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

[Adam da bomb]

^ I get that sentiment, but it's somewhat undercut when you lose to a first year expansion team.

Yes, but, lots of teams have lost to this first year expansion team. If Washington loses to Vegas can we say that they had lousy coaching and that their progress they made going to the finals is useless? In Washington's case, it's alot worse because Ovie is old and probably won't get a second kick at the can.

 

[Duke749]

Oh good grief...

 

[Ducky10]

Maurice is a good coacb, not a great coach. Great coaches are a myth.

Find me a coach that does everything everyone agrees with, they don't exist.

The vast majority of criticism Maurice gets has no actual substance, it's simple second guessing and the evidence offered up is nothing but speculation. It's opinion based, which is fine, but too often passed off as fact.

Honestly, if someone has an issue with how the Jets played this season in the big picture, you'd really have to think they were watching the wrong team.

 

[Jaytee]

The list of Jets and Bombers coaches that people on their forums have complained about, constantly and non-stop, includes ALL OF THEM!

Too many people seem to be labouring under the ludicrous impression that every mistake the team makes on the ice is a mistake that a good coach would have/could have/should have prevented. That's not the way sports (or anything else) works.

Whether or not history eventually judges him to have been a "good" or "bad" coach, it is highly doubtful that the Jets would have performed any better this past year than they did with Paul Maurice as their coach.

 

[Board Bard]

The list of Jets and Bombers coaches that people on their forums have complained about, constantly and non-stop, includes ALL OF THEM!

Too many people seem to be labouring under the ludicrous impression that every mistake the team makes on the ice is a mistake that a good coach would have/could have/should have prevented. That's not the way sports (or anything else) works.

Whether or not history eventually judges him to have been a "good" or "bad" coach, it is highly doubtful that the Jets would have performed any better this past year than they did with Paul Maurice as their coach.

Sorry, can't agree. IMO the Jets would have done better with a good coach.

 

[Ducky10]

The list of Jets and Bombers coaches that people on their forums have complained about, constantly and non-stop, includes ALL OF THEM!

Too many people seem to be labouring under the ludicrous impression that every mistake the team makes on the ice is a mistake that a good coach would have/could have/should have prevented. That's not the way sports (or anything else) works.

Whether or not history eventually judges him to have been a "good" or "bad" coach, it is highly doubtful that the Jets would have performed any better this past year than they did with Paul Maurice as their coach.

Agreed, franchise record in wins, 2nd overall, Conference finalists, top 5 and top 10 team in most key statistical areas. All with a very young team.

If you don't believe that's good coaching, then I suppose purple unicorns might be more your thing.

 

[LowLefty]

Seemingly some people think Paul Maurice is a great coach and extremely capable especially when he coached an extremely potent NHL team to conference finals, but I'm certainly not one of those people. Sadly the good old saying what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas doesn't really apply what comes down to Stanley Cup. He got really exposed there and still has a long journey ahead of him with lots of things to learn to be a solid anchor for any team that is contending for the Cup.

Wrong. The question is why would you radically reduce Laine's minutes in the begin with. There's a lot more to his game than just the goal scoring. Seems a lot of fans seem to just focus on what his goal totals are, but it was never his shooting ability that carried him to early teenage success in and outside the NHL. Most of the credit goes to having top notch hockey sense and IQ in general. Scoring 36 goals as an 18 year old when missing 9 games and while being physically still extremely raw, isn't something that can be accomplished only by having an elite shooting arsenal. That's not to say he didn't or still doesn't have areas to evolve in. All the youngsters, no matter how gifted make no exception to the rule.

Yeah I've certainly heard the good old conjectures of having to learn all these "new things" being thrown around just in order to make sense to how oddly he was utilized, especially in the first half of the season. First of all, how would it help player to develop better by playing less minutes in his sophomore year than in his rookie year (doesn't just apply to Laine but every other youngster out there)? That just makes absolutely zero sense. Secondly why would any good coach want to expose that player to his weaknesses by playing him with a center that he just cannot find any frequency with? Why not let that youngster get better in the rink by just playing hockey and try aid him as opposed to make things more difficult? There was absolutely no need to try force him to drive a line when he clearly didn't even have the foot speed nor the agility needed to be the playmaker and the goal scorer at the same time. To me these things don't really sound like an ideal way to make someone any better and there certainly was no real need to rush him to excel at every single aspect of the game particularly when it clearly wasn't producing any notable results in 5 vs 5 game. There are plenty of more conventional ways of developing a player (like finding more ideal support cast rather than forcing him to become something he clearly yet wasn't ready). Furthermore aside from the dysfunctional line, for a rookie entering NHL and immediately of the gates finishing in top 5 in goals per game, I simply cannot remember any other even remotely similar instances in the recent history where the coach just decides that the most optimal course for maximum benefit is to cut that player's ice time and have him play quite a large number of 12-13 or 13-14/min matches - a player who's already shown an extra ordinary capability at the highest possible league in the hockey.

