Coach Discussion: Paul Maurice: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Status
Not open for further replies.

Board Bard

Dane-O-Mite
Jun 7, 2014
7,886
5,054
The copp stuff came from me also responding to the post by the ugly truth.
Also, you said Gallant is a great coach. I agreed, but, just because Gallant is a bad coach doesn't mean Mo is a bad coach.
Your on here because you are a Jets fan yet you kept pointing out to everyone how good Las Vegas was and seem more like a Vegas fan than a Jets fan.

I didn't say Gallant was a great coach. You inferred it when I implied that Maurice isn't one.

Vegas was good. But let's pretend . . . excuses.
 

KingBogo

Admitted Homer
Nov 29, 2011
31,519
38,925
Winnipeg
The type and shot location the Jets generated against the Knights in the series and Pavelec would have had .950 sv.% had he been the Knights netminder in the series!
You forgot :sarcasm: MAF is on his way to setting an all top record for top playoff goaltending performance of all time and you are actually comparing him to Pavs. :laugh:
 

The Ugly Truth

Registered User
May 23, 2018
508
216
Gallant is a great coach. That doesn't make Mo a bad coach. What other coaches could do what Gallant did?
The Ugly Truth. If Mo coached Copp to run the other team's goalie than I don't want the Jets to win if you have to resort to such dirty tactics. Hockey is a beautiful game why ruin it to win a cup.
I feel like I am feeding the trolls here.

Given the quality of the Jets roster, do you think Maurice did a good job (yes or no will suffice) with his coaching responsibilities:

- Roster decisions
- Line decisions
- Ice time decisions
- Offensive and defensive strategies
- Making strategic adjustments to the opposition
- Ensuring players stay focused and motivated

And by the way, if you were watching the games you would've noticed that Copp got away with *a lot* in the crease against Rinne. He toned it down against Fleury, probably because of the presence of Reaves.

Chippiness and intimidation has always been a part of hockey. It would be interesting to see what percent of Jets fans would be OK with Copp running Fleury if it meant that the Jets would win the Stanley Cup.
 

MrBoJangelz71

Registered User
Jan 14, 2014
4,948
5,987
1) Why play Byfuglien 28 minutes/game when it was obviously wearing him down, leading to more mistakes, less dynamic plays and less physicality?

2) Why play Enström when it was obvious that he was injured and ineffective?

3) Why did the team come out playing flat in an elimination game?

4) Why play Kulikov in Game 5 when he had not played in weeks?

5) Why keep doing the same thing when the team isn't scoring?

6) Why not use the Jets size advantage against Vegas' smaller forwards?

7) Why not use speed + passing to counteract Vegas forecheck?

8) Why not use speed (Ehlers, Connor, Byfuglien, Myers, Roslovic) with following options more often for zone entries?

9) Why not play Niku instead of Enström? (Because doing so may be seen as an insult to a veteran?)

10) Why not play Lemieux instead of Copp?



1. Why do all coaches play their top D 25 plus a night in playoffs. Why did we play him 25 plus in the Nashville series? Why did it work? Why did you not question his usage of Buff then? Why wait for losses to happen , then ask simplton why questions on the exact same usuage, just different results? Why?

2. Why not keep a player in your lineup that just helped you get through a 7 game series against the best team in the league? Why did you not question Toby’s usage in the Preds series? Why wait for a conference finals loss to question Maurice using Toby and not question it when he played him in the Preds series?

3. Why did 2 other teams come out flat against the same team? Why do good teams fall behind other good teams in big games?

4. Why not play your 4mill player in the biggest game of the season, when he is arguable your 2nd best lhd? Why would any coach not use that on the backend?

5. Why do you question the changes Maurice made in the lineup, then whine about him not changing things up? Why?lol

6.Why didn’t he use the size advantage? Did he dress a team of vertically challenged players that inwas unaware of? Did he instruct the team to play small.

7. Why? Did Maurice game plan to play slow and hold on to the puck? Do coaches not try to play fast and pass the puck? Do other teams try to stop this? Why do they do that, Why?

