Peter DeBoer after McLellan

[No1Joker]

Hey guys, i dont watch alot of Sharks games, but im really curious after the DeBoer signing i remember there were some posts why hire this guy after McLellan. And i know it might be better to ask this question after the season but so far what do you think about DeBoer so far and has he brought something new to Sharks?

Is the playstyle similar with McLellan Sharks/DeBoer Sharks, core is the same but ofcourse some new additions like Donskoi, Karlsson etc.

Difference with mental toughness, slower start to regular season and trying to get the best possible peak performance at the playoffs instead of regular season? Forecheck? Line Rotations? Different pizza?


TL;DR: What is the difference between DeBoer Sharks and McLellan Sharks?

Click to read more...

 

[ThisIsDream]

The main differences I've seen is how he utilizes all 4 lines and how he always preaches forecheck/pressure throughout the game. If you remember the past few years, when the Sharks would have a lead, you would see them play ultra-defensive and a lot of the times the other team would score. Quite the opposite for DeBoer

 

[spintheblackcircle]

TMac also used the big guys on the PK much more than DeBoer. Joe/Marleau/Couture/Pavs averaged more than 4 minutes per game combined on the PK last year. This year, they are under 2 minutes a game. I think that has saved their legs.

 

[hohosaregood]

Defense is much more proactive in the defensive zone and offensive zone. Lots more breakouts initiated by the defense via passing and skating and lots more jumping into the play in the offensive zone.

The team plays at a higher tempo now too. Last couple years with McLellan was so boring, that I fell asleep a couple times watching the game cuz it couldn't keep my attention.

 

[DG93]

TMac also used the big guys on the PK much more than DeBoer. Joe/Marleau/Couture/Pavs averaged more than 4 minutes per game combined on the PK last year. This year, they are under 2 minutes a game. I think that has saved their legs.

Definitely agree with this...I don't think Jumbo is ever used on the PK, and Pavs is only used if one of the key PKers (Tierney, Karlsson, Ward, Wingels, etc.) is in the box. So most of those 2 minutes come from Couture and I guess Patty.

 

[68 Z-28]

One thing that's been a nice surprise with Deboer is his in game adjustments, he actually makes them.


Also, I remember reading people talking about Deboer not doing well with the rookies/younger guys and that seems to not be an issue.

 

[Timo Time]

Posted this in the PGT for Game One.

I think where the biggest difference I've noticed between Pete and TMac this season is Pete doesn't let his emotion boil over. It seemed TMac from time to time would get too heated at blown calls, missed calls, etc. and would fire up (too much) the guys and they'd start playing out of anger and retribution. That can lead to playing reckless. I'm not attributing that to stupid penalties necessarily but rather they'd start playing a system that wasn't cohesive with the game plan to beat anyone. Pete kinda just says, okay they got a bad break now go get it back.

TMac seemed to have an issue not only with maintaining his emotion but seemed to call out individual players for a mistake. Pete let's them play through it more often than not and puts a lot more trust in the players for holding themselves accountable. TMac was like the dad that'd put you on timeout and DeBoer is the dad that makes you learn from your mistakes by continuing to push you.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

One thing that's been a nice surprise with Deboer is his in game adjustments, he actually makes them.


Also, I remember reading people talking about Deboer not doing well with the rookies/younger guys and that seems to not be an issue.

That's just the HF go to excuse for young players that struggle adapting to the NHL. Never the player, always the coach.

 

[LeeIFBB]

Less of a pro-cess under Deboer.

 

[Juxtaposer]

My opinion:

1. DeBoer puts more emphasis on skilled plays. McLellan, while it was very effective at times, was much more gung-ho about dump and chase. This could be confirmation bias, but I feel like we have a lot more controlled entries into the offensive zone. I feel like we don't just make the safe play all the time. I feel like we hold onto the puck under pressure instead of dumping it off to our teammate in a jam. Perhaps this has something to do with personnel changes (Ward, Martin, Donskoi, improvements by Hertl).

2. DeBoer doesn't focus on line-matching. He really just rolls his lines most of the time. TMac was pretty obsessive about matchups. I admit, at times I get frustrated with DeBoer's refusal to hard-match against certain lines, but if it works it works.

