Line Combos: 15/16 forward lines

[puck stoppa]

They have also been historically bad in 4th line decisions for 4 years. Running a 42.5 Corsi. The Jets have consistently held one of the bottom five 4th lines in the NHL.
We are also not talking about prospects or youth since we're talking about Thorburn, Cormier, Fraser, Halischuk, and Peluso on the fourth line.

He wasn't looking for NHL 5 year.
Just took DEL 5 year > NHL 1 year. I have no idea if 2 or 3 was what it would take for here.

It's just an example though.

DEL five year must be far better than NHL one year, tax free.

I admit Jets have blinders on with 4th line, hoping that will change with upcoming depth.

 

[voyageur]

Some notes:

* Don't think Cormier had a good camp last year. He was absent.

* Thorburn-Slater-Halischuk wasn't a positive line. They were actually super terrible.
Thorburn-Slater-Halischuk - 42% Corsi
When Tlusty was with Slater - 50% Corsi

* Winning a faceoff is to try and improve shots and goal differentials. Winning a faceoff often counts for nothing if you are terrible in shot and goal differentials.

* Signing Cormier has nothing to do with Olsen. Cormier spent most of last year as a left wing on third line. Olsen as 4th line centre.

* Glad for Thorburn being a good guy, teammates liking him, and taking a beating in the face for his team. Still, not good enough to hockey above the third line. It's only a bad thing and only bad things will come from it.

* Tlusty wasn't a waste. He was part of the reason why the Jets started playing well and for the first time in this city had a fourth line that wasn't essentially playing short handed at even strength.

* "Purpose" with being physical and winning faceoffs is a means. The ends is outscoring the opponent.

* Thorburn was NOT the reason why the Jets season turned around. That is HILARIOUS though to try and work that one in.

* No one needs a helmet puncher. The existence of them does not prove the existence and not all teams have them.

* Remember Jared Boll, ran Postma behind, despite the Jets having helmet punchers. The helmet punchers did **** all. The point of deterrence is so people don't do those things to you.

* Skill with toughness is fine and all, and I would love that. But Peluso is not that, and Thor is not that either. Skill with toughness is great, but just skill is better than just toughness.

* Stafford has played PK. He played 106 mins in 2013-14... although he was never that good. Better than Halischuk, Stafford, or Thorburn though.

* Burmi, Lowry, Little can be the 3 Cs. On PK3 Little is not using up too much TOI. Armia, Wheeler, Ladd, Stempniak, and Tlusty have all PK well (Armia is AHL though)... but 2 of those we don't have now. I've never seen Peluso, Thorburn, or Cormier do well on the PK.

I never said Thorburn saved the season ( I thought it was Wheeler, with Scheif and Stafford, Myers and Lowry stepping up down the stretch). I said that benching Peluso did, for the reason you proport, to add skill to the team in key positions, as skill trumps toughness, which I agree with. O'Dell made us more than a 3 minute a game 4th line team, to one that could play in their zone defensively. Tlusty increased the talent level, as well, but was noticeably absent in a physical playoff series, one in which I was hoping O'Dell would have replaced either him or Slater. I believe the HST line was a positive in +/-, puck in the net, though I am not surprised regressive in possession time.

That's the past though, we have alot more options this year. Petan, Copp, even Lowry at 4C, if we want to spread the talent out, and keep Burmi at 3C, would be possibilities to running a true 4 line team. I hope Copp is a good option for the PK as well. Did not follow his career at Michigan, but I would expect, as captain, he was a leader at every facet. Armia is intriguing too. So yes there are other options than Cormier, another former captain, but he is good insurance, because he can play a limited NHL role effectively, or neutrally, at the very least, I think, and yes, play LW too. Though I would put him behind both Fraser and Blomqvist as a winger on the farm.

If you look at some of the past winners of the Cup, there is not a single one that did not deploy physical players, who will drop the gloves, to win. Even the Hawks, the poster team for skill, rely heavily on Shaw and Bickell, and had Carcillo, until the playoffs, Sheldon Brookbank before Carcillo. Game is still played in the trenches, but the facepuncher is on the way out. That's why I think Peluso is expendable. Thorburn played well enough on a 3rd line down the stretch to score a GWG, he is not anyone's preferred option, but I think he is a good depth player and teammate (what was Postma's reaction to the Boll hit/ensuing fight?). I have more confidence in his 8-10 minutes without Slater, and the occasional pressbox visit to spark a fire, maybe fighting with Hali to play with Petan-Ehlers to start the year on the 4th (I expect Ehlers will get a few if not 9 games to make his mark). He and Lowry can paste d-men through the boards, and that pays dividends after a while, though speed can apply a similarly effective, if not as impactful, pressure, and is hopefully an area we improve on for possession (which I admit makes Cormier more of a minor league option). You are correct in suggesting that it is the Wheeler, Ladd and Lowrys that have every dimension that are the players who matter the most.