8.lol, see 7, all players were used, other team stopped zone entries by matching our speed.

9. Why not pull a bunch of rookies with zero playoff experience, 1 NHL game unde their belt, and throw them into a conference final. Makes sense.

10. Why?

Why wait till the results are known, then question the wrong while ignoring the things that went right?

Why dont all good coaches win every series they are in?
 
Last edited:

KingBogo

Admitted Homer
Nov 29, 2011
31,519
38,925
Winnipeg
Given the quality of the Jets roster, do you think Maurice did a good job (yes or no will suffice) with his coaching responsibilities:

- Roster decisions
- Line decisions
- Ice time decisions
- Offensive and defensive strategies
- Making strategic adjustments to the opposition
- Ensuring players stay focused and motivated

And by the way, if you were watching the games you would've noticed that Copp got away with *a lot* in the crease against Rinne. He toned it down against Fleury, probably because of the presence of Reaves.

Chippiness and intimidation has always been a part of hockey. It would be interesting to see what percent of Jets fans would be OK with Copp running Fleury if it meant that the Jets would win the Stanley Cup.
Talk of having a player run a goalie is pure bush league IMO. And What would be your response if Nashville's plan was to have Hartnell run Helly for the sole purpose of injuring him and putting him out of the playoffs?
 

MrBoJangelz71

Registered User
Jan 14, 2014
4,948
5,987
Given the quality of the Jets roster, do you think Maurice did a good job (yes or no will suffice) with his coaching responsibilities:

- Roster decisions
- Line decisions
- Ice time decisions
- Offensive and defensive strategies
- Making strategic adjustments to the opposition
- Ensuring players stay focused and motivated

And by the way, if you were watching the games you would've noticed that Copp got away with *a lot* in the crease against Rinne. He toned it down against Fleury, probably because of the presence of Reaves.

Chippiness and intimidation has always been a part of hockey. It would be interesting to see what percent of Jets fans would be OK with Copp running Fleury if it meant that the Jets would win the Stanley Cup.

Yes, getting to a conference final and knocking out the best team in the league are results a good coach achieves.

Finishing 2ndin the league after 82 games, good coach related.

Top pp and pk, yup coach related.

Ignoring of the previous 2 series, you know, the ones we won, while portraying the loss in the conference final as some irrefutable evidence that Maurice is not a good coach is jokes to me.

The quality of the roster? That magical quality that magically appeared in this team from the get go, no coach required. Ahh the ignorance of this all.

Fyi, the reason we have quality players is because Maurice played a huge role in developing them. You understan he was coaching these players for year, and we saw considerable growth in all our draft picks. Not fairy dust, nope an actual coach helped develop them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Puckatron 3000

The Ugly Truth

Registered User
May 23, 2018
508
216
(I'm on my phone, so I'm not sure if the post quoting will work.)

The exercise of waiting for the end result, then asking why for partstge didnt


1. Why do all coaches play their top D 25 plus a night in playoffs. Why did we play him 25 plus in the Nashville series? Why did it work? Why did you not question his usage of Buff then? Why wait for losses to happen , then ask simplton why questions on the exact same usuage, just different results? Why?

You play your #1 D 25-30 minutes/game *if they can handle it*. At the beginning of the playoffs, Buff was fresh and could handle it. By the time of the Vegas series those heavy minutes were too much and his play suffered. A good coach would have recognized this, adjusted and cut his minutes down to a more manageable level.

2. Why not keep a player in your lineup that just helped you get through a 7 game series against the best team in the league? Why did you not question Toby’s usage in the Preds series? Why wait for a conference finals loss to question Maurice using Toby and not question it when he played him in the Preds series?

Enström has not been good for a while and was clearly injured all playoffs. I don't think he should have been played at all. At most a good coach would have given him sheltered 3rd pairing minutes. Players should be given roles based on current ability and fitness - not past performance and reputation.

