Coach Discussion: Coaching thread

[Hunter368]

To be continued.

Click to read more...

 

[jetdiehard]

Paul is a good coach but no defence this year has made him look bad.

 

[Upperdeckjet]

So, as we were all saying from the previous thread, it would be crazy to change coaches now, given that our defense is mostly minor league!

 

[AKAChip]

So, as we were all saying from the previous thread, it would be crazy to change coaches now, given that our defense is mostly minor league!

Just out of curiosity, outside of one magical season what has Maurice done to deserve being labeled as a good coach in the NHL?

 

[Upperdeckjet]