No, it really wasn't the "Little or ELL experiment" that made Laine the player he was in the last half of the season, but simply having someone that he could work with and that someone (Stastny) didn't even have to be anything truly special. Lets not forget that both Laine's and Ehler's games looked entirely different even when Little was replaced by Andrew friggin Copp, who certainly isn't a top six center.

Laine would never had even made it to FEL at 15-16 if he did not show commitment to playing defence. He wasn't neglecting these duties and I really don't know where you even came up with the idea (a badly misjudged assumption I would presume). FEL is a professional league and they they don't promote kids from the JrA unless they think those teenagers can be useful and help the team compete. The goal is to win the trophy just like in NHL. All of the youngsters that are brought in to play at pro level are pretty much required to at least try do their best at both ends of the rink and they are being guided along the way. You can count with one or two finger the number of teams that do take in gifted players by promising and providing them an opportunity to play at professional level even when they are not ready. Yet these are exceptions and Tappara certainly doesn't work this way as they are one of the best teams in the league. Anyway, Laine was never the type of a player who's been cheating with defence. Quite the opposite actually, as we could see in the playoffs this year. This whole "learning to play defence" and pointing out to last season's defensive complications in the Jets is a byproduct of the discussion boards. Those difficulties went far beyond one single player and are just tossed around whenever trying to provide excuses for poor player utilization.

Why did I raise the question? When someone's observations differ this much from not only my opinion and assessments but also what other fans have noted, obviously the first thing that comes into mind is perhaps the person hasn't been watching the same games or hasn't tuned in as regularly. And for the record, apart from one game I didn't miss a beat either. Nonetheless, I suppose it would be quite boring if there was no variance in the individual analysis as that would mean there would be less things to discuss about.

I disagree.

 

[Peggy]

Maurice is a good coacb, not a great coach. Great coaches are a myth.

Find me a coach that does everything everyone agrees with, they don't exist.

The vast majority of criticism Maurice gets has no actual substance, it's simple second guessing and the evidence offered up is nothing but speculation. It's opinion based, which is fine, but too often passed off as fact.

Honestly, if someone has an issue with how the Jets played this season in the big picture, you'd really have to think they were watching the wrong team.

I did actually have a problem with how Maurice never figured out what to do with little laine and ehlers for 2/3 of the season.

 

[Peggy]

Agreed, franchise record in wins, 2nd overall, Conference finalists, top 5 and top 10 team in most key statistical areas. All with a very young team.

If you don't believe that's good coaching, then I suppose purple unicorns might be more your thing.

it's also just a really good team. I'm sure there's coaches out there who could do the same thing and better

 

[tbcwpg]

You realize that to score 3 goals against .950 goaltending you'd need 60 shots a game, right?

You'd have to outshoot a team by a margin of >2:1 or get goaltending >.950 to beat a team that's gets .950 from their goalie. That's the facts.

Hey facts don't belong in a thread about Maurice when we can just call for his head instead.

 

[Ducky10]

it's also just a really good team. I'm sure there's coaches out there who could do the same thing and better

You could say that about the coach of any good team.

 

[kelsier]

I disagree.

That's not the first and certainly not the last time, but by all means alright. Everyone are entitled to their own views and analysis.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

A lot of action In and around MAF and his crease (some subtle, some not so subtle - Smith-Pelly) turns him into a good goalie as opposed to Superman. That and forcing more lateral movement. Lots of really heavy hitting has thrown Vegas skaters off their game.

Gallant sure is hoping that Maurice has a long leash since the teams are likely to meet again and Maurice can't figure this stuff out. His answer in all situations seems to be 'simple game' and 'be quicker' which played right into Vegas' strength.

 

[kelsier]

This whole post was about Laine not about the usage or how he coached any other player. Mo has to manage more than one player. Second of all, I think another major weakness in this essay is that you say that people are calling Mo a "great coach". I doubt if people are saying he is a great coach, just not a bad coach. As I see it the argument is between the people on here who think Mo is a ****ty coach who has to go and is the sole reason the Jets aren't in the finals and the people who say that Mo is not the reason why the Jets lost to Vegas. No one is saying Maurice is the new Scotty Bowman.

Of course it was. The person I was quoting inquired examples of Laine's usage and the entire discussion shifted into a that direction. Yeah, the topic was derailed (although a lot of it still was about P. Maurice) but that's just another casual day at the hfboards.

Some people have openly said they think P.Mo is a great coach. We are not talking about a consensus verdict and I never claimed anything of the kind. Of course he's not a sole reason the team did not make the finals, but should we compile a list of members in the organization who had the biggest influence to the outcome and narrowed it down, I would bet a hundred bucks that his name would pop up on the result sheets. I do think he made some mistakes along the way and they may have cost the team a spot at the finals. As we are often talking about youngsters who are not quite there yet, I would say the same applies to Maurice. There's a learning curve for everything, especially if you don't have much experience of doing something.

At the end of the day, it's difficult to say we lost to a better team when you look at each roster on the paper. This is hockey however and anything can happen. Anyway, reaching the conference finals is a great feat no matter what. I have faith in the organization and the next time it could be Jets' turn to be in the finals competing for the Cup. Hats off to Vegas though, what they are doing is unprecedented.

