Coach Discussion: Coaching Thread 3

[Jets 31]

We just have to build a huge glass dome over Winnipeg and one over lake winnipeg.

Color the water azure blue, dig out sandy beaches, build a few luxury highrises, a few nightclubs, a world class pga rated golf course.

Then we just need to raise the avg. temp to around LA temps.


EASY FIX - Boom True North is now the most wanted place to stay for hockey players!

Sad but true , one thing i will say though is once the player is here for the most part they like playing here, we just got to get them here .

 

[QuietContrarian]

Sad but true , one thing i will say though is once the player is here for the most part they like playing here, we just got to get them here .

Exactly

now, how to do that?

 

[cbcwpg]

Number of coaches that have been with their teams for 5 years or more:

3

Tampa Bay Lightning - Jon Cooper March 25 2013
Winnipeg Jets - Paul Maurice January 12 2014
Detroit Red Wings - Jeff Blashill June 9, 2015

If nothing changes, soon you can add:

Columbus Blue Jackets - John Tortorella October 21, 2015
Pittsburgh Penguins - Mike Sullivan December 12, 2015

So 5 teams seem to want stability. Which means the other 26 must be , what, they don't care about winning?

I'm not saying change your coach for the sake of change, but change your coach when it's obvious it's no longer working. And it seems for the majority of the teams 5 years or less is the window.

 

[Jets 31]

We've had the Jets back for 9 years, there are alot of teams who have been waiting to win a Cup waaaaaaaaay longer than that .

 

[Jets 31]

Exactly

now, how to do that?

We should ask Buff to go around to all of the players and tell them how great it is to play in Winnipeg in front of a full arena of great fans, it's the least he could do.

 

[surixon]

If we want to stay in the present, I'd say your last paragraph pretty much explains why we needed to change tactics.
You can't continue down the same road if you don't have the team to support the plan - and we didn't last season.

When you lose most of your effective Dmen, the game is going to change - you're offensive players are going to be asked to play the game differently - they have to. We can't play an offensive game without the puck. Simply asking everyone to play to their strengths and ignore the fact that they need to first get the puck, is a tough sell. The Dmen play a huge role in puck retrieval in our end - and if you don't have the horses, you are playing without the puck. Our offensive minded skilled forwards are pretty much useless in that environment.

Now if you were to tell me we need to play a more aggressive checking game with an emphasis on puck pursuit and speed, we'd be aligned. That's exactly what we needed to do but didn't. Do you think the coach asked the guys to play a slower with a less aggressive check and pursuit? I know he didn't because that's the game he's been pushing since day one - 2017-18 was a great example.
Lose your Dcore and that type of game evaporates - you need the guys on the back end to be able to get things rolling - they need to create the turnovers and the quick outlets - didn't happen and the reason is obvious.

Help is coming on the back end - hopefully a center is part of the equation - and it won't happen over night. But when it does, watch what happens when you don't spend most of the shift in your own end trying to gain possession. Your skilled O players will actually have enough gas in the tank to drive offense. This isn't about systems - it's about holes in the line up that force you to change game plans even if the plan is not suited to the players you have.

So the answer is, patch up the weak areas - draft, trade, develop.
There's lots of good discussion taking place on how best to do this including the above along with time lines. I'm in the camp that thinks the org will take their time fixing this - probably via draft and develop.I'm OK with that.

I want to get back to playing a more aggressive puck pursuit game. For some reason everyone thinks that when I talk about schemes I want to open it up and be the Leafs or something with a crazy high event system. That's not at all what I want.

I have stated Dallas and Carolina as the two teams I would want to emulate. Both teams play well defensively and big reason for that is they are both aggressive in their own end and neutral zone and force turn overs. Both teams also emphasis controlled zone entries on offense and give you different looks entering the zone. Both teams are fairly mid event teams so they are in the middle between high and low event hockey.

 

[QuietContrarian]

We should ask Buff to go around to all of the players and tell them how great it is to play in Winnipeg in front of a full arena of great fans, it's the least he could do.

That IS the least he could do!

Get with it Buff!

