Post-Game Talk: Jets lose 5-2

[Ducky10]

There are teams in the league succeeding other than the Penguins and less talented than the Jets. Placing blame on the collective suckage of all the players seems a little misplaced if you ask me. I mean, what is a coaches job other than to maximize the talent on his team and have it succeed as a unit?

Why isn't that happening, other than the players are hot garbage?

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Easy answer with lots of denial. Blame Maurice. Perhaps we've all overrated the likes of Petan Dano Armia Myers and others

You might be onto something here. Maybe its our fault? We all think Petan and Dano are good and we picked them to be on our team and that's why the Maurice Jets are running 28th best possession team, 28th best in shots allowed, 28th best penalty kill and 28th best power play - several years after Paul Maurice promised to fix all of these things.

There is no logical rationale for Paul Maurice to be coach of this team. None. Lots of people like him as a person and you like how he runs his practises. Those are not performance indicators for an NHL coach.

 

[thetracksuit]

Hear a lot of talk about giving Maurice a "chance to fix things"

How many chances does this guy get? Every single problem we had last year (and the year before) is once again a massive problem this year, and one could argue we are even WORSE defensively than last year.

What is the tipping point here? When is it okay to finally say we are done with Maurice?

Do we wait until we are 3-10? 5-15?

I'm done waiting. Get rid of this guy.

 

[lomiller1]

I like your general analysis, but not the idea of having Perreault at C in the top 6. He's outstanding at puck retrieval and driving the play on LW, but contributes neither of those at C.

He was well established as driving both scoring and possession before he came to Winnipeg, and did so while playing center. He can certainly do it here if needed.

Generally though I have no issue with Lowry being our 3rd C. He does well possession wise and is one of the better players on the team in generating traffic and havoc near the net. Even if he doesn’t produce those are useful attributed to skilled scoring wingers. The whole point is to not ask him to drive a lines productivity because we know he can’t, but to put him with other players who can be productive so all he needs to do is contribute with defence, physical play and screening the goaltender.

 

[Whileee]

You might be onto something here. Maybe its our fault? We all think Petan and Dano are good and we picked them to be on our team and that's why the Maurice Jets are running 28th best possession team, 28th best in shots allowed, 28th best penalty kill and 28th best power play - several years after Paul Maurice promised to fix all of these things.

There is no logical rationale for Paul Maurice to be coach of this team. None. Lots of people like him as a person and you like how he runs his practises. Those are not performance indicators for an NHL coach.

The blame used to be on Chevy for not bringing in more skilled players for the bottom six. Much of the angst in the pre-season was about how Hendricks was going to get killed in the bottom six. Now we have a bottom six with some of the HF Jets darlings (Petan, Dano), and they are making Thorbs look like Bergeron, so now the attention has shifted to Maurice.

I'm a Maurice skeptic (have been for some time), and I'm part of the crew that has thought that the main problem has been the lack of enough skilled personnel, but I think we might need to rethink our hypotheses.

My main hypothesis is that Maurice is more effective at coaching straight-line players without creativity, than he is creative players. I have been concerned that he would not be effective in coaching this sort of team.

However, I think there's another thing we might consider. Perhaps this sort of talent needs to play a different style to be effective in the NHL, and it would be a struggle for any coach to get them to play that way. These days, my main concern is with the construction of the defense, rather than the forwards. My concern is that the Jets have too many D that like to "lug" the puck, and not enough that are adept at moving the puck quickly. Myers is the perfect example. He is very good at carrying the puck, but how does that help a team with super-skilled forwards? They just wait for him to get through the neutral zone, at which time he needs to dump the puck because everyone is standing still waiting for him. Trouba has the same tendency. Buff is more inclined to move the puck, but prefers the long "stretch" pass or "lob" to more crisp and quick passes to catch his forwards on the move. Even Enstrom tends to be very careful with the puck, so his specialty is protecting the puck and going D-to-D. The only D on the roster that appear to be inclined to quick puck movement are Morrissey and Poolman. I think Trouba can develop that way. I doubt that Myers can.

 

[Dayofthedogs]

The Hab's are a poorly built team. Putting that on the coach when that is not his fault is funny.
The Habs gm will not survive the season due to this.

So we're going to call the team that's made the playoffs in like 5 of the last 6 years the poorly built team and our team who's made it 1 in the last 6 is the well constructed one....

Okay...

Really?

 

[Blue Shakehead]

The blame used to be on Chevy for not bringing in more skilled players for the bottom six. Much of the angst in the pre-season was about how Hendricks was going to get killed in the bottom six. Now we have a bottom six with some of the HF Jets darlings (Petan, Dano), and they are making Thorbs look like Bergeron, so now the attention has shifted to Maurice.

