Coach Discussion: Coaching (Mod warning OP)

[Whodey204]

Based on Maurice's interview today, it's pretty clear that Thompson is going to replace Vesalainen or Harkins when he's healthy. His rationale is that Thompson is an option on the PK, unlike Harkins and Vesalainen. The problem is that Thompson is bad on the PK. So, Maurice somehow thinks it's a good idea to replace a better younger player with an older player, based on a role that the older player is bad at. Got it.

Maurice will never change. His reasoning on things like this is completely mind boggling

 

[leer2006]

Based on Maurice's interview today, it's pretty clear that Thompson is going to replace Vesalainen or Harkins when he's healthy. His rationale is that Thompson is an option on the PK, unlike Harkins and Vesalainen. The problem is that Thompson is bad on the PK. So, Maurice somehow thinks it's a good idea to replace a better younger player with an older player, based on a role that the older player is bad at. Got it.

What is Maurice’s apprehension to playing young players on the pk? I think a kid like Harkin’s would be excellent at it.

 

[jetswin]

We are not going to see an optimal roster (from available players) for any length of time ever from Maurice. He will always revert to grizzled vets and his captains favourites he just can’t look at a tired old vet and sit him to run an optimal lineup long term. He leads the league in all time losses for a reason. I wonder what his analytics say about that.

 

[Mbraunm]

Maurice’s strengths:
-Motivates roster
-Room cohesiveness
-manages he press well
-develops great rapport with ownership
-keeps strong relationship with leadership core

Maurice’s weaknesses:
-in game adjustments
-irrational love of grizzled vets
-deployment/bench management
-specials teams systems
-defensive zone systems
-break out strategies

So basically, Maurice is great with his players and ownership and rarely loses the room. His weaknesses are anything related to deployment, systems and strategy.

 

[JetsUK]

What is Maurice’s apprehension to playing young players on the pk? I think a kid like Harkin’s would be excellent at it.

Both Harkins and Apples have played the PK on the Moose. Both have the speed, skillset, defence and hockey sense to be good in that role also for the Jets.

 

[cbcwpg]

Maurice’s strengths:
-Motivates roster
-Room cohesiveness
-manages he press well
-develops great rapport with ownership
-keeps strong relationship with leadership core

Maurice’s weaknesses:
-in game adjustments
-irrational love of grizzled vets
-deployment/bench management
-specials teams systems
-defensive zone systems
-break out strategies

So basically, Maurice is great with his players and ownership and rarely loses the room. His weaknesses are anything related to deployment, systems and strategy.

So he's "good in the room".

 

[JetsUK]

Does a true PK specialist exist in the NHL? By that I mean someone who outperforms the average penalty killer down a man while being below average at even strength.
I'd assume a player that sucks at even strength is going to be even worse on the PK.

Why not teach someone like Harkins how to PK if he believes he's deficient there? I'm sure someone like Harkins would agree, most players realize they won't stick long if they can't PK.

I struggle to understand Maurice's PK deployments, assuming he's the one making those decisions. Does he think the PK doesn't matter? Does he think some players are better than they actually are at it? Maybe it's just that he doesn't believe he can control the outcome any more with better players so he doesn't want them getting hurt blocking a shot?

It makes no sense. Better all-round players should be better players all over the ice. I think the rationale is:

1) Vet, so more experienced, so understands where the puck/players are likely to go
2) Vet, so knows how not to get hit or (if shot-blocking) how to get hit by a shot
3) Vet, so will do the job he's asked to do
4) "Character vet," so will offer sage advice and model "character" in the room

Against that, we have:

1) Not a good player anywhere on the ice, so not likely to be significantly better in this one aspect of the game (see Stuart, Mark vs Armia, Joel)
2) Old, slow and liable to get beat by the pass or pivot and/or take additional penalties
3) Unlikely to contribute SH offence, grab a shorty or assist one
4) Unlikely to play any meaningful role beyond the PK, while taking up the scarce ice time of a player who will
5) Is a known quantity NHL tweener without upside and
6) Is doing a job we already have other players for (Beaulieu, Lewis, Perrault) who are better at it

So yeah it's pretty baffling. Almost magical thinking.