3. Why did 2 other teams come out flat against the same team? Why do good teams fall behind other good teams in big games?

Coming out flat = poor preparation by players. Not responding to that = poor coaching.

4. Why not play your 4mill player in the biggest game of the season, when he is arguable your 2nd best lhd? Why would any coach not use that on the backend?

You don't play Kulikov in that situation because he hasn't played in weeks and is not game ready.

5. Why do you question the changes Maurice made in the lineup, then whine about him not changing things up? Why?lol

You don't make changes simply for the sake of making changes. The Game 5 changes looked like panic moves with little thought behind them.

6.Why didn’t he use the size advantage? Did he dress a team of vertically challenged players that inwas unaware of? Did he instruct the team to play small.

Jets needed to *play heavy* (like the Cup-winning Kings) agaist Vegas. Most of the players didn't get the message. Maurice needed to remind them.

7. Why? Did Maurice game plan to play slow and hold on to the puck? Do coaches not try to play fast and pass the puck? Do other teams try to stop this? Why do they do that, Why?

Again, Maurice needed to get the players to execute. If they couldn't he had options like changing the lines or the players on the ice. Insanity = doing the same thing over and over again + expecting a different result.

8.lol, see 7, all players were used, other team stopped zone entries by matching our speed.

A lot of the rushes died because after zone entry there was no one else moving to dish off to or to cycle with. Again this is Xs and Os level coaching that Maurice is responsinle for. Yes the players need to execute, but if they aren't executing the coach needs to adjust. Lowry, Copp and Armia were excellent on the forecheck and repeatedly wore down the Vegas D and support behind the net. More Jets could have continued this style. Again Maurice dictates this. Remember Jets Heavy Hockey™ from a few years ago? Would have won the series.

9. Why not pull a bunch of rookies with zero playoff experience, 1 NHL game unde their belt, and throw them into a conference final. Makes sense.

I'll take Niku over injured Enström.

10. Why?

Why wait till the results are known, then question the wrong while ignoring the things that went right?

Why dont all good coaches win every series they are in?

I'll at least try Lemieux for a game and see if the results change rather than keep doing something that isn't working.

Good coaches can lose, but they at least go down swinging and try to not get outcoached. They try to use their assets to the best of their ability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegr8one66

KingBogo

Admitted Homer
Nov 29, 2011
31,519
38,925
Winnipeg
(I'm on my phone, so I'm not sure if the post quoting will work.)



You play your #1 D 25-30 minutes/game *if they can handle it*. At the beginning of the playoffs, Buff was fresh and could handle it. By the time of the Vegas series those heavy minutes were too much and his play suffered. A good coach would have recognized this, adjusted and cut his minutes down to a more manageable level.



Enström has not been good for a while and was clearly injured all playoffs. I don't think he should have been played at all. At most a good coach would have given him sheltered 3rd pairing minutes. Players should be given roles based on current ability and fitness - not past performance and reputation.



Coming out flat = poor preparation by players. Not responding to that = poor coaching.



You don't play Kulikov in that situation because he hasn't played in weeks and is not game ready.



You don't make changes simply for the sake of making changes. The Game 5 changes looked like panic moves with little thought behind them.



Jets needed to *play heavy* (like the Cup-winning Kings) agaist Vegas. Most of the players didn't get the message. Maurice needed to remind them.



Again, Maurice needed to get the players to execute. If they couldn't he had options like changing the lines or the players on the ice. Insanity = doing the same thing over and over again + expecting a different result.



A lot of the rushes died because after zone entry there was no one else moving to dish off to or to cycle with. Again this is Xs and Os level coaching that Maurice is responsinle for. Yes the players need to execute, but if they aren't executing the coach needs to adjust. Lowry, Copp and Armia were excellent on the forecheck and repeatedly wore down the Vegas D and support behind the net. More Jets could have continued this style. Again Maurice dictates this. Remember Jets Heavy Hockey™ from a few years ago? Would have won the series.



I'll take Niku over injured Enström.