I'm a Maurice skeptic (have been for some time), and I'm part of the crew that has thought that the main problem has been the lack of enough skilled personnel, but I think we might need to rethink our hypotheses.

Chevy deserves a lot of blame for extending Maurice. I could also spend several paragraphs talking about Chevy's failures but - similar to the Tanev in the lineup debate - Chevy's past failures have very little to do with why this team can't break out of the zone or kill penalties or score on the power play or not get dominated by a lottery team like Vancouver. Dano and Petan have nothing to do with it either. That's all squarely on Paul Maurice and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out.

 

[Ducky10]

The blame used to be on Chevy for not bringing in more skilled players for the bottom six. Much of the angst in the pre-season was about how Hendricks was going to get killed in the bottom six. Now we have a bottom six with some of the HF Jets darlings (Petan, Dano), and they are making Thorbs look like Bergeron, so now the attention has shifted to Maurice.

I'm a Maurice skeptic (have been for some time), and I'm part of the crew that has thought that the main problem has been the lack of enough skilled personnel, but I think we might need to rethink our hypotheses.

My main hypothesis is that Maurice is more effective at coaching straight-line players without creativity, than he is creative players. I have been concerned that he would not be effective in coaching this sort of team.

However, I think there's another thing we might consider. Perhaps this sort of talent needs to play a different style to be effective in the NHL, and it would be a struggle for any coach to get them to play that way. These days, my main concern is with the construction of the defense, rather than the forwards. My concern is that the Jets have too many D that like to "lug" the puck, and not enough that are adept at moving the puck quickly. Myers is the perfect example. He is very good at carrying the puck, but how does that help a team with super-skilled forwards? They just wait for him to get through the neutral zone, at which time he needs to dump the puck because everyone is standing still waiting for him. Trouba has the same tendency. Buff is more inclined to move the puck, but prefers the long "stretch" pass or "lob" to more crisp and quick passes to catch his forwards on the move. Even Enstrom tends to be very careful with the puck, so his specialty is protecting the puck and going D-to-D. The only D on the roster that appear to be inclined to quick puck movement are Morrissey and Poolman. I think Trouba can develop that way. I doubt that Myers can.

I think the lugging the puck part can also come from how they are set up to attack. It's not as if most of those guys aren't capable of making good, clean outlet passes. Enstrom used to be very adept at it. I'm more inclined to think that the lugging is what they are set up to do, not individual decisions made by the players necessarily, although that will always be an element for any player at times.

The Jets rarely look to attack out wide on the off wing and they rarely have players supporting down low to initiate quick breakouts with. That doesn't seem like a team that necessarily is looking to attack quickly on the breakout. The speed that is coached into the Jets game is predicated on the turnover, it's how they set up in the neutral zone and how they play in their own end much of the time. I find when the Jets are playing well it's because they are pressuring the puck in the neutral zone and at their blue line and transition very quickly when it's turned over. Once the zone is gained against them, they aren't very successful.

 

[Whileee]

Chevy deserves a lot of blame for extending Maurice. I could also spend several paragraphs talking about Chevy's failures but - similar to the Tanev in the lineup debate - Chevy's past failures have very little to do with why this team can't break out of the zone or kill penalties or score on the power play or not get dominated by a lottery team like Vancouver. Dano and Petan have nothing to do with it either. That's all squarely on Paul Maurice and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out.

I can understand the blame for extending Maurice, and even hiring him in the first place. I think that he either had to extend or fire him before this season. I don't think it would have been a healthy season to have him as a lame duck, but could be wrong about that.

There have been plenty of paragraphs about Chevy's failures, but I think the bottom line is that he's assembled a very good line-up, complete with Petan and Dano in the bottom-6.

I agree that the failure to play effectively becomes a coaching issue. My only caveat, is that I am a bit concerned with the construction of the D. Maybe that's a coaching issue, too, but I'm not sure.

 

[tyler233334]

Chevy deserves a lot of blame for extending Maurice. I could also spend several paragraphs talking about Chevy's failures but - similar to the Tanev in the lineup debate - Chevy's past failures have very little to do with why this team can't break out of the zone or kill penalties or score on the power play or not get dominated by a lottery team like Vancouver. Dano and Petan have nothing to do with it either. That's all squarely on Paul Maurice and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

View attachment 80447

Hahahaha. Whoops.

 

[Jimby]

The GM that hired Sullivan has hired Maurice twice before in the past and calls him an elite coach. He also says he would hire him again. If you believe in the GM's assessment of Sullivan you should also believe in his assessment of Maurice.