 

[Ducky10]

Maurice’s strengths:
-Motivates roster
-Room cohesiveness
-manages he press well
-develops great rapport with ownership
-keeps strong relationship with leadership core

Maurice’s weaknesses:
-in game adjustments
-irrational love of grizzled vets
-deployment/bench management
-specials teams systems
-defensive zone systems
-break out strategies

So basically, Maurice is great with his players and ownership and rarely loses the room. His weaknesses are anything related to deployment, systems and strategy.

Does he motivate the roster though? Jury’s out for me. I’m not convinced every player is on board with the on ice vision.

 

[Imcanadianeh]

Coach Mo loves grizzled vets.....

*checks average age of each NHL team*

turns out last season the Jets had the 8th youngest team.

 

[surixon]

Does he motivate the roster though? Jury’s out for me. I’m not convinced every player is on board with the on ice vision.

Yeah this team has largely been disjointed for almost 2 years now. This team has major issues coming out strong in games.

I haven't seen a hungry/motivated team all that much since 17-18.

 

[Ducky10]

Coach Mo loves grizzled vets.....

*checks average age of each NHL team*

turns out last season the Jets had the 8th youngest team.

He ices as many as he has at his disposal. What does Mo have to do with them being the 8th youngest team anyway?

 

[voyageur]

Based on Maurice's interview today, it's pretty clear that Thompson is going to replace Vesalainen or Harkins when he's healthy. His rationale is that Thompson is an option on the PK, unlike Harkins and Vesalainen. The problem is that Thompson is bad on the PK. So, Maurice somehow thinks it's a good idea to replace a better younger player with an older player, based on a role that the older player is bad at. Got it.

You realize that when Thompson comes off IR that we are maxed at 23 players, so Vesalainen is off the roster. And probably for the best, because he and Gustafsson should be playing big minutes for the Moose. I think the Moose might have a good PP once you get Vesalainen flanking Heinola, on the one timers. It's hard to claim that Vesalainen is ripping it up. If we go by CF% Vesalainen is one of our worst forwards. That said you can see he's made improvements in his skating, and he's knocking on the door. Probably playing well enough to be the 1st callup.

As Dubois should be back for Vancouver, the decision is then Thompson or Harkins at centre. I like Harkins game, but he's -3, with 0 points, in 10 games. I mean that's an opportunity that he hasn't run away with, and since Thompson has only played 4 games, you can't even blame Thompson for dragging him down. But the competition seems to be between those 2. If Maurice chooses Thompson it's not some antipathy towards younger players, he's looking for results that he hasn't got. I hope that Thompson doesn't bump Appleton off the PK though, because that was a change that changed the tide of our PK fortunes. That move would be questionable to me. Preferably I'd like to see Harkins remain at 4c, I think flanked by 2 vets, in Perreault and Lewis, that he might have better success, than he has with Vesalainen or Gustafsson, who could also be a 4th line option, with Lewis, as the season progresses, and these 2 players progress.

 

[Jets 31]

So just so i understand, Chipman , Thomson , Chevy all don't EVER want to win a Stanley Cup right ? If some on here know for a fact Maurice is garbage and just a complete moron how could those 3 not possibly see that too ? Here is a tonne of money Maurice to be our coach now never win shit ok , good stuff , carry on. Maurice is not as bad as alot of people on here think.

 

[leer2006]

So just so i understand, Chipman , Thomson , Chevy all don't EVER want to win a Stanley Cup right ? If some on here know for a fact Maurice is garbage and just a complete moron how could those 3 not possibly see that too ? Here is a tonne of money Maurice to be our coach now never win shit ok , good stuff , carry on. Maurice is not as bad as alot of people on here think.

I have seen plenty of businesses where the owner has hired and kept poor employees because they like them and not for performance. And if you don’t believe he is a bad coach you should check to see what all the previous teams he has coached has to say about him.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

So just so i understand, Chipman , Thomson , Chevy all don't EVER want to win a Stanley Cup right ? If some on here know for a fact Maurice is garbage and just a complete moron how could those 3 not possibly see that too ? Here is a tonne of money Maurice to be our coach now never win shit ok , good stuff , carry on. Maurice is not as bad as alot of people on here think.

Incompetent people keep jobs in all types of businesses.

Maurice is not incompetent though, he's just past his time with the Jets. There is no logic to him being the second longest tenured coach in the NHL. The Jets haven't won shit with him and in his 20+ years coaching he's never won a Cup somewhere else.

It's time for a change.