 

[grieves]

I disagree with your interpretation of the goals and approaches of the franchise. They've been very clear about a couple of concepts:

1) They want to build a team that has durable quality, over an extended period of time, rather than a team that has strong "boom and bust" cycles. I think that's a good reading of the market and fan base. Consider how many hardcore fans on this board were bummed out because the Jets traded futures (picks / prospects) to try to go for a cup that last couple of seasons. Thread after thread on this board focuses on the draft and prospects, because fans want long-term success. I doubt that many Jets fans would want them to trade this year's #10 overall for a short-term solution to strengthen their team for the next couple of seasons, either.

2) There is a clear recognition that the Winnipeg market provides substantial constraints in the trade and free agent markets. Many potential trades that are discussed on this board are completely unrealistic because there is almost no chance that the player will consider waiving their trade protection to come to Winnipeg. When a relatively high profile player does agree to come to Winnipeg, there's great fanfare that he waived his NTC to come to Winnipeg, even if it's just for a playoff run (hello, Stastny). That leaves the Jets with a much narrower range of options for creating a consistent winner, relying more on draft and develop and trying to keep core players for reasonable contracts.

My interpretation is that the franchise / ownership concept around stability and "loyalty" is very much in response to meeting the above challenges. A rapid turnover of players, coaches and management is contrary to the concept of developing a consistently good team in an environment where many players don't want to stay long-term. So I see the stability and "loyalty" as a deliberate strategy to be able to combat some of the headwinds. Having players like Scheifele, Morrissey, Ehlers, Connor (and hopefully Laine) commit long-term to the Jets is built on developing a "team-first" culture, and a sense of commitment. That's a two-way street. Also, if you want a Head Coach that is willing to focus on developing young players and maintaining a strong commitment to the franchise by the key players, he has to approach coaching in a different way. For one, he needs to put aside "win at all costs" as a mentality in some seasons where the priority is youth development (like 2015/16 and 2016/17). Second, he might need to develop a strong relationship with the veteran leaders, since they are the ones that need to create a sense of loyalty to the Jets in the longer term. That's why an incendiary coach like Tortorella wouldn't work in this market - he would alienate players and make it much more difficult for the Jets to retain them, creating a revolving door for their prized young players that they've drafted and developed.

Clearly, the Jets have made mistakes in terms of player assessments, etc. But I don't think they are very wrong about their overall approach, and I certainly can't fault them for committing to loyalty and management stability. When I look around the NHL, coaching and management positions are filled by a revolving door of the same faces with new teams. Occasionally they succeed and become the shiny new object, and then they flame out and turn up somewhere else. I have yet to see a team put together a truly new and innovative management / coaching model that is reaping much superior results.

Well articulated post.

I'm going to disagree with some of it. I think there are benefits to having this strong loyalty aspect for the team for sure, but I would actually go for the "win at all costs" mentality and basically ride on FOMO, or "fear of missing out". As in, be the most ruthless, effective team that you can be, and let that be the reason to join this group of winners. I would argue that professionals will actually respect that a lot more. Sometimes it means difficult decisions will be made but I think the reason will be understood. There should be a hard-as-steel commitment to winning and winning only, and that should be what this team should be about.

I'm not saying that if there are legitimate holes in the roster, that you can just conjure up a winning team of course. However, good hockey players want to win in hockey and are very competitive, and I think having a culture of "well the situation is stacked against us and we probably won't win so we can at least be nice to the players so maybe they like it here" is not only going to alienate the fanbase, but it might alienate the players after a while (although Maurice is apparently some kind of legitimate genius when it comes to keeping the room intact).

Like for instance when we rented Stastny, it felt like any player would be completely insane to not want waive their NMC and join. That's how you attract players.

I just want to see something different than the path we know doesn't work. The new path doesn't have to work either, but at least we gave it a shot.

 

[surixon]

Well articulated post.

I'm going to disagree with some of it. I think there are benefits to having this strong loyalty aspect for the team for sure, but I would actually go for the "win at all costs" mentality and basically ride on FOMO, or "fear of missing out". As in, be the most ruthless, effective team that you can be, and let that be the reason to join this group of winners. I would argue that professionals will actually respect that a lot more. Sometimes it means difficult decisions will be made but I think the reason will be understood. There should be a hard-as-steel commitment to winning and winning only, and that should be what this team should be about.