There are alot of options Maurice has. As a team I expect alot more changes and dynamism than years past. The biggest difference is depth. The Moose will have players that are competing all year.

I would expect Armia and Lipon as 3rd year pros, to get games in the show for sure, maybe not F/T. Maybe Brendan Kichton too.

In their sophmore years Kosmachuk and Olsen should show improvement. Hellleybuck may take the reigns.

But the biggest difference is how the pro rookies affect our team this year...

Morrissey, Copp and Petan are all close, if not ready. Competing for spots with teenagers Ehlers and Lemieux. Joining the farm family will be other promising rookies: Blomqvist, Kostalek and Comrie.

The two way contracts of Halischuk, Fraser and Cormier have to prove themselves equally, and work to outplay a one-way contract and ELC prospects, or be demoted.

I thought Cormier has had many good camps, usually a neutral player, but physical, wins battles, from circle out. Yet every year it has been Brett Mac Lean, James Wright, TJ Galiardi taking winger spots and Slater pencilled in at C. I'd like to see him get a chance, at least. His career never really materialized, with the junior cloud he carried.

With 10 d-men, one injured, there are even more scenarios to be considered.

The positive note is that, as a franchise, we are no longer pursuing the waiver wire as a means to improve our roster, but have competition within to make us a better team.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I hate the 30 GMs passed argument.

I wish to be smarter than those 30 GMs.
I want my team to be smarter than the other 29.
GMs make poor choices all the time.

BTW: Goc took Europe over 1yr offers that he actually had in the NHL though because he had a 5 year offer which offers more financial stability. That could be a possibility with the others: term. (I have a connection to his agent through my work agency)

None of them avoided the Jets because they are afraid of being on the fourth line.



I thought Lowry could use more time in the AHL to work on his offensive game. We all knew Lowry had a good defensive game. I thought O`Dell would out produce relative to ice time. Sure enough, O`Dell has a higher pts/min thus far than Lowry.

IF a player, say Goc was passed on by 30 GMs was it a bad decision by the one whose 4th line is the worst in the league?

 

[Whileee]

I hate the 30 GMs passed argument.

I wish to be smarter than those 30 GMs.
I want my team to be smarter than the other 29.
GMs make poor choices all the time.

BTW: Goc took Europe over 1yr offers that he actually had in the NHL though because he had a 5 year offer which offers more financial stability. That could be a possibility with the others: term. (I have a connection to his agent through my work agency)

None of them avoided the Jets because they are afraid of being on the fourth line.



I thought Lowry could use more time in the AHL to work on his offensive game. We all knew Lowry had a good defensive game. I thought O`Dell would out produce relative to ice time. Sure enough, O`Dell has a higher pts/min thus far than Lowry.

Still, Lowry >>> O'Dell

 

[garret9]

Still, Lowry >>> O'Dell

I never said O`Dell > Lowry though, so it's a moot point.

I thought Lowry need more offensive development, but was ready defensively.
I was right.
1.10 pts/60 is pretty much lower than all but Peluso or Slater have put up as Jets.

 

[garret9]

IF a player, say Goc was passed on by 30 GMs was it a bad decision by the one whose 4th line is the worst in the league?

Depends.

For the most part "30 teams that passed on the player" is rarely a literal truth.
There are teams that eventually they are set and will not look at potential FA contracts that season even if that person is better than some of their alternatives.

Things like contract limits, rebuilding, cap management (not just that year), direction of organization, and other little factors can go in.

Often teams will want to try what they have prior to adding more or trading.

I think the last one is what we have now. Jets want to try what they have.

Would it be what I would do? No, I don't believe it to be optimal.

I would try and sign a player like Stempniak who would be a third line option if what they have isn't ready, and a better fourth line option than the other bunch we will likely see there.

But meh.

 

[garret9]

I don't necessarily disagree. I just don't think Thorburn is any better than a #12/13 player.

He's an okay point producer and okay with the puck on his stick (for a fourth line player), just don't like him in other moments and I think that there is much better available so players like him should never be given the contract that he was.

And HST only had 1GF and 0GA. So I wouldn't call that any type of sample size to be indicative of how they played let alone talent.

Last but not least, Corsi is not just correlative of possession, but more importantly scoring chances and predicting how a line/player/team will have for future goal differentials.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Depends.

For the most part "30 teams that passed on the player" is rarely a literal truth.
There are teams that eventually they are set and will not look at potential FA contracts that season even if that person is better than some of their alternatives.

Things like contract limits, rebuilding, cap management (not just that year), direction of organization, and other little factors can go in.

Often teams will want to try what they have prior to adding more or trading.

I think the last one is what we have now. Jets want to try what they have.

