Post-Game Talk: Kings crown the Jets 4-1

[WolfHouse]

Fiala doesn't have any trade protection.
Arvidsson doesn't either.
Danault was free to choose where he signed. He wanted to stay in Montreal but they didn't want him. It looks like he then went where the money was.

Almost like that market wasn't a factor.

Yeah that was just some nice GM work... and maybe proof that less superstars is sometimes better

 

[tbcwpg]

No, we have gotten somewhere. I said that it appears he went for the money because he got paid full value. But I suppose you could argue that as well. Market value is a matter of opinion. So Ignore that. IF he went there for the market, it is just one player. So ignore the IF. LAK turnaround still can't be placed on the market. Not for one non-franchise level player. Not this time.

They have 2 franchise level players and added a player in Danault who really helped speed up that process.

The point is that you can accelerate these kind of things in markets where players want to play. They were also pretty bad for awhile - before last season when things appeared to pick up for them (coinciding with getting Danault, hmm), they had 2 playoff appearances in 7 years, getting soundly trounced both times (2016 and 2018). I think without Danault, they're still 2 seasons away.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I hate no one on the Jets, i just hate how we are playing right now and think Bowness needs to shake up the lines a little.

Yes - except I don't think line combinations are the issue.

 

[LowLefty]

I'm not talking about nz/rush play. I'm talking fully on what they do when they get possesion/sustained zone time in the ozone. It's completely basic and boring.

I agree with you on the issues with the nz part. Throw in slow zone exits and they don't generate speed off the rush which hurts that aspect of the game.

From what I see, your zone execution will depend a lot on how you enter.
If you float in while defenders are set and prepared to defend, you're options are a lot more limited than if you can come in with speed.
What are the options when you are stalled at the blueline? You either dump and chase (we don't do that well), you make a short pass into more traffic, you get funneled into a corner or wall (because they are not fighting for the middle ice), or you curl and send it back to the point.
We appear to be opting for a short pass and curling back with puck to the point - which also happens to the be the option that requires the least amount of work and avoids a puck battle.

IMO, that's what you have as options if you can't generate any speed.

 

[surixon]

From what I see, your zone execution will depend a lot on how you enter.
If you float in while defenders are set and prepared to defend, you're options are a lot more limited than if you can come in with speed.
What are the options when you are stalled at the blueline? You either dump and chase (we don't do that well), you make a short pass into more traffic, you get funneled into a corner or wall (because they are not fighting for the middle ice), or you curl and send it back to the point.
We appear to be opting for a short pass and curling back with puck to the point - which also happens to the be the option that requires the least amount of work and avoids a puck battle.

IMO, that's what you have as options if you can't generate any speed.

When you get the puck in the ozone you can start trying to break teams down using rotations and switches. Your options are only as limited as you make them. It really doesn't matter where you start with the puck if you are smart about movement and passing. Good teams will are often able to pull set defenses out of shape to get those truely grade A cross seam and net looks. To me there has been a concerted effort to get the puck up high for a shot with traffic infront even in situations where the the team could have tried to maintain possesion and break the other team down.

I want this group of players to bust their ass and work harder but just as important I want them to work smarter especially in the nz and OZ.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I'm reading some good, thoughtful posts here that seem to point the finger at Bones.

Could he really have had that winning team in the first half and decided that major systems changes were necessary? Hard to believe. Did he deliberately take the creativity and transition out of the offense? I could see that if we had been losing, but we were challenging for top spot in the conference. WTH?

Something happened. Something changed. I don't know what it was. I can't pin down precisely when because we won a couple after it seemed to change and we might have lost a couple before it happened. But it was close to the Xmas break. We now see lots of complaints about lazy, coasting top 6, Scheifele in particular. Can that appearance be because the coach is demanding that they play a style they are unsuited for? Or is it just a bad system?

If it is not the coach it looks as though the players, all of them at the same time, decided to quit doing what they had been doing successfully. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Neither does the coach departing significantly from what had been working. Everybody, and I mean everybody, knows that you don't mess with a winning formula.

If you are still reading at this point, you can tell that I am totally bamboozled. This bi-polar team/season doesn't make any sense to me. The only thing I can be sure of is that something happened, roughly around mid-season. The switch got flipped to off.

 

[WolfHouse]

I'm reading some good, thoughtful posts here that seem to point the finger at Bones.

Could he really have had that winning team in the first half and decided that major systems changes were necessary? Hard to believe. Did he deliberately take the creativity and transition out of the offense? I could see that if we had been losing, but we were challenging for top spot in the conference. WTH?

Something happened. Something changed. I don't know what it was. I can't pin down precisely when because we won a couple after it seemed to change and we might have lost a couple before it happened. But it was close to the Xmas break. We now see lots of complaints about lazy, coasting top 6, Scheifele in particular. Can that appearance be because the coach is demanding that they play a style they are unsuited for? Or is it just a bad system?