I'm not saying that if there are legitimate holes in the roster, that you can just conjure up a winning team of course. However, good hockey players want to win in hockey and are very competitive, and I think having a culture of "well the situation is stacked against us and we probably won't win so we can at least be nice to the players so maybe they like it here" is not only going to alienate the fanbase, but it might alienate the players after a while (although Maurice is apparently some kind of legitimate genius when it comes to keeping the room intact).

Like for instance when we rented Stastny, it felt like any player would be completely insane to not want waive their NMC and join. That's how you attract players.

I just want to see something different than the path we know doesn't work. The new path doesn't have to work either, but at least we gave it a shot.

I think the answer lies in between your and @Whileee ideals.

I think you want to emphasis things like loyalty and continuation while also having a strong sense of organizational accountability if results aren't met. That way you can treat people right but still expect results. If everyone is on board then it will foster a stronger team.

While I doubt it will happen the last thing I want is this organization turning into the old boys club that the oilers where in the 2000's where it didn't matter what happened the boys on the bus stuck around and weren't held accountable and that eventually led to a culture of entitlement on the ice where the players weren't accountable.

This type of stuff needs to be set at the top and it will trickle down.

 

[Gm0ney]

Because players like nothing better than a revolving door of coaches. Players realize better than fans what coaches are and are not responsible for. I'm pretty sure they don't think that only teams that keep switching coaches are trying to win.

Remember when Gallant was a bum, then a genius in Vegas, then canned? Now they have retread DeBoer, and everyone is acting like he's a genius after he was run out of San Jose and joined Vegas.

As far as I can tell, franchises with a lot of turnover in management and coaching tend to be the basket cases in the league.

There may be some happy medium somewhere between lifetime coaching appointments and firing the coach every 6 months. I mean, there are examples of teams in recent history that have fired their coach and gone on to win the Cup very shortly thereafter - St. Louis last year. Pittsburgh a few years before. Sutter in LA a few years before that.

Coaches have expiry dates. Maurice has been here 7 years and had the team playing great hockey in maybe 2 of those seasons (2014-15 and 2017-18). Since the peak in 2017-18, they've stepped away from the game that made them successful and looked downright terrible this season. Maurice should've been fired after 2018-19 instead of extended. But I guess we're in rebuild mode again, so whatever...

 

[ps241]

Very interesting last 3 pages on this thread.

 

[JetsUK]

There may be some happy medium somewhere between lifetime coaching appointments and firing the coach every 6 months. I mean, there are examples of teams in recent history that have fired their coach and gone on to win the Cup very shortly thereafter - St. Louis last year. Pittsburgh a few years before. Sutter in LA a few years before that.

Coaches have expiry dates. Maurice has been here 7 years and had the team playing great hockey in maybe 2 of those seasons (2014-15 and 2017-18). Since the peak in 2017-18, they've stepped away from the game that made them successful and looked downright terrible this season. Maurice should've been fired after 2018-19 instead of extended. But I guess we're in rebuild mode again, so whatever...

Agree. And I think to note that a new voice and vision may be needed is not the same as "being a hater," or not a real fan, or a keyboard warrior, etc. The same data -- strong play in 2014-15, exceptional play in 2017-18, middling-to-dire play since -- is available to all of us. For some here the periods of poorer play can be ascribed to variables somewhat beyond a coaches control, such as injuries or defections or too much youth, or underperformance of key players, while to others those variables (excluding the loss of Buff, say) seem common among NHL teams.

I do agree that accountability is important in a high-pressure environment like the NHL, and that it's more compelling if it comes from the top. And dealing with uncertainty, injury, lack of key personnel under the spotlight of media and fan obsession is one reason why NHL coaches and management get the danger pay and perks that they do. In my line of work I don't get to point to weakened infrastructure, long hours, logistical or equipment shortages and breakdowns, staff communication or competence etc., when an outcome is less than stellar, even though those factors are permanent and real, and the impact can be extremely serious.

Winnipeg is a challenging market for sure -- that's why a really successful franchise squeezes every possible margin and advantage in order to be a place where players want to come to inspire a product fans will pay to watch. Coaching is one of those, surely. General management is another. I think the org has worked hard to build a reputation as top-class in terms of how it deals with its players and staff, and that's laudable. But playing a tedious brand of hockey while not optimizing coaching and player resources is a pretty sure way of squandering that goodwill and rep. Especially in a Covid world. IMO.