If you want to think that then fine. But that team doesn’t win back2back Cups without Sullivan. Ask Pens fans what they think if you’re dead set on Kessel being the reason.

 

[Board Bard]

The blame used to be on Chevy for not bringing in more skilled players for the bottom six. Much of the angst in the pre-season was about how Hendricks was going to get killed in the bottom six. Now we have a bottom six with some of the HF Jets darlings (Petan, Dano), and they are making Thorbs look like Bergeron, so now the attention has shifted to Maurice.

I'm a Maurice skeptic (have been for some time), and I'm part of the crew that has thought that the main problem has been the lack of enough skilled personnel, but I think we might need to rethink our hypotheses.

My main hypothesis is that Maurice is more effective at coaching straight-line players without creativity, than he is creative players. I have been concerned that he would not be effective in coaching this sort of team.

However, I think there's another thing we might consider. Perhaps this sort of talent needs to play a different style to be effective in the NHL, and it would be a struggle for any coach to get them to play that way. These days, my main concern is with the construction of the defense, rather than the forwards. My concern is that the Jets have too many D that like to "lug" the puck, and not enough that are adept at moving the puck quickly. Myers is the perfect example. He is very good at carrying the puck, but how does that help a team with super-skilled forwards? They just wait for him to get through the neutral zone, at which time he needs to dump the puck because everyone is standing still waiting for him. Trouba has the same tendency. Buff is more inclined to move the puck, but prefers the long "stretch" pass or "lob" to more crisp and quick passes to catch his forwards on the move. Even Enstrom tends to be very careful with the puck, so his specialty is protecting the puck and going D-to-D. The only D on the roster that appear to be inclined to quick puck movement are Morrissey and Poolman. I think Trouba can develop that way. I doubt that Myers can.

Have to agree with you on pretty much everything here. I will add, though, that even if the bottom sixers that Chevy assembled really are as good as advertised, Chevy still gets a gong for the coach he has obsessively rehired.

 

[Board Bard]

The GM that hired Sullivan has hired Maurice twice before in the past and calls him an elite coach. He also says he would hire him again. If you believe in the GM's assessment of Sullivan you should also believe in his assessment of Maurice.

Why? Because he doesn't want to look stupid for previously hiring him two times too many?

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

I know we like to blame Maurice a lot, and its well deserved, but how about the assistant coaches? Huddy has been our D coach since day 1, how is that possible? How has Chevy/Maurice/Chipman thought our D play has been acceptable for the last 7 years. What about Flaherty? We've had near league worst goaltending for 6 consecutive years, yes its on the goaltenders to but why do things never change?

There seems to be a culture in this organization to just accept things the way they are and not make changes unless faced with extreme circumstances. I'm all for loyalty, but at some point you need results. This is year 7 and we've gone basically nowhere. Sure we have a bit more talent now, but our veterans are going to age out soon and we're going to be tight to the cap when all of our young talent re-signs their big money deals. How are we going to improve?

Something needs to change.

 

[Gm0ney]

Should all this stuff be moved to the coaching thread? Or maybe this thread should be renamed something about coaching? Or maybe just leave it all here so it can be locked and that'll be the end of it ( )?

 

[JetsUK]

He was well established as driving both scoring and possession before he came to Winnipeg, and did so while playing center. He can certainly do it here if needed.

Generally though I have no issue with Lowry being our 3rd C. He does well possession wise and is one of the better players on the team in generating traffic and havoc near the net. Even if he doesn’t produce those are useful attributed to skilled scoring wingers. The whole point is to not ask him to drive a lines productivity because we know he can’t, but to put him with other players who can be productive so all he needs to do is contribute with defence, physical play and screening the goaltender.

I agree with this. Maybe its worth trying Lowry in the Zach Hyman role, playing with speed and skill on line 1a or b. Ehlers can drive a line on his own, so long as he's not tasked with digging pucks out of corners etc., and Lowry's a decent passer and net presence.

FWIW, I used to see Dano as a skilled grinder, capable of causing havoc in the lanes and in front of the next and having the hands to convert loose pucks, but he hasn't really played that role in a while. I really feel now like this team's systems are aiming at an idealized play style that is ill-suited to specific players' skillsets. This is an incredibly big, fast, skilled, creative team, by and large, that's consistently played like a small, slow, inhibited group that's out of ideas. Armia's expression, and the lukewarm response from the bench, after that highlight-reel goal against CBJ said it all to me: frustrated, tired, miserable. Not even angry, just miserable.