If it is not the coach it looks as though the players, all of them at the same time, decided to quit doing what they had been doing successfully. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Neither does the coach departing significantly from what had been working. Everybody, and I mean everybody, knows that you don't mess with a winning formula.

If you are still reading at this point, you can tell that I am totally bamboozled. This bi-polar team/season doesn't make any sense to me. The only thing I can be sure of is that something happened, roughly around mid-season. The switch got flipped to off.

Are you trying to suggest PLD partied with the canadiens players in montreal and that broke the team...

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

They have 2 franchise level players and added a player in Danault who really helped speed up that process.

The point is that you can accelerate these kind of things in markets where players want to play. They were also pretty bad for awhile - before last season when things appeared to pick up for them (coinciding with getting Danault, hmm), they had 2 playoff appearances in 7 years, getting soundly trounced both times (2016 and 2018). I think without Danault, they're still 2 seasons away.

Sure you can accelerate the process in a market that players want to go to. I just don't see any sign of that in this case. It is AT MOST 1 player, Danault. He is not that much of a difference maker. You are crediting him with too much, IMO.

Arvidsson arrived the same time as Danault and Fiala arrived for this season. There is no evidence that location played a part in those trades. LAK needed to improve at F and they went out and paid the price to get upgrades.

 

[gojetsgo]

Sure you can accelerate the process in a market that players want to go to. I just don't see any sign of that in this case. It is AT MOST 1 player, Danault. He is not that much of a difference maker. You are crediting him with too much, IMO.

Arvidsson arrived the same time as Danault and Fiala arrived for this season. There is no evidence that location played a part in those trades. LAK needed to improve at F and they went out and paid the price to get upgrades.

do you think fiala extends for 7 years if it was in a location that he didn't want to be in?

 

[JonS]

do you think fiala extends for 7 years if it was in a location that he didn't want to be in?

Fialla would have extended in MN if they had the money.

 

[gojetsgo]

Fialla would have extended in MN if they had the money.

I didn't say the kings were the only location he wanted to play in, just that he wouldn't have extended long term in a location he didn't want to be in.

 

[Jet]

I'm reading some good, thoughtful posts here that seem to point the finger at Bones.

Could he really have had that winning team in the first half and decided that major systems changes were necessary? Hard to believe. Did he deliberately take the creativity and transition out of the offense? I could see that if we had been losing, but we were challenging for top spot in the conference. WTH?

Something happened. Something changed. I don't know what it was. I can't pin down precisely when because we won a couple after it seemed to change and we might have lost a couple before it happened. But it was close to the Xmas break. We now see lots of complaints about lazy, coasting top 6, Scheifele in particular. Can that appearance be because the coach is demanding that they play a style they are unsuited for? Or is it just a bad system?

If it is not the coach it looks as though the players, all of them at the same time, decided to quit doing what they had been doing successfully. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Neither does the coach departing significantly from what had been working. Everybody, and I mean everybody, knows that you don't mess with a winning formula.

If you are still reading at this point, you can tell that I am totally bamboozled. This bi-polar team/season doesn't make any sense to me. The only thing I can be sure of is that something happened, roughly around mid-season. The switch got flipped to off.

The only correlation that I can think of is our play deteriorated when we got some key players back. How that impacted things is beyond me and correlation doesn't necessarily + causation but I'm baffled as well

 

[surixon]

The only correlation that I can think of is our play deteriorated when we got some key players back. How that impacted things is beyond me and correlation doesn't necessarily + causation but I'm baffled as well

The entire top 6 sans Ehelers were generally healthy through that first half. We won playing good hockey with everyone in sans Fly.

I just can't see how one player being inserted would impact things that extent.

 

[LowLefty]

If it is not the coach it looks as though the players, all of them at the same time, decided to quit doing what they had been doing successfully. That makes no sense whatsoever.

IMO, all the players didn't quit -
The bottom 6 continues to do what it does - their game looks similar to how it looked early in the season - and their lack of offensive success is based mainly on the talent level.
And they continue to support the PK as they have all season - the work is there.

The top 6 is where the real fall off is - and again, IMO, it because they are not playing the same way the were early in the season.
The "buy in" is not there to the same extent - and some of it is likely injury related, namely PLD / Ehlers, who appear to be getting back on track (recently). And one part of that top group is not an issue (Nino).

So what's left?

 

[CorgisPer60]

I think it's more because Bowness is constructing a system that all the players can play, which is straight line, simple hockey. Grind down low, cycle back to the point, and point shot. The top 6 doesn't play like that because there's no creativity in it. Bowness is coaching offensive creativity out of the team to bring up the defensive co-ordination.