 

[tbcwpg]

A lot of action In and around MAF and his crease (some subtle, some not so subtle - Smith-Pelly) turns him into a good goalie as opposed to Superman. That and forcing more lateral movement. Lots of really heavy hitting has thrown Vegas skaters off their game.

Gallant sure is hoping that Maurice has a long leash since the teams are likely to meet again and Maurice can't figure this stuff out. His answer in all situations seems to be 'simple game' and 'be quicker' which played right into Vegas' strength.

So the hierarchy is Trotz > Gallant > Maurice > Laviolette > Boudreau ?

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

So the hierarchy is Trotz > Gallant > Maurice > Laviolette > Boudreau ?

What the Capitals are doing to throw MAF and Vegas off their game is pretty elementary. Doesn't take a genius, but maybe too much for a mediocre coach who has never actually won anything ever.(Consolation prize doesn't count as winning). Even in his pre NHL coaching days his teams would inevitably lose the big game even when they were favored to win.

Edit: Added here (posted elsewhere). I am not saying Maurice is 100% responsible - the guys need to execute. But from a strategy/game plan perspective he was pretty one dimensional which was a weak link in terms of maximizing our probability of success.

 

[Duke749]

Boy some people really want to go wayyyy out of their way to blame Maurice for our losing.

 

[Weezeric]

What the Capitals are doing to throw MAF and Vegas off their game is pretty elementary. Doesn't take a genius, but maybe too much for a mediocre coach who has never actually won anything ever.(Consolation prize doesn't count as winning). Even in his pre NHL coaching days his teams would inevitably lose the big game even when they were favored to win.

Are you talking about Barry trotz? The coach who could never get past the second round until this year???

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Are you talking about Barry trotz? The coach who could never get past the second round until this year???

Exactly my point. It doesn't take a genius (Barry Trotz ain't no coaching genius) to figure out what might throw off MAF and Vegas from their A game. Our answer seemed to always be 'simple game' and 'be quicker' which played straight into Vegas' strengths. Until the elimination game, where our guy decided not to adjust on ice strategy, but to put in three guys who hadn't played in quite a while. In one case a really really really long while.

 

[Whileee]

So the hierarchy is Trotz > Gallant > Maurice > Laviolette > Boudreau ?

Gallant's NHL coaching record prior to this season...

152-142-30

 

[Whileee]

Maurice with Jets: 188-132-43
Babcock with Leafs: 118-95-33

 

[Weezeric]

Exactly my point. It doesn't take a genius (Barry Trotz ain't no coaching genius) to figure out what might throw off MAF and Vegas from their A game. Our answer seemed to always be 'simple game' and 'be quicker' which played straight into Vegas' strengths. Until the elimination game, where our guy decided not to adjust on ice strategy, but to put in three guys who hadn't played in quite a while. In one case a really really really long while.

It's almost as if there's very little difference between any NHL coach and it's mostly on the execution of the players..

 

[Eyeseeing]

It's almost as if there's very little difference between any NHL coach and it's mostly on the execution of the players..

That’s a great idea.... execution of players
Cuts down on mistakes

 

[tbcwpg]

What the Capitals are doing to throw MAF and Vegas off their game is pretty elementary. Doesn't take a genius, but maybe too much for a mediocre coach who has never actually won anything ever.(Consolation prize doesn't count as winning). Even in his pre NHL coaching days his teams would inevitably lose the big game even when they were favored to win.

Edit: Added here (posted elsewhere). I am not saying Maurice is 100% responsible - the guys need to execute. But from a strategy/game plan perspective he was pretty one dimensional which was a weak link in terms of maximizing our probability of success.

No, you're right, a plan that got them 114 points and win two rounds in the playoffs should've been abandoned immediately, in favour of a generic "get the goalie to.move side to side" strategy that every hockey player ever is taught when they're 9 and every NHL shooter tries to do.

They tried to get Fleury from side to side, but they were checked really tightly and, when they could get shots off, Fleury made unbelievable saves. Hellebuyck let in some timely ones. That's the difference. Just because Washington is winning and the Jets didn't doesn't validate your theory that peewee hockey strategy eluded the coach.

 

[LowLefty]

it's also just a really good team. I'm sure there's coaches out there who could do the same thing and better

Also a very young team - we forget that sometimes
Some are assuming we should have killed Vegas TY with our talent regardless of how young and inexperienced they are.
That makes zero sense to me.

I give Mo credit for working with the youngsters over the past 2 seasons and finishing 2nd over all TY - not bad considering where we've finished in prior seasons.

Now we get our first taste of a playoff run and we learn some more - maybe we go a little further next year based on that experience. No reason that can't happen based on what was accomplished TY

To throw out other options after the fact, is really quite unfair IMO - sure we might have gone further with another coach.
And we might have missed the PO's all together for all we know. I'd like to look at more than the Vegas series when evaluating Maurice -
I'd have to call it a long leash.