 

[DashingDane]

Agree. And I think to note that a new voice and vision may be needed is not the same as "being a hater," or not a real fan, or a keyboard warrior, etc. The same data -- strong play in 2014-15, exceptional play in 2017-18, middling-to-dire play since -- is available to all of us. For some here the periods of poorer play can be ascribed to variables somewhat beyond a coaches control, such as injuries or defections or too much youth, or underperformance of key players, while to others those variables (excluding the loss of Buff, say) seem common among NHL teams.

I do agree that accountability is important in a high-pressure environment like the NHL, and that it's more compelling if it comes from the top. And dealing with uncertainty, injury, lack of key personnel under the spotlight of media and fan obsession is one reason why NHL coaches and management get the danger pay and perks that they do. In my line of work I don't get to point to weakened infrastructure, long hours, logistical or equipment shortages and breakdowns, staff communication or competence etc., when an outcome is less than stellar, even though those factors are permanent and real, and the impact can be extremely serious.

Winnipeg is a challenging market for sure -- that's why a really successful franchise squeezes every possible margin and advantage in order to be a place where players want to come to inspire a product fans will pay to watch. Coaching is one of those, surely. General management is another. I think the org has worked hard to build a reputation as top-class in terms of how it deals with its players and staff, and that's laudable. But playing a tedious brand of hockey while not optimizing coaching and player resources is a pretty sure way of squandering that goodwill and rep. Especially in a Covid world. IMO.

Great post! I especially relate to the bolded.

 

[Whileee]

There may be some happy medium somewhere between lifetime coaching appointments and firing the coach every 6 months. I mean, there are examples of teams in recent history that have fired their coach and gone on to win the Cup very shortly thereafter - St. Louis last year. Pittsburgh a few years before. Sutter in LA a few years before that.

Coaches have expiry dates. Maurice has been here 7 years and had the team playing great hockey in maybe 2 of those seasons (2014-15 and 2017-18). Since the peak in 2017-18, they've stepped away from the game that made them successful and looked downright terrible this season. Maurice should've been fired after 2018-19 instead of extended. But I guess we're in rebuild mode again, so whatever...

Really no comparison between the 2017/18 team and the team last season. You can't really ascribe the change in results to coaching per se. They lost Buff, Trouba, Myers, Enstrom, Armia and Little from that team, and Perreault is a shadow of his previous play. Even in 2018/19, the Jets' really tanked after serious injuries to Buff, Ehlers and Morrissey. Even with less than healthy Buff, Ehlers and Morrissey, they gave the Blues a challenge.

Changing coaches can give a team a jolt, or they can be a disaster. We just don't recount all of the disastrous coaching changes as often. If the Jets didn't still play hard, I would certainly think that Maurice needed to go, but I'm not sure another coach would have made that much difference with the roster the Jets have.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

I find there are too many pushovers within TNSE and that's how they get to keep their jobs.

Cheveldayoff is the closest thing in this organization to not being a pushover.

 

[ijuka]

I don't get how Maurice still has his job. He's been with the same team for over 6 years already, almost 7. The only one's who has stayed with his team for a longer duration is Jon Cooper, who has a .645 points percentage with his team(Maurice is at .579).

I guess Jets are happy with being a mediocre bubble team, which is sad as they're wasting the primes of several players. It might take years until Jets manage to gather such a vast amount of speed and skill again.

 

[surixon]

I don't get how Maurice still has his job. He's been with the same team for over 6 years already, almost 7. The only one's who has stayed with his team for a longer duration is Jon Cooper, who has a .645 points percentage with his team(Maurice is at .579).

I guess Jets are happy with being a mediocre bubble team, which is sad as they're wasting the primes of several players. It might take years until Jets manage to gather such a vast amount of speed and skill again.

Cooper also has a heck of a lot more playoff success as well.

 

[Jets 31]

Cooper also has a heck of a lot more playoff success as well.

Not last season, first overall and out in the first round. If that happened to the Jets everyone would have lost their shit demanding Maurice gets fired. Tampa didn't fire Cooper and now they are having success the very next year.

 

[surixon]

Not last season, first overall and out in the first round. If that happened to the Jets everyone would have lost their shit demanding Maurice gets fired. Tampa didn't fire Cooper and now they are having success the very next year.