3. DeBoer is willing to deploy his best offensive players in offensive situations, whereas Todd wanted his best players playing the absolute toughest minutes. I think both strategies have merit. Personally, I like Pete putting the Thornton line out there for most offensive draws. I think that maximizes their offensive ability. I hated when Todd would give Couture and Marleau 35% ozone starts and then give Desjardins 60% ozone starts. I totally get wanting to shelter your weaker lines, but at the same time it makes it much more difficult to score. Perhaps this works better with Pete because we actually have a good 4th line, much better than any fourth line we had under Todd.

4. We no longer do the "throw everything at the net" thing we used to do. I believe we get more quality scoring chances now.

5. We are more structured defensively, I think, but I also think Todd never had a defense that was this good.


Overall, I think both are good coaches and I do like Todd a lot. It was just time for a change.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Definitely agree with this...I don't think Jumbo is ever used on the PK, and Pavs is only used if one of the key PKers (Tierney, Karlsson, Ward, Wingels, etc.) is in the box. So most of those 2 minutes come from Couture and I guess Patty.

More than anything, DeBoer gives his big guns rest...whether it is easier minutes, less PK time, or fewer practices, DeBoer rides his big guns (older player) much less. We have this from the horse's mouth, as JT gave the increased rest as a big reason for his improved play.

One thing that's been a nice surprise with Deboer is his in game adjustments, he actually makes them.

Maybe...T-Mac was no stranger to juggling lines. I do think part of it is on the players. Deboer has some very versatile players that TMac didn't have; after all, it is up to the players to execute. Players like Donskoi and Ward have found success with just about anybody, and there are a couple of guys who can play different styles of hockey.

Posted this in the PGT for Game One.

I think where the biggest difference I've noticed between Pete and TMac this season is Pete doesn't let his emotion boil over. It seemed TMac from time to time would get too heated at blown calls, missed calls, etc. and would fire up (too much) the guys and they'd start playing out of anger and retribution. That can lead to playing reckless. I'm not attributing that to stupid penalties necessarily but rather they'd start playing a system that wasn't cohesive with the game plan to beat anyone. Pete kinda just says, okay they got a bad break now go get it back.

TMac seemed to have an issue not only with maintaining his emotion but seemed to call out individual players for a mistake. Pete let's them play through it more often than not and puts a lot more trust in the players for holding themselves accountable. TMac was like the dad that'd put you on timeout and DeBoer is the dad that makes you learn from your mistakes by continuing to push you.

Well, this is a bit unfair. You are making your judgement of TMac based on 6+ years of seeing him behind the bench, much of which was during the playoffs when his team was struggling. With Deboer...it is one year of RS play, followed by a half-series where his team has been up. He definitely got "flustered" during his time in New Jersey. Let us be careful not to let narrative dictate the truth.

That's just the HF go to excuse for young players that struggle adapting to the NHL. Never the player, always the coach.

Exactly.

My opinion:

1. DeBoer puts more emphasis on skilled plays. McLellan, while it was very effective at times, was much more gung-ho about dump and chase. This could be confirmation bias, but I feel like we have a lot more controlled entries into the offensive zone. I feel like we don't just make the safe play all the time. I feel like we hold onto the puck under pressure instead of dumping it off to our teammate in a jam. Perhaps this has something to do with personnel changes (Ward, Martin, Donskoi, improvements by Hertl).

2. DeBoer doesn't focus on line-matching. He really just rolls his lines most of the time. TMac was pretty obsessive about matchups. I admit, at times I get frustrated with DeBoer's refusal to hard-match against certain lines, but if it works it works.

3. DeBoer is willing to deploy his best offensive players in offensive situations, whereas Todd wanted his best players playing the absolute toughest minutes. I think both strategies have merit. Personally, I like Pete putting the Thornton line out there for most offensive draws. I think that maximizes their offensive ability. I hated when Todd would give Couture and Marleau 35% ozone starts and then give Desjardins 60% ozone starts. I totally get wanting to shelter your weaker lines, but at the same time it makes it much more difficult to score. Perhaps this works better with Pete because we actually have a good 4th line, much better than any fourth line we had under Todd.

4. We no longer do the "throw everything at the net" thing we used to do. I believe we get more quality scoring chances now.