 

[Slimy Sculpin]

I disagree - especially the "clear as day" part.
Our best players are not creating any turnovers in the nzone - and that is when the Jets perform the best and also happens to be the way they played early in the season. I've already posted something similar to this but it's worth repeating if we are going to slide back to the "systems / coaching" narrative that we like to fall back on when our best players are not getting it done.

We are not good off the rush - we struggle with zone entries.
Unless we are transitioning off a nzone turnover, we approach the ozone in slow mo, glide into the zone, and wonder why we don't have any options.
Without speed, it's tough to make plays other than curling back and sending it to the point. That is how our top 6 execute offense from our dzone, off the rush - very slowly. And every team we play know this, and defend it with a wall - because it shuts us down.

The major issue is our nzone play which is not creating turnovers - because we are a decent transition team that will gain the zone with speed when we are not faced with a wall of defense that we usually run into when we are starting our offense from our end.
Bones is not asking this group to stop the nzone back check - makes no sense. But the top 6 are not nearly as effective with nzone coverage as they were earlier. That, at least in part, is due to lack of effort. And lack of effort is what Bones has been calling out for months.

So, it you can't convince your best forwards to back check, and they insist on trying to beat the defensive wall in slow mo, you are left with limited options. We curl and go to the point - and at least hope for shots on net. It sucks that we play that what - but it is not by design.
It all comes down to effort in creating turnovers - we are not seeing that effort and it impacts our ability to play a high tempo game that would allow more offensive options off the rush.

Watch how the teams vs our top 6, exit their zone - they do it with speed and they do not run into any interference in the nzone - it open water all the way to our zone - and that includes good and poor teams. We leave that neutral zone wide open. That creates two problems: We start our offense from our end, and we do it slowly and against a 5 man wall, and two, we lose our transition game which is reliant on turnovers but opens up the ice and eliminates that wall.

IMO, that's as clear as day.

It's also ironic that our bottom 6 do not come in slow - they actually have speed behind the rush and usually gain the zone quickly. But they are also much more effective in creating nzone turnovers which translates to speed the other way.
Why are they more effective off the rush? Mostly effort in all zones. But they are not playing the same brand of offense as the top 6 - it's too bad they don't have the high skill shooters / finishers.

We did the same thing LY - we blamed poor execution on coaching / systems rather than the effort required to execute - especially with our top 6 offense. I thought our success early in the year would be proof enough that this team can be very good when they work hard.

One of the best posts on this forum in a while. IMO. Jets look painfully slow relative to their opposition.
”Speed Kills”.

 

[voyageur]

Good and reasonable post. I think most did think we'd be a bubble team and that is what we are. I just would have liked a smoother ride to this point and not the massive peaks and valleys we got.

I still though am not a fan on how we play in the ozone. I hope someone talks to the coach because it provides little entertainment value.

I don't know if I would trade Bowness's style for Maurice's which saw a lot more attacking with speed, but also significant defensive breakdowns, and if there is a weakness in Helly's game I think it's odd man rushes. This team doesn't give up the high danger slot chances nearly as much, which is a big reason for the improvement in defensive metrics. I think the entire West outside of Edmonton has become defensive oriented, there's just not a lot of room on the ice against the good teams, because they don't deploy heavy forechecks. The Kings 1-3-1 was nauseating. You could literally spend 5 minutes passing the puck between defensemen and nobody would pressure you. But that's the nature of winning in the NHL now. Force turnovers...

The grind it out game, with emphasis on zone and puck possession, and an attack generated from behind the goal line is new territory for these players...I think early in the year it was working partially because the competition was weaker, and the thing about this team is it won most of the games against weaker competition, which generates confidence.

Schedule definitely got harder and more condensed before Christmas and up to the All Star Break. It seems like ages ago but it was only last year that the team completely fell apart on an extended Covid related road trip. Jets still aren't a good road team, though they did have a good road trip in Florida. I think that's because there are weaknesses on this team the coach simply can't protect.

Special teams victories were another reason for early success, and now the odds are probably as good for the PK scoring as the PP, and that has to change...The talent is there, the execution isn't. And that's a coaching issue as much as any.

 

[gojetsgo]

 

[surixon]

I don't know if I would trade Bowness's style for Maurice's which saw a lot more attacking with speed, but also significant defensive breakdowns, and if there is a weakness in Helly's game I think it's odd man rushes. This team doesn't give up the high danger slot chances nearly as much, which is a big reason for the improvement in defensive metrics. I think the entire West outside of Edmonton has become defensive oriented, there's just not a lot of room on the ice against the good teams, because they don't deploy heavy forechecks. The Kings 1-3-1 was nauseating. You could literally spend 5 minutes passing the puck between defensemen and nobody would pressure you. But that's the nature of winning in the NHL now. Force turnovers...