Why only look at one season? He's made the playoffs 6 years and has taken the lightning to one Stanley Cup finals and two other Eastern Conference finals. He has his team poised ro knock off the Bruins and go to their fourth conference finals appearance under him.

I would be incredibly happy to have that level of playoff success here.

 

[Jets 31]

Why only look at one season? He's made the playoffs 6 years and has taken the lightning to one Stanley Cup finals and two other Eastern Conference finals. He has his team poised ro knock off the Bruins and go to their fourth conference finals appearance under him.

I would be incredibly happy to have that level of playoff success here.

I used that because they were the #1 team in the NHL and lost 4 straight in the first round, no way people wouldn't want Maurice fired no matter what playoff success they had previously. Other thing i'll point out is Tampa Bay is a better team than Winnipeg.

 

[Gm0ney]

Really no comparison between the 2017/18 team and the team last season. You can't really ascribe the change in results to coaching per se. They lost Buff, Trouba, Myers, Enstrom, Armia and Little from that team, and Perreault is a shadow of his previous play. Even in 2018/19, the Jets' really tanked after serious injuries to Buff, Ehlers and Morrissey. Even with less than healthy Buff, Ehlers and Morrissey, they gave the Blues a challenge.

Changing coaches can give a team a jolt, or they can be a disaster. We just don't recount all of the disastrous coaching changes as often. If the Jets didn't still play hard, I would certainly think that Maurice needed to go, but I'm not sure another coach would have made that much difference with the roster the Jets have.

The 2018-19 team didn't play like the 2017-18 team right out of the gate. Same players, worse play. People here were questioning Maurice's plan in October/November of 2018 - he just wouldn't move away from the grindy cycle game. He ran the bench like he had 1 good scoring line and 1 good checking line and the other two lines were afterthoughts. Yeah things got worse after the injuries, but they weren't great before...

There were lots of personnel changes heading into 2019-20 and Maurice's answer seemed to be that the team needed even more grind and defensiveness. The Jets this season were bottom 5 with Vezina goaltending. Put Pavs in and we're drafting Top 10...OH WAIT

 

[kcin94]

Number of coaches that have been with their teams for 5 years or more:

3

Tampa Bay Lightning - Jon Cooper March 25 2013
Winnipeg Jets - Paul Maurice January 12 2014
Detroit Red Wings - Jeff Blashill June 9, 2015

If nothing changes, soon you can add:

Columbus Blue Jackets - John Tortorella October 21, 2015
Pittsburgh Penguins - Mike Sullivan December 12, 2015

So 5 teams seem to want stability. Which means the other 26 must be , what, they don't care about winning?

I'm not saying change your coach for the sake of change, but change your coach when it's obvious it's no longer working. And it seems for the majority of the teams 5 years or less is the window.

I'm not saying they should keep Maurice, but that's faulty logic. You'd have to look at the tenure of each teams previous coach before being fired.

For example, if team x always keeps their coaches for 10 years and fires them on Jan. 1, 2020, 2010, 2000, 1990 etc., then on the current list their coach would only be active for 8 months even though the team always has a ten year coach.

 

[Gotaf7]

When you consider the points Whileee has noted, they really have to follow the model that works in this market - the options might be considered limited. What we really need is a fan base that understands the restraints / limitations.

100% this!

 

[Whileee]

Cooper also has a heck of a lot more playoff success as well.

Do you think the rosters have been comparable over the past 6-7 years?

 

[Whileee]

The 2018-19 team didn't play like the 2017-18 team right out of the gate. Same players, worse play. People here were questioning Maurice's plan in October/November of 2018 - he just wouldn't move away from the grindy cycle game. He ran the bench like he had 1 good scoring line and 1 good checking line and the other two lines were afterthoughts. Yeah things got worse after the injuries, but they weren't great before...

There were lots of personnel changes heading into 2019-20 and Maurice's answer seemed to be that the team needed even more grind and defensiveness. The Jets this season were bottom 5 with Vezina goaltending. Put Pavs in and we're drafting Top 10...OH WAIT

They started very slow, but by December were looking more and more like the 2017/18 team, and then Buff and Ehlers and Morrissey went down, so I find it hard to assess how the season might have gone. I don't think Maurice changed the system, so much as the players performed poorly. I think the 2017/18 success might have gone to their heads early. Maurice can take some blame for that.