys up beat and loose when the s*** is hitting the fan, or continues to lay it all out in practice despite being tired and banged up. In Hendricks case both Maurice and Wheeler have mentioned on multiple occasions how he talks to the players. On a very young team I have a feeling a lot of this is falling on Hendricks. When I see Hendricks I keep thinking of Crash Davis in Bull Durham. And I still wouldn't think he belongs if he wasn't having a net positive effect on the game which he has by pretty much any metric.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

This could likely be the year where the least amount of coaches get fired this year. Boucher, Housley, and maybe Vigneault are the ones most likely, Bill Peter's too.

 

[Aavco Cup]

This could likely be the year where the least amount of coaches get fired this year. Boucher, Housley, and maybe Vigneault are the ones most likely, Bill Peter's too.

The last time there has been no coach fired during the season was 1966/67 when there were only 6 teams. I would guess everybody makes it to the end now. What would be the point of doing it now?

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

The last time there has been no coach fired during the season was 1966/67 when there were only 6 teams. I would guess everybody makes it to the end now. What would be the point of doing it now?

I was talking about at the end of the season, I was only thinking about it because I was wondering what the future would hold for Pascal Vincent, and it looks as he'll more likely stay with the Moose next season.

Housely likely gets replaced by Sutter (or an experienced NHL coach)
Boucher likely gets replaced by Sheldon Keefe (Vigneault if Rangers were to fire Vigneault)
Ruff would take over NYR if Vigneault is terminated
Bill Peters... tough to say who'd take over him. Would say either Sheldon Keefe, Todd Nelson or Dan Bylsma.

Vincent would likely get Ottawa of the few. Don't know which team would be interested in hiring him in the future.

 

[Ducky10]

This could likely be the year where the least amount of coaches get fired this year. Boucher, Housley, and maybe Vigneault are the ones most likely, Bill Peter's too.

Gulutzan is going imo, Blashill shouldn't be too safe and despite what Hextall said I think Hakstol will be evaluated as well.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

Gulutzan is going imo, Blashill shouldn't be too safe and despite what Hextall said I think Hakstol will be evaluated as well.

Gulutzan will likely stay, but I'm positive he won't last past 2019 with the Flames; might actually be the first coach fired next season.
Blashill will stay for the fact the Red Wings don't have too many expectations but did well for them this year considering everyone expected them to be a dumpster fire.
I do agree Hakstol should be let go, but so far hasn't had a bad track record for them so it'll be hard to find a good reason to let him go; Hakstol is a great coach, but Philadelphia isn't where he should be coaching, NYR would be more up his alley.

 

[Ducky10]

Gulutzan will likely stay, but I'm positive he won't last past 2019 with the Flames; might actually be the first coach fired next season.
Blashill will stay for the fact the Red Wings don't have too many expectations but did well for them this year considering everyone expected them to be a dumpster fire.
I do agree Hakstol should be let go, but so far hasn't had a bad track record for them so it'll be hard to find a good reason to let him go; Hakstol is a great coach, but Philadelphia isn't where he should be coaching, NYR would be more up his alley.

Calgary was swept from the playoffs last year and will miss this year, doubt he survives.

Holland is in the last year of his deal without much extension talk. If he goes, so does Blashill.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

Calgary was swept from the playoffs last year and will miss this year, doubt he survives.

Holland is in the last year of his deal without much extension talk. If he goes, so does Blashill.

Never thought about the Blashill/Holland thing, that's a very good point.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

I am still struggling in trying to convince myself that Maurice is anything other than an average NHL coach with a lot of experience. He has what, about a 0.513 coaching record, only being over 0.500 due to loser points. There is Jets team success this year so he deserves the coach's share of the credit. But when we look at the old saying, 'show me a good goalie and I will show you a good coach'' I think it applies to our success this year.

I did this calculation for fun and posted in another thread, but I think it belongs here. Just looking at Helle's shots faced, and doing a goals against calculation of Helle's 0.925 sv% vs a Pavelec like 0.906 sv% - we would have 34 more goals against.

Looking at goals differential and standings, we would drop from a +45 to a +11 goals differential. That would put is on the bubble and in a fight for the final wild card spot with Dallas (+15 diff) and Colorado (+17 diff).

Trust me, I struggle with this. All of the discussion around our depth and that we have the best top 9 in the NHL, and how great the free agent signings were, and how draft and/or develop has blossomed this year (Copp, Tanev, Roslo, KC), how another year of experience for Laine/Ehlers has improved their games, etc etc.

Then I look back to where we would be as a team if we still had a 0.906 guy like Pav instead of an allstar like Helle. And we would be on the bubble or on the outside of the playoffs. Just like other years.

I am having a hard time squaring this circle. How much of our success is really coaching or any/all of these other factors?

Serious question. It's hard for me to see how the lion's share of our success this year is not specifically attributable to Helle. Am I wrong? Help me understand.