 

[surixon]

Based on Maurice's interview today, it's pretty clear that Thompson is going to replace Vesalainen or Harkins when he's healthy. His rationale is that Thompson is an option on the PK, unlike Harkins and Vesalainen. The problem is that Thompson is bad on the PK. So, Maurice somehow thinks it's a good idea to replace a better younger player with an older player, based on a role that the older player is bad at. Got it.

Maurice has never understood what makes up a functional PK unit so big surprise he is going back to the slow vet who is a poor pk player instead of trying a quick young player in the role. Also given our PK has been adequate lately why do we need another PK only player in the lineup.

 

[BigZ65]

What is Maurice’s apprehension to playing young players on the pk? I think a kid like Harkin’s would be excellent at it.

No kidding. It’s 90% effort. Tell the young guys their spot in the lineup depends on hard work and especially the PK. Give them a chance.

 

[Gnova]

You can visit every team board with experienced veteran coaches on HF and copy/paste the comments between them.
After a loss everyone thinks their team's special teams systems are shit, they insist on playing veterans instead of the shiny new toys, they have lost the room, x player gets too many minutes, y player doesn't get enough minutes, and a laundry list of other complaints.
Basically "fire the coach" threads are like people complaining about rush hour traffic. Same conversation in every city.

 

[Gnova]

No kidding. It’s 90% effort. Tell the young guys their spot in the lineup depends on hard work and especially the PK. Give them a chance.

The other 10% is the difference between a top PK unit and a tire fire.

 

[Gabe Kupari]

Paul isn't a bad coach. He's actually a good teacher it seems. I actually think he's a guy I'd want to keep in the organization just because of his vast hockey knowledge.

With that being said... 7 8 seasons is a long time... And it appears we aren't getting better.. almost stuck in neutral if you will. I feel Paul is a guy that brings lots of strengths but the biggest negative is he's never won anything ever. 7 8 seasons and most nights the effort level and usage are inconsistent still. Time for change.

I guess 7 8 seasons without winning and gradually getting worse since the 1 run we had with him.. time for a new voice. Send Paul upstairs.. give him a office Job.

If Paul wasn't coaching the Jets I'd highly suspect he wouldn't be coaching in the NHL right now. Not sure who else would have gave him a chance. We have now for 7 8 seasons... I think he's taken us as far as he can.

People can compare him to Jon Cooper all they want but fact is Tampa has been an elite top team for years now. Jets had a 2 year run.

 

[Gabe Kupari]

You can visit every team board with experienced veteran coaches on HF and copy/paste the comments between them.
After a loss everyone thinks their team's special teams systems are shit, they insist on playing veterans instead of the shiny new toys, they have lost the room, x player gets too many minutes, y player doesn't get enough minutes, and a laundry list of other complaints.
Basically "fire the coach" threads are like people complaining about rush hour traffic. Same conversation in every city.

In other cities the coach changes after 2 3 seasons of underachieving. Here it's been 7 almost 8 seasons and in only 1 of those seasons we got out of round 1. That's the difference.

 

[Gabe Kupari]

Does Tampa win the cup if Paul is the coach? I'd highly doubt it.

 

[ps241]

As Micah McCurdy once said: NHL teams are afraid to play the players that might be bad over the players they know are bad.

I keep coming back to Mich's perfect quote for vetiness.

 

[Gnova]

In other cities the coach changes after 2 3 seasons of underachieving. Here it's been 7 almost 8 seasons and in only 1 of those seasons we got out of round 1. That's the difference.

Changing coaches doesn't make a mediocre team less mediocre. Or change a top 10 team to a top 5 team.

The Leafs have changed coaches 5 times since Maurice was fired and that sure has done wonders to improve that teams success.
Every time there was a change the fanbase cheered and thought they were going to be great but then bitched, moaned, and insisted on the coach being fired a year later.

The Oilers with 8 coaches in 11 years has done wonders for that franchise and player development.

 

[surixon]

Changing coaches doesn't make a mediocre team less mediocre. Or change a top 10 team to a top 5 team.

The Leafs have changed coaches 5 times since Maurice was fired and that sure has done wonders to improve that teams success.

The Oilers with 8 coaches in 11 years has done wonders for that franchise and player development.

Keefe has that team clipping along at a .669 pts percentage since taking over. The Leafs also play a very attractive brand of hockey. Hiring the right coach can make a big difference to a team.

It may not work but imo that is never a good reason not to embrace change. Imo Maurice isn't the right type of coach for this roster and we would be better off with someone with a different philosophy.