5. We are more structured defensively, I think, but I also think Todd never had a defense that was this good.


Overall, I think both are good coaches and I do like Todd a lot. It was just time for a change.

Agreed on most counts. However, how much of it is different personnel and not ideologies? After all, in 2014, the players admitted that TMac was giving them instructions, and they just weren't following it. At the beginning of the 2014 RS and the first two games of the playoffs, the Sharks were playing a very aggressive style of hockey (not "throw everything at the net") that worked really well. The players just didn't adhere to that system/mentality.

 

[stator]

TMac style was more of a better offense is a defensive strategy. He never seemed concern about opponents taking the first shot, but controlling the puck from the blocked shot and exit the zone fast with good passes.

This strategy didn't seem to work well with Niemi and Stalock as goaltenders, and became more difficult without Dan Boyle who was, arguable the best at exiting the zone among the dmen.

It was certainly a strategy that got the team into the playoffs, but at the elite level of playoff play, I don't think it worked out well. There too many physical players with speed that are going all out in the playoffs.

We saw this with Vancouver in one season where they eliminated the Sharks in 4 straight by using a strong forecheck in the Sharks' defensive zone and distrupting Sharks' ability to exit the zone for the track meet style of TMac. IIRC, Vancouver did not adjust to the Kings in the next round and tried the same strategy which the Kings demolished.

DeBoer's style is that all skaters plays the full 60' lenght of ice, and contribute for all three zones. So we end up comparing TMac's last playoff in round one agains the same team for DeBoer's first playoff appearance as a Sharks coach. The two Sharks teams are very different with much of the same players.

The guy that stepped up in the off season is Doug Wilson. We hounded him to no end during the 2nd half of last season all the way to the start of this season. He responded well. Therefore, I've reached the conclusion that we should hound Doug during every off-season.

 

[WTFetus]

No Woodcroft.

 

[DonskoiDonscored]

No Woodcroft.

While Woodcroft may have been a part of the coaching problem, we can't place all of the blame on him.

I sometimes wonder how good of a coach Larry Robinson actually was.

 

[Diehardsharks408]

TMac style was more of a better offense is a defensive strategy. He never seemed concern about opponents taking the first shot, but controlling the puck from the blocked shot and exit the zone fast with good passes.

This strategy didn't seem to work well with Niemi and Stalock as goaltenders, and became more difficult without Dan Boyle who was, arguable the best at exiting the zone among the dmen.

It was certainly a strategy that got the team into the playoffs, but at the elite level of playoff play, I don't think it worked out well. There too many physical players with speed that are going all out in the playoffs.

We saw this with Vancouver in one season where they eliminated the Sharks in 4 straight by using a strong forecheck in the Sharks' defensive zone and distrupting Sharks' ability to exit the zone for the track meet style of TMac. IIRC, Vancouver did not adjust to the Kings in the next round and tried the same strategy which the Kings demolished.

DeBoer's style is that all skaters plays the full 60' lenght of ice, and contribute for all three zones. So we end up comparing TMac's last playoff in round one agains the same team for DeBoer's first playoff appearance as a Sharks coach. The two Sharks teams are very different with much of the same players.

The guy that stepped up in the off season is Doug Wilson. We hounded him to no end during the 2nd half of last season all the way to the start of this season. He responded well. Therefore, I've reached the conclusion that we should hound Doug during every off-season.

I don't recall ever getting swept by Vancouver, we lost in 5 in the WCF years back and then we swept them in the 1st round in 2013.

 

[Linkster]

10 new players, 4-line rotation, bottom-6 PK.

DeBoer input with DW on signings like Zubrus.

DeBoer's 3rd period bench-shortening in the regular season got more effective after Couture returned.

Powerplay not special without Couture in November / December; something obviously clicked between Game 3 and Game 4 vs LA.

 

[The Ice Hockey Dude]

I will add that TMac wanted to play "fast" which meant pass it up quick, transition quick with a softer fore-check. While PDB does also his pressure focus (sticks on sticks and body on body softly) creates way more turn overs, more speed cycling and offensive zone possession time overall with more creativity for skill players who must love playing for this guy...