 

[CaptainChef]

The blame used to be on Chevy for not bringing in more skilled players for the bottom six. Much of the angst in the pre-season was about how Hendricks was going to get killed in the bottom six. Now we have a bottom six with some of the HF Jets darlings (Petan, Dano), and they are making Thorbs look like Bergeron, so now the attention has shifted to Maurice.

I'm a Maurice skeptic (have been for some time), and I'm part of the crew that has thought that the main problem has been the lack of enough skilled personnel, but I think we might need to rethink our hypotheses.

My main hypothesis is that Maurice is more effective at coaching straight-line players without creativity, than he is creative players. I have been concerned that he would not be effective in coaching this sort of team.

However, I think there's another thing we might consider. Perhaps this sort of talent needs to play a different style to be effective in the NHL, and it would be a struggle for any coach to get them to play that way. These days, my main concern is with the construction of the defense, rather than the forwards. My concern is that the Jets have too many D that like to "lug" the puck, and not enough that are adept at moving the puck quickly. Myers is the perfect example. He is very good at carrying the puck, but how does that help a team with super-skilled forwards? They just wait for him to get through the neutral zone, at which time he needs to dump the puck because everyone is standing still waiting for him. Trouba has the same tendency. Buff is more inclined to move the puck, but prefers the long "stretch" pass or "lob" to more crisp and quick passes to catch his forwards on the move. Even Enstrom tends to be very careful with the puck, so his specialty is protecting the puck and going D-to-D. The only D on the roster that appear to be inclined to quick puck movement are Morrissey and Poolman. I think Trouba can develop that way. I doubt that Myers can.

I just don't follow you here. While you acknowledge that Maurice might not be the ideal coach for what we have on this team, you still seem to suggest that it might be the players he has and not the systems he wants them to follow.

To me its all about team makeup, player combos and the systems that PMo is trying to install. You say yourself that this sort of talent requires a different style to be effective, but you then go one to excuse PMo because "it would be a struggle for any coach to get them to play that way". Yes, I think our defensemen are having difficulty getting the puck out, but IMO we've got some good puck-moving defensemen here, just a lousy system of getting forwards open to receive passes, or open enough that opposing forwards need to pay attention to them so our better lugging defensemen can rush the puck up the ice.

Nope, its 90% on PMo & his band of assistants to come up with a better system. I think he has access to much better talent than he's ever had, yet he continues to rely on Lowry and insists on inserting non-effective role players throughout his "bottom 6". PMo is just unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his old ideas of how a team needs to function, what works and what doesn't. His idea that we need a top 6 where all the talent lies, and bottom 6 which is all grinders and role players, is just a start of the issues he has. As long as we have an inflexible and incapable coach (or coaches) running the show , we can have all the talent in the world yet will be going nowhere.

 

[Whileee]

I just don't follow you here. While you acknowledge that Maurice might not be the ideal coach for what we have on this team, you still seem to suggest that it might be the players he has and not the systems he wants them to follow.

To me its all about team makeup, player combos and the systems that PMo is trying to install. You say yourself that this sort of talent requires a different style to be effective, but you then go one to excuse PMo because "it would be a struggle for any coach to get them to play that way". Yes, I think our defensemen are having difficulty getting the puck out, but IMO we've got some good puck-moving defensemen here, just a lousy system of getting forwards open to receive passes, or open enough that opposing forwards need to pay attention to them so our better lugging defensemen can rush the puck up the ice.

Nope, its 90% on PMo & his band of assistants to come up with a better system. I think he has access to much better talent than he's ever had, yet he continues to rely on Lowry and insists on inserting non-effective role players throughout his "bottom 6". PMo is just unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his old ideas of how a team needs to function, what works and what doesn't. His idea that we need a top 6 where all the talent lies, and bottom 6 which is all grinders and role players, is just a start of the issues he has. As long as we have an inflexible and incapable coach (or coaches) running the show , we can have all the talent in the world yet will be going nowhere.

I just don't think you can give the players a complete pass, not so much on effort but perhaps more in terms of their own style of play. It's a hypothesis, that might well be wrong. I'm just seeing some issues with how several of the D process the game.

Lowry was nowhere near the ice against Columbus, nor was Hendricks, and the Jets played pretty terribly. Dano and Petan aren't "grinders", but they haven't really accomplished much this season so far. Much of it might be usage, but at some point it's on the players, too.

Let me put it this way - the problem with this team so far this season has not been Lowry or Tanev.

I completely agree with you that he should reconstruct the lines to spread the talent out more. I've been advocating for Perreault on 3LW since before training camp.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Or maybe just leave it all here so it can be locked and that'll be the end of it ( )?

Bingo.