Would it be what I would do? No, I don't believe it to be optimal.

I would try and sign a player like Stempniak who would be a third line option if what they have isn't ready, and a better fourth line option than the other bunch we will likely see there.

But meh.

I think you miss my point. You don't decide to sign a player because all the other teams want him. You decide to sign him because he will improve your team. If you have a weakness you might be improved by a player that some number of other teams don't want.

 

[Whileee]

Depends.

For the most part "30 teams that passed on the player" is rarely a literal truth.
There are teams that eventually they are set and will not look at potential FA contracts that season even if that person is better than some of their alternatives.

Things like contract limits, rebuilding, cap management (not just that year), direction of organization, and other little factors can go in.

Often teams will want to try what they have prior to adding more or trading.

I think the last one is what we have now. Jets want to try what they have.

Would it be what I would do? No, I don't believe it to be optimal.

I would try and sign a player like Stempniak who would be a third line option if what they have isn't ready, and a better fourth line option than the other bunch we will likely see there.

But meh.

For the Jets, I think it's about development. They could have had better options than Lowry early last year, but wanted to play him on the 3rd line because they thought he was ready to take that next step in development. I think that the same is likely true this year for some of our forward prospects (like Armia, Copp and Ehlers).

Thorbs and Peluso are on the team for "muscle". Thorbs is also fast enough to exert himself as a "heavy" presence on lines above the 4th. Maurice just seems to like to have that element in the line-up for "intangible" reasons. We can say that "intangibles" aren't at all relevant because they aren't measurable, but NHL coaches and GMs seem to disagree for some reason. The reality is that in a sport where consistent physical effort and commitment is likely important, having a team that encourages and pushes each other probably improves its own performance over time, whereas having disruptive influences diminishes performance. It would be hard to measure that, I would think, which is why it's hard to defend.

 

[garret9]

And sometimes it's just a bit of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect

 

[Whileee]

And sometimes it's just a bit of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect

I don't think so. The Jets want an enforcer, and Peluso is one of the best. The Jets want a tight locker room, and they think Thorbs is a key to that. I think it's actually pretty simple.

 

[truck]

I don't think so. The Jets want an enforcer, and Peluso is one of the best. The Jets want a tight locker room, and they think Thorbs is a key to that. I think it's actually pretty simple.

Peluso doesn't enforce anything, he just fights. He is among the best at that, but to what end? Not sure. The Thorbs thing fits right in line with Garret's suggestion. The idea that they can't have a tight locker room without Thorbs is plain strange.

 

[puck stoppa]

Peluso doesn't enforce anything, he just fights. He is among the best at that, but to what end? Not sure. The Thorbs thing fits right in line with Garret's suggestion. The idea that they can't have a tight locker room without Thorbs is plain strange.

Listening to Maurice speak to this live really cemented to me how important this is for him. He mentioned Thor and Stuart and how important they are in a room, and IMO they can still contribute as long as theyre 12 and 6 respectively. Don't discount what getting rid of your two biggest leaders can do to a room. See Boston and Boychuk.

 

[Whileee]

Peluso doesn't enforce anything, he just fights. He is among the best at that, but to what end? Not sure. The Thorbs thing fits right in line with Garret's suggestion. The idea that they can't have a tight locker room without Thorbs is plain strange.

I'm not conveying my opinion, because I've never coached an NHL team. There seems to be a suggestion that the Jets just don't understand their limitations as hockey players and that they ignore the "advanced" stats. I just think that's simplistic thinking. Until there's good research relating to the relationships in the locker and team performance, I'm inclined to withhold my opinion. You seem ready to make a pronouncement now, but I don't see any attempt to support it with evidence. Why bother getting "high character" players if it's irrelevant for team success?

 

[garret9]

There is empirical data on moral and work production.

However, there is a weird assumption being made with needing guys that are good in room despite being bad on the ice.
We have to remember that hockey is not the normal random sample human distribution. Most of these guys are the extreme tail of the distribution with survivorship from being groomed and selected as they moved up through hockey.

It's not like Ladd, Little, Wheeler, etc. are bad in the room people and need Stuarts and Thorburns to keep the room from falling apart.

Defending or keeping status quo just in case it is not being agnostic to it either.

 

[puck stoppa]

There is empirical data on moral and work production.

However, there is a weird assumption being made with needing guys that are good in room despite being bad on the ice.
We have to remember that hockey is not the normal random sample human distribution. Most of these guys are the extreme tail of the distribution with survivorship from being groomed and selected as they moved up through hockey.

It's not like Ladd, Little, Wheeler, etc. are bad in the room people and need Stuarts and Thorburns to keep the room from falling apart.

Defending or keeping status quo just in case it is not being agnostic to it either.