I'll at least try Lemieux for a game and see if the results change rather than keep doing something that isn't working.

Good coaches can lose, but they at least go down swinging and try to not get outcoached. They try to use their assets to the best of their ability.
Sorry man, but you completely undermine point #5 with point #9 and 10. I couldn't imagine bigger panic moves than playing a guy with 1 NHL game over your everyday player all season ready to come back from injury and a AHL player well down the depth chart that has only a handful of NHL games and no playoff experience.
 

Ducky10

Searching for Mark Scheifele
Nov 14, 2014
19,809
31,386
Seems Maurice having some success has rocked a few people's realities. The simple ugly truth is that some people just have difficulty being wrong. The straws being grasped at here are remarkable.

This series was not decided by coaching, it was decided by goaltending and a healthy dose of good/bad fortune mainly. Anyone who watched knows that.
 

Ducky10

Searching for Mark Scheifele
Nov 14, 2014
19,809
31,386
Sorry man, but you completely undermine point #5 with point #9 and 10. I couldn't imagine bigger panic moves than playing a guy with 1 NHL game over your everyday player all season ready to come back from injury and a AHL player well down the depth chart that has only a handful of NHL games and no playoff experience.
But it's super easy to talk in hypotheticals after the fact. Everything works in hindsight.
 

The Ugly Truth

Registered User
May 23, 2018
508
216
Sorry man, but you completely undermine point #5 with point #9 and 10. I couldn't imagine bigger panic moves than playing a guy with 1 NHL game over your everyday player all season ready to come back from injury and a AHL player well down the depth chart that has only a handful of NHL games and no playoff experience.

Have you gone to any Moose games this year? I have. From what I've seen I'll take my chances with a rookie Niku over the guy Maurice had playing with Enström's jersey on. Toby was a dumpster fire on ice. Every shift left you wondering how Vegas would beat him next. Buff must have felt like Trouba did when he was partnered with Stuart.

Kulikov clearly was not ready to come back Game 5.

And Lemieux plays exactly the style the Jets needed to play to beat Vegas. Worth trying him on the 4th line (8-10 minutes) for a game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jetfaninflorida

Positive

Enjoy your flight
May 4, 2007
6,142
1,457
Osborne Village in the 'Peg
Have you gone to any Moose games this year? I have. From what I've seen I'll take my chances with a rookie Niku over the guy Maurice had playing with Enström's jersey on. Toby was a dumpster fire on ice. Every shift left you wondering how Vegas would beat him next. Buff must have felt like Trouba did when he was partnered with Stuart.

Kulikov clearly was not ready to come back Game 5.

And Lemieux plays exactly the style the Jets needed to play to beat Vegas. Worth trying him on the 4th line (8-10 minutes) for a game.

Our AHL farm team got swept in the 2nd round of their playoff series. Yet these guys in your mind were the obvious choices to insert into our lineup in the WCF. Following two games where the Jets dominated in metrics and quality chances. Right.
 

The Ugly Truth

Registered User
May 23, 2018
508
216
Wait didn't the *play heavy* Kings get swept?

No, the "play heavy" Kings won 2 Stanley Cups. And who do you think has a better roster between the Cup-winning Kings teams, the 2017-18 Kings and the 2017-18 Jets? Ask a friend for help if you're not sure of the answer to that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegr8one66

Ducky10

Searching for Mark Scheifele
Nov 14, 2014
19,809
31,386
Pretty convenient to hold up the Kings "heavy" game as the model the Jets should have used to beat the Knights after the fact. The 8 other winners in the last 10 years are hardly what I'd call "heavy". I guess the teams they beat got it wrong as well.

That's a lot of bad coaching.
 

ffh

Registered User
Jul 16, 2016
8,362
5,073
No, the "play heavy" Kings won 2 Stanley Cups. And who do you think has a better roster between the Cup-winning Kings teams, the 2017-18 Kings and the 2017-18 Jets? Ask a friend for help if you're not sure of the answer to that one.
oilers tried that model last year. they have another lottery pick.
 