PDB rolls 4 lines because he and DW worked together to get more team depth that can play the system and contribute, mostly more points here to DW than PDB.

 

[SactoShark]

Skimming through the list of gripes about Todd's management, I don't disagree, but I think they also echo the depth issues we've also been hollering about past teams. Both coaches had to play the hand dealt, and Pete's probably had one of the better looking hands.

I dunno. This talk is so premature. Todd went to the WCF twice in a row. Sharks are still in the first round.

 

[Sleepy]

1) Burns to D was a big win
2) Reducing JT's PK time was a big win
3) Less low-percentage unscreened shots from the point, more shots with traffic (again, Burns on D helps)
4) More movement. The Sharks are more fluid in the offensive zone. D-men aren't afraid to jump in (even ones not named Burns).
5) Less predictable. Maybe it's because it's a new system, but after 6 years of Todd I could predict where the next 2 passes in the offensive zone were headed, especially on the powerplay. If a putz like me could do it, I'm sure NHL teams could too over a 7 game series.

 

[WTFetus]

While Woodcroft may have been a part of the coaching problem, we can't place all of the blame on him.

I sometimes wonder how good of a coach Larry Robinson actually was.

It was tongue-in-cheek. I hated Woodcroft, disliked McLellan and Robinson, and was ambivalent towards Johnson.

 

[SactoShark]

It was tongue-in-cheek. I hated Woodcroft, disliked McLellan and Robinson, and was ambivalent towards Johnson.

Tongue in cheek? Look at what Woody did to the poor Oilors.

 

[Eighth Fret]

My opinion:

1. DeBoer puts more emphasis on skilled plays. McLellan, while it was very effective at times, was much more gung-ho about dump and chase. This could be confirmation bias, but I feel like we have a lot more controlled entries into the offensive zone. I feel like we don't just make the safe play all the time. I feel like we hold onto the puck under pressure instead of dumping it off to our teammate in a jam. Perhaps this has something to do with personnel changes (Ward, Martin, Donskoi, improvements by Hertl).

2. DeBoer doesn't focus on line-matching. He really just rolls his lines most of the time. TMac was pretty obsessive about matchups. I admit, at times I get frustrated with DeBoer's refusal to hard-match against certain lines, but if it works it works.

3. DeBoer is willing to deploy his best offensive players in offensive situations, whereas Todd wanted his best players playing the absolute toughest minutes. I think both strategies have merit. Personally, I like Pete putting the Thornton line out there for most offensive draws. I think that maximizes their offensive ability. I hated when Todd would give Couture and Marleau 35% ozone starts and then give Desjardins 60% ozone starts. I totally get wanting to shelter your weaker lines, but at the same time it makes it much more difficult to score. Perhaps this works better with Pete because we actually have a good 4th line, much better than any fourth line we had under Todd.

4. We no longer do the "throw everything at the net" thing we used to do. I believe we get more quality scoring chances now.

5. We are more structured defensively, I think, but I also think Todd never had a defense that was this good.


Overall, I think both are good coaches and I do like Todd a lot. It was just time for a change.

Agreed on all counts. Defense is both more structured and more aggressive.

The biggest difference imo has been zone entries. Watching a Shark skate the puck into the offensive zone has been making me misty after fantasizing about such things for the last three years. This directly feeds into their ability to set up in the o-zone, which leads to better puck movement, and consequently more high danger opportunities.

 

[Hold the Pickles]

T-macs system seemed too rigid or regimented at least for us. It required everyone to be on the same page, or more-so even the same paragraph to be effective. I think it stifled our creativity and the preaching/instructions became easier and easier to tune out.

 

[Barrie22]

T-macs system seemed too rigid or regimented at least for us. It required everyone to be on the same page, or more-so even the same paragraph to be effective. I think it stifled our creativity and the preaching/instructions became easier and easier to tune out.

That is my thought winning teams players do not tune the coach out unless there is a major reason behind it. When coming to the hockey rink even for professional players become to much like work, then they are no longer going to want to show up.

 

[KarlssonsGroin]

I don't recall ever getting swept by Vancouver, we lost in 5 in the WCF years back and then we swept them in the 1st round in 2013.

I'm thinking he meant STL in 2012 which might as well of been a sweep