The grind it out game, with emphasis on zone and puck possession, and an attack generated from behind the goal line is new territory for these players...I think early in the year it was working partially because the competition was weaker, and the thing about this team is it won most of the games against weaker competition, which generates confidence.

Schedule definitely got harder and more condensed before Christmas and up to the All Star Break. It seems like ages ago but it was only last year that the team completely fell apart on an extended Covid related road trip. Jets still aren't a good road team, though they did have a good road trip in Florida. I think that's because there are weaknesses on this team the coach simply can't protect.

Special teams victories were another reason for early success, and now the odds are probably as good for the PK scoring as the PP, and that has to change...The talent is there, the execution isn't. And that's a coaching issue as much as any.

I mean it doesn't have to be either/or. You can have the sound defense and still run something robust once you get possesion in the offensive end. Imo we had success in the first half because that is what we were doing, we played good team d and were stingy in the nz forcing bad plays by teams.

Once in the ozone there was much cleaner and quicker movement with switches and rotations that opened up good looks.

The last two months or so we have seen very little in ozone switching and rotations. It's lead to worse offensive chances/goals.

So to me wither the players have stopped doing something that was working or they have been coached to do something different.

 

[Jet]

I mean it doesn't have to be either/or. You can have the sound defense and still run something robust once you get possesion in the offensive end. Imo we had success in the first half because that is what we were doing, we played good team d and were stingy in the nz forcing bad plays by teams.

Once in the ozone there was much cleaner and quicker movement with switches and rotations that opened up good looks.

The last two months or so we have seen very little in ozone switching and rotations. It's lead to worse offensive chances/goals.

So to me wither the players have stopped doing something that was working or they have been coached to do something different.

It simply has to be coaching. Why would everyone stop doing it, and, more importantly, if they did stop doing that why didn't the coaches tell them to start again? I know Lauer out may have led to a bit of a drift from intended playstyle but he's been back for a while.

It's a really curious situation.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Oh yeah totally agree

Earlier in the season, when Jets were winning, ST were the difference. Both of them.

 

[MardyBum]

Bowness sure isn't doing himself any favours.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

do you think fiala extends for 7 years if it was in a location that he didn't want to be in?

Maybe, maybe not. He was not a pending UFA. He was a pending RFA with 2 more seasons before UFA eligibility.

If this idea that players will absolutely not play in Wpg was as big an impediment as some here make it out to be we would never have signed anyone who was actually capable of playing in the NHL. Even our draft picks would refuse to sign. They would go back through the draft.

If it is that bad then an NHL team in Wpg is hopeless. Move the team to Houston quick, before Edmonton and Calgary and Ottawa beat them to it.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The only correlation that I can think of is our play deteriorated when we got some key players back. How that impacted things is beyond me and correlation doesn't necessarily + causation but I'm baffled as well

Yes, that correlation exists. I also noticed a change when Perfetti got hurt. Which is funny because he was the last of that group to go. It was like that was the last straw or something. Could that have lead the coach to think that a style change was necessary because there was now just too little skill left in the lineup?

But Cole played 51 games. I'm pretty sure it had started going wrong before that . I just noticed that it suddenly got even worse.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

IMO, all the players didn't quit -
The bottom 6 continues to do what it does - their game looks similar to how it looked early in the season - and their lack of offensive success is based mainly on the talent level.
And they continue to support the PK as they have all season - the work is there.

The top 6 is where the real fall off is - and again, IMO, it because they are not playing the same way the were early in the season.
The "buy in" is not there to the same extent - and some of it is likely injury related, namely PLD / Ehlers, who appear to be getting back on track (recently). And one part of that top group is not an issue (Nino).

So what's left?

True, bottom 6 and PK have continued to at least work hard.

What's left is bottom 6, D corps (except JMo), goaltending. Helle didn't drop off nearly as soon, but he is not his usual reliable self recently. He has the same appearance as he did for a time last year of not being ready at puck drop. He gives up 1-2 early goals and then settles in the rest of the way.

How much is the top 6 trouble about lack of effort? We see signs of at least hard work from at least some of them. As you point out, Ehlers and PLD are looking better and were probably playing through a recovery from their injuries. We even had Ehlers fighting to get the team fired up. Didn't work and I hope he doesn't do that anymore - or at least picks a better matched opponent next time.

So we can name 3 of the top 6 Nik, PLD and Nino who are putting out. Wheeler I think works, tries, he just doesn't have enough left in the tank. That just leaves Scheif and KC. They both seem to be avoiding contact more than usual. Could they be playing hurt and cautious?

I'm just thrashing around here trying to figure it out. Looking for answers. I wouldn't want to be on the coaching staff or management.