Saidin

Registered User
Mar 18, 2015
1,250
1,043
I'd probably be an amazing coach too if I had MAF playing god like goaltending. Or a shitty one if I lost to it...
 

Jets 31

This Dude loves the Jets and GIF's
Sponsor
Mar 3, 2015
21,860
61,304
Winnipeg
Come on people , give Maurice a little credit for this Jets team going farther than any other Jets team in History . Ultimately it doesn't matter because i guarantee Chevy and Chipman are over the moon happy with Maurice . The only way Maurice gets fired next year is if we start the year 0 and 20 . :laugh:
 

The Ugly Truth

Registered User
May 23, 2018
508
216
Our AHL farm team got swept in the 2nd round of their playoff series. Yet these guys in your mind were the obvious choices to insert into our lineup in the WCF. Following two games where the Jets dominated in metrics and quality chances. Right.

The Moose got swept because Comrie is a brutal goaltender. You would know that if you actually watched hockey.

If you don't think Niku and Lemieux were better options than some of the players Maurice put in the lineup then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Maurice is almost as bad as Babcock when it comes to playing underperforming veterans instead of younger deserving players. He might even have gotten away with it if Hellebuyck hadn't crapped the bed Pavelec-style.
 

surixon

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
48,709
69,035
Winnipeg
The Moose got swept because Comrie is a brutal goaltender. You would know that if you actually watched hockey.

If you don't think Niku and Lemieux were better options than some of the players Maurice put in the lineup then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Maurice is almost as bad as Babcock when it comes to playing underperforming veterans instead of younger deserving players. He might even have gotten away with it if Hellebuyck hadn't crapped the bed Pavelec-style.

Lemieux did not look particularly good in his stint with us last year. He also has a penchant for taking dumb penalties. He wouldn't have helped us at all imo.

Niku may have but inserting him in a must win game would have been putting him in a position to fail imo. Especially if he had a rough evening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Puckatron 3000

MrBoJangelz71

Registered User
Jan 14, 2014
4,948
5,987
(I'm on my phone, so I'm not sure if the post quoting will work.)



You play your #1 D 25-30 minutes/game *if they can handle it*. At the beginning of the playoffs, Buff was fresh and could handle it. By the time of the Vegas series those heavy minutes were too much and his play suffered. A good coach would have recognized this, adjusted and cut his minutes down to a more manageable level.



Enström has not been good for a while and was clearly injured all playoffs. I don't think he should have been played at all. At most a good coach would have given him sheltered 3rd pairing minutes. Players should be given roles based on current ability and fitness - not past performance and reputation.



Coming out flat = poor preparation by players. Not responding to that = poor coaching.



You don't play Kulikov in that situation because he hasn't played in weeks and is not game ready.



You don't make changes simply for the sake of making changes. The Game 5 changes looked like panic moves with little thought behind them.



Jets needed to *play heavy* (like the Cup-winning Kings) agaist Vegas. Most of the players didn't get the message. Maurice needed to remind them.



Again, Maurice needed to get the players to execute. If they couldn't he had options like changing the lines or the players on the ice. Insanity = doing the same thing over and over again + expecting a different result.



A lot of the rushes died because after zone entry there was no one else moving to dish off to or to cycle with. Again this is Xs and Os level coaching that Maurice is responsinle for. Yes the players need to execute, but if they aren't executing the coach needs to adjust. Lowry, Copp and Armia were excellent on the forecheck and repeatedly wore down the Vegas D and support behind the net. More Jets could have continued this style. Again Maurice dictates this. Remember Jets Heavy Hockey™ from a few years ago? Would have won the series.



I'll take Niku over injured Enström.



I'll at least try Lemieux for a game and see if the results change rather than keep doing something that isn't working.

Good coaches can lose, but they at least go down swinging and try to not get outcoached. They try to use their assets to the best of their ability.

Lol, he did go out swinging, changed the lineup, inserted players that you complained about. All you are doing here is using the end result as some sorta evidence that Maurice failed us.