 

[Fastfrde]

I am still struggling in trying to convince myself that Maurice is anything other than an average NHL coach with a lot of experience. He has what, about a 0.513 coaching record, only being over 0.500 due to loser points. There is Jets team success this year so he deserves the coach's share of the credit. But when we look at the old saying, 'show me a good goalie and I will show you a good coach'' I think it applies to our success this year.

I did this calculation for fun and posted in another thread, but I think it belongs here. Just looking at Helle's shots faced, and doing a goals against calculation of Helle's 0.925 sv% vs a Pavelec like 0.906 sv% - we would have 34 more goals against.

Looking at goals differential and standings, we would drop from a +45 to a +11 goals differential. That would put is on the bubble and in a fight for the final wild card spot with Dallas (+15 diff) and Colorado (+17 diff).

Trust me, I struggle with this. All of the discussion around our depth and that we have the best top 9 in the NHL, and how great the free agent signings were, and how draft and/or develop has blossomed this year (Copp, Tanev, Roslo, KC), how another year of experience for Laine/Ehlers has improved their games, etc etc.

Then I look back to where we would be as a team if we still had a 0.906 guy like Pav instead of an allstar like Helle. And we would be on the bubble or on the outside of the playoffs. Just like other years.

I am having a hard time squaring this circle. How much of our success is really coaching or any/all of these other factors?

Serious question. It's hard for me to see how the lion's share of our success this year is not specifically attributable to Helle. Am I wrong? Help me understand.

I don't think you are wrong, but isn't that true of all the "good" coaches as well? Nashville has a pretty good coach with a great record, riding a goalie with a .929 S%. Tampa Bay's coach looks pretty good too, oh wait, Vas is at .923. Gallant in Vegas, has MAF at 0.927 (this may be the outlier with all the injuries they had in the crease). Never the less, Quenneville not having Crawford's.929 for more than the 28 games he played, sure made him a bad coach fast.

 

[surixon]

I am still struggling in trying to convince myself that Maurice is anything other than an average NHL coach with a lot of experience. He has what, about a 0.513 coaching record, only being over 0.500 due to loser points. There is Jets team success this year so he deserves the coach's share of the credit. But when we look at the old saying, 'show me a good goalie and I will show you a good coach'' I think it applies to our success this year.

I did this calculation for fun and posted in another thread, but I think it belongs here. Just looking at Helle's shots faced, and doing a goals against calculation of Helle's 0.925 sv% vs a Pavelec like 0.906 sv% - we would have 34 more goals against.

Looking at goals differential and standings, we would drop from a +45 to a +11 goals differential. That would put is on the bubble and in a fight for the final wild card spot with Dallas (+15 diff) and Colorado (+17 diff).

Trust me, I struggle with this. All of the discussion around our depth and that we have the best top 9 in the NHL, and how great the free agent signings were, and how draft and/or develop has blossomed this year (Copp, Tanev, Roslo, KC), how another year of experience for Laine/Ehlers has improved their games, etc etc.

Then I look back to where we would be as a team if we still had a 0.906 guy like Pav instead of an allstar like Helle. And we would be on the bubble or on the outside of the playoffs. Just like other years.

I am having a hard time squaring this circle. How much of our success is really coaching or any/all of these other factors?

Serious question. It's hard for me to see how the lion's share of our success this year is not specifically attributable to Helle. Am I wrong? Help me understand.

Not a huge Maurice fan and I'd deem him average but your analysis is flawed given that the team as a whole sits mid table in terms of save percentage. We aren't getting out of this world goaltending as a whole and yet are still sitting quite high in the standings.

 

[Weezeric]

I am still struggling in trying to convince myself that Maurice is anything other than an average NHL coach with a lot of experience. He has what, about a 0.513 coaching record, only being over 0.500 due to loser points. There is Jets team success this year so he deserves the coach's share of the credit. But when we look at the old saying, 'show me a good goalie and I will show you a good coach'' I think it applies to our success this year.

I did this calculation for fun and posted in another thread, but I think it belongs here. Just looking at Helle's shots faced, and doing a goals against calculation of Helle's 0.925 sv% vs a Pavelec like 0.906 sv% - we would have 34 more goals against.

Looking at goals differential and standings, we would drop from a +45 to a +11 goals differential. That would put is on the bubble and in a fight for the final wild card spot with Dallas (+15 diff) and Colorado (+17 diff).

Trust me, I struggle with this. All of the discussion around our depth and that we have the best top 9 in the NHL, and how great the free agent signings were, and how draft and/or develop has blossomed this year (Copp, Tanev, Roslo, KC), how another year of experience for Laine/Ehlers has improved their games, etc etc.

Then I look back to where we would be as a team if we still had a 0.906 guy like Pav instead of an allstar like Helle. And we would be on the bubble or on the outside of the playoffs. Just like other years.

I am having a hard time squaring this circle. How much of our success is really coaching or any/all of these other factors?

Serious question. It's hard for me to see how the lion's share of our success this year is not specifically attributable to Helle. Am I wrong? Help me understand.

If you did the reverse and gave league average goaltending to every season of Maurice's career instead of the horrific goaltending he received almost every year, would you come to conclusion he's an amazing coach?