Winnipeg Jets Prospect Thread (Part XIII)

[jetkarma*]

Sounds like you've seen him play a lot this year, who have his line mates been for the most part? Where is his scoring coming from? PP, EV?

I haven't seen that many games as I would like but have been able to follow his season and have heard from others on how he's played.

One of the pluses he has is he plays in all situations , almost always starts the game , plays PP and PK as well and gets points from all three situations. That's part of his strength as a player , the 200 foot game , being well rounded and his competitiveness and the pace he plays at. He's a plus skater and thinks the game well and quickly which results in him being noted for the pace of his play.

He's played with Motte a fair bit and Calderone and Compher as well .

 

[truck]

aye, hence the concern...

Who knows though... maybe he is a PP goal scoring specialist but hasn't gotten PP time until this season?

You never know.

The weird numbers go both ways too. While his PP goal totals are likely unsustainably high, his PP assist numbers are likely unsustainably low. I have no clue where the numbers "should" land, but I almost always bet against the sustainability of near record setting numbers.

Nothing about that says anything about what he is or isn't as a prospect, all I'm saying is I'm not sure I buy the sustainability of the goal powerplay production or goal assist ratio.

 

[alchemyindex]

If Petan's game translates well enough that he is an effective NHL scorer, some here won't like it but, he pushes Lowry down a line or to the wing. Again if he becomes an NHL regular he will likely have to be effective in the vein of Ennis, St Louis, Roy, etc. those are/were way better players than either Lowry or Copp project to be so he takes one of those spots (or he could potentially just move to the wing because he can and Scheifele + Little are better C's)

I'm very okay with this. I wasn't a Lowry believer before this year, but he definitely made me change my mind! Love having him on the team.

But it's my opinion that a team deep enough to make some noise in the playoffs (a la LA Kings the last couple of years) has Lowry centering the 4th line, or on the wing. If Petan can make his game work then he's the type of skill we need.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

If Petan's game translates well enough that he is an effective NHL scorer, some here won't like it but, he pushes Lowry down a line or to the wing. Again if he becomes an NHL regular he will likely have to be effective in the vein of Ennis, St Louis, Roy, etc. those are/were way better players than either Lowry or Copp project to be so he takes one of those spots (or he could potentially just move to the wing because he can and Scheifele + Little are better C's)

That's my point. I think he is more likely to make the team on a wing.

Honestly, except for Slater I think we are pretty solid at C for the foreseeable future. I don't think a 4C to replace Slater should be all that hard to find. Copp might be it. I think Lowry is too good for the job, or will be. Copp may also be overqualified in which case we have one of those 'good to have' problems.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think NHL coaching structure in general is setup for failure. Command & control management is inefficient as it puts too much control with a single person. Why the HC by default has final say on all coaching related decisions is asking for trouble at this level. When coaches display the same flaws in strategy or tactics or management or all the above, why keep giving them say over these things if they don't improve them? It's a pretty bizarre field to be in.

I've often wondered that as well, I guess the default response would be that "too many cooks in the kitchen" isn't a good thing either. I agree though, very strange field.

That quote is a non sequitur. A team of experts each have a role, i.e. they aren't all cooks.

How do you know how much control Maurice keeps and how much he delegates to his assitants? Somebody has to have final say in the end. There is a whole staff involved in most decisions IMO

This. The HC gets inputs from a whole staff. He then makes the final decision based on their advice. Coaching by a committee would be a disaster.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Then why not ask me to clarify or expand? It's obvious big league coaches make the same mistakes over and over. Why does their job remain the same? Why are they given control over things they've demonstrated a lack of proficiency at?

OK, I'm baffled. What do you suggest? How do you want to decide who plays and who does not?

 

[truck]

Jimmy Lodge returned to action today and put up 2A

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Jimmy Lodge returned to action today and put up 2A

Do you know if there's been any clarification about the suspension he received?

 

[jetkarma*]

Sounds like you've seen him play a lot this year, who have his line mates been for the most part? Where is his scoring coming from? PP, EV?

Copp is back today and starting with Kile and Compher.

 

[pucka lucka]

OK, I'm baffled. What do you suggest? How do you want to decide who plays and who does not?

I sorry that you are baffled. You can't imagine how who decides to play would work? I don't know if you are serious.

Maybe you haven't worked as a team of experts before? Why does 1 person need authority over all the decisions and people? I am positive one person is not the most capable in all facets. These aren't replaceable admin staff, these are elite specialists. All I am suggesting it that it is superior to spread the responsibility and authority around. Look how many HC's consistently fail in certain areas.

If Wade Flaherty for example is a goalie specialist, why give the power to another guy to make the wrong decision over and over again? These are hypotheticals, i don't care if Flaherty does or doesn't choose a goalie. If garret is on staff and is better at choosing an optimal lineup why let another guy have authority over that decision? Delegating and discussing with your reports isn't the same thing. Collaboration is a necessity.

This isn't something that doesn't exist. People do work like this.

 

[truck]

Do you know if there's been any clarification about the suspension he received?

I don't think so. I believe it was officially "abuse of an official" but the penalty was reduced.

 

[veganhunter]

That's my point. I think he is more likely to make the team on a wing.

Honestly, except for Slater I think we are pretty solid at C for the foreseeable future. I don't think a 4C to replace Slater should be all that hard to find. Copp might be it. I think Lowry is too good for the job, or will be. Copp may also be overqualified in which case we have one of those 'good to have' problems.

Definitely the easier path to the NHL at this point.

 

[wpgsilver]

...Lazy MODS.

Our prospect pool is a little absurd right now, not sure how many crack the NHL but its fun right now.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I sorry that you are baffled. You can't imagine how who decides to play would work? I don't know if you are serious.

Maybe you haven't worked as a team of experts before? Why does 1 person need authority over all the decisions and people? I am positive one person is not the most capable in all facets. These aren't replaceable admin staff, these are elite specialists. All I am suggesting it that it is superior to spread the responsibility and authority around. Look how many HC's consistently fail in certain areas.

If Wade Flaherty for example is a goalie specialist, why give the power to another guy to make the wrong decision over and over again? These are hypotheticals, i don't care if Flaherty does or doesn't choose a goalie. If garret is on staff and is better at choosing an optimal lineup why let another guy have authority over that decision? Delegating and discussing with your reports isn't the same thing. Collaboration is a necessity.

This isn't something that doesn't exist. People do work like this.

I worked as a member of a team of experts all my working life. After all the experts give their opinions and advice it always comes down to one person to make the final decision. That person was not the most capable in all facets. Often he/she wasn't the most capable in any single facet. He/she was the decision maker though and was supposed to be the one best at that. Even when decisions were made by consensus there was someone who had to say something to the effect of "alright if there is no further discussion this is how it will be". I can't imagine how a hockey team would be run if no one is in charge. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying? If so, please enlighten me.

 

[ps241]

I think NHL coaching structure in general is setup for failure. Command & control management is inefficient as it puts too much control with a single person. Why the HC by default has final say on all coaching related decisions is asking for trouble at this level. When coaches display the same flaws in strategy or tactics or management or all the above, why keep giving them say over these things if they don't improve them? It's a pretty bizarre field to be in.

I think this is the OP that put forth your view? Not being a smart a55 I am trying to follow your train of thought to agree or debate.

Assuming that the Jets coaching process isn't highly collaborative for a minute for the sake of conversation how would you propose a "team approach" to coaching would work? How would you divide power to decentralize more? How does it play out? Does this apply to all NHL teams?

 

[YWGinYYZ]

At the thread limit - continue here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1840005