You selectively questions aspects that did not go well, ignore the plethora of things that worked great, all after the fact. These are all questions that can be hurled at each and every one of the 14 other coaches that failed to make it to the finals.

There is nothing earth shattering that you are questioning either. You complain that Maurice didn't go out swinging, while you complain about the actual swings he took, like scratching 3 healthy players for game 7.

You have zero insight in to the things Maurice attempted to instill into that series, you do not know what plans he tried to execute, that might have failed at ground level by the players. Its a simpleton attempt at diminishing a great year, a great playoff run all the way to a conference finals.

These are factual reasons as to WHY Maurice is a very good coach, all based on the big picture, 82 games, 2 successful playoff series against very strong opponents, one being the best team in the league:

Making it to a conference finals is not an example of coaching incompetency, quite the opposite actually.

Getting past the Wild, and the Preds are examples of solid coaching.

Finishing 2nd in the entire league, through an 82 game sample, examples of great coaching

Finishing 2nd in the league in goals for, solid coaching

Finishing 5th in the league in goals against, solid coaching

Finishing 5th in the league in power play, yup solid coaching

Finishing 9th in the league in penalty kills, solid coaching.

Seeing young players improve each and every season, good coaching.


Your fist post of WHY's can be applied to every coach that has ever coached in a series and lost. They are revisionist questions by someone that knows the end result, a result that was the biggest achievement in this franchises history.

Maurice was and is a major reason for this success, and a bunch of silly why questions proves nothing more that hyperbolic nonsense.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Puckatron 3000

Ducky10

Searching for Mark Scheifele
Nov 14, 2014
19,809
31,386
The Moose got swept because Comrie is a brutal goaltender. You would know that if you actually watched hockey.

If you don't think Niku and Lemieux were better options than some of the players Maurice put in the lineup then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Maurice is almost as bad as Babcock when it comes to playing underperforming veterans instead of younger deserving players. He might even have gotten away with it if Hellebuyck hadn't crapped the bed Pavelec-style.
You pull out the "you would know that if you actually watched hockey" line and then proceed to tell everyone that this series would have been different with a different 12th forward and bottom pairing D-man?

Ok then, because that's why they lost :shakehead.
 

Board Bard

Dane-O-Mite
Jun 7, 2014
7,886
5,054
Pretty convenient to hold up the Kings "heavy" game as the model the Jets should have used to beat the Knights after the fact. The 8 other winners in the last 10 years are hardly what I'd call "heavy". I guess the teams they beat got it wrong as well.

That's a lot of bad coaching.

Unless I missed something, he referred to the Vegas series specifically, not the playoffs generally, when he said "Remember Jets Heavy Hockey™ from a few years ago? Would have won the series." I didn't see a lot of the Sharks series, but when I watched and the Sharks were ahead of Vegas, they were using the body consistently. Probably wouldn't have hurt the Jets to be more physical vs. Vegas. That's not the same as hitting a lot and skating slowly. Sharks were skating and hitting, and the Jets can arguably do both of those better than the Sharks. If the Jets went on to face the Caps, they likely would have benefitted from the body again. Against the Bolts it would have probably been less of a thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ugly Truth

Weezeric

Registered User
Jan 27, 2015
4,467
6,526
Unless I missed something, he referred to the Vegas series specifically, not the playoffs generally, when he said "Remember Jets Heavy Hockey™ from a few years ago? Would have won the series." I didn't see a lot of the Sharks series, but when I watched and the Sharks were ahead of Vegas, they were using the body consistently. Probably wouldn't have hurt the Jets to be more physical vs. Vegas. That's not the same as hitting a lot and skating slowly. Sharks were skating and hitting, and the Jets can arguably do both of those better than the Sharks. If the Jets went on to face the Caps, they likely would have benefitted from the body again. Against the Bolts it would have probably been less of a thing.

Ya, clearly Maurice is a fool for not looking to emulate the sharks play in a series they got destroyed in....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->