You know this how?Are you in the room? Im not so sure, when Maurice spoke he made it sound like those two guys drove the leadership in the room, his choice of words was clear to me how important they were and are to that room.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

You know this how?Are you in the room? Im not so sure, when Maurice spoke he made it sound like those two guys drove the leadership in the room, his choice of words was clear to me how important they were and are to that room.

Ladd wears the C for a reason. Wheeler wears an A. Stuart has an A also. Where's Thor's A? The rest of the room is devoid of character or leadership?

Maurice finds positive things to say about everyone. If the best thing he can say about a player is that he is 'good in the room' he must be pretty bad on the ice.

 

[puck stoppa]

Ladd wears the C for a reason. Wheeler wears an A. Stuart has an A also. Where's Thor's A? The rest of the room is devoid of character or leadership?

Maurice finds positive things to say about everyone. If the best thing he can say about a player is that he is 'good in the room' he must be pretty bad on the ice.

The question was about leadership, who are good leaders and how he lets them control the room and deal with stuff in house. and his answer only included those two names. I know what I heard.

 

[garret9]

Sure, if you want to limit it to that one time and that one quote...

There were other times where Maurice said similar things about other players. Like Little, Wheeler, and Ladd.

There were other times where other coaches and GMs have said similar things about other players as well.

It's also also seems logically ridiculous when you really think about it, especialy in the context your own work place, where one person is the difference between a close knit group and chaos.

 

[puck stoppa]

Sure, if you want to limit it to that one time and that one quote...

There were other times where Maurice said similar things about other players. Like Little, Wheeler, and Ladd.

There were other times where other coaches and GMs have said similar things about other players as well.

It's also also seems logically ridiculous when you really think about it, especialy in the context your own work place, where one person is the difference between a close knit group and chaos.

To ur last line, its wrong. Leadership makes all the difference in my workplace. I've seen great leaders and bad ones, it's a trickle down effect. Poor leaders can create a toxic environment, great ones lead by example. Ive seen it affect people first hand both ways.

 

[Say What]

From my experience coaching AAA hockey here in Winnipeg, you can't have (nor do we seek) 12 highly skilled forwards, all doing the same things. It's redundant.

We break our strategies down to different roles. Different types of players. Why have eight possession, pass first wingers? Who's shooting. Why have six offensive minded D-men? Who's my 'stay at home' safety valve.

The construction of a team, IMO, goes far beyond.....find/recruit/sign the 20+ most skillful individuals per team. I've won championships with players that were considered strictly 'checkers'. No real offensive talent/flair to speak of. However, they brought other very important elements to the ice & locker room. To each his own.


P.S. When I say strictly checkers; these boys were elite skaters with impeccable work ethic and great character guys (didn't complain about ice time etc.).

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The question was about leadership, who are good leaders and how he lets them control the room and deal with stuff in house. and his answer only included those two names. I know what I heard.

I'm not doubting what you heard. Not unless you are claiming that Maurice said the team would fall apart without those 2. Maurice saya a lot of things. They are always said to produce an effect that he is looking for. We need to learn to salt his statements. Consider their context. Ask ourselves why he is saying whatever it is. He always has a purpose. It often seems to be to pump up someone's tires.

 

[puck stoppa]

I'm not doubting what you heard. Not unless you are claiming that Maurice said the team would fall apart without those 2. Maurice saya a lot of things. They are always said to produce an effect that he is looking for. We need to learn to salt his statements. Consider their context. Ask ourselves why he is saying whatever it is. He always has a purpose. It often seems to be to pump up someone's tires.

Given by contracts given to them, I believe those words and what mau and Chevy think of them, right or wrong.
the personal stories he told to a whole bunch of young hockey players seemed sincere and honest. He went in depth with that leadership story quite a bit, so that's why I think he wasn't just doing lip service. His other stories were jaw dropping and honest IMO.

 

[garret9]

To ur last line, its wrong. Leadership makes all the difference in my workplace. I've seen great leaders and bad ones, it's a trickle down effect. Poor leaders can create a toxic environment, great ones lead by example. Ive seen it affect people first hand both ways.

Not exactly.

I'm talking about "good leaders who are also terrible at their job".
As well, leaders that without them the team goes into disarray.

Then add this:

We have to remember that hockey is not the normal random sample human distribution. Most of these guys are the extreme tail of the distribution with survivorship from being groomed and selected as they moved up through hockey.

 

[puck stoppa]

Not exactly.

I'm talking about "good leaders who are terrible at their job".
As well, leaders that without them the team goes into disarray.

Then add this:

Thor and Stu are great leaders, and they are not terrible at their jobs. They are servicable 12th forward and #6 Dman. Im not saying they are awesome but they are from from horrible.
And we don't know if team would go in disarray, but it seems to me that Chevy and Maurice value them enough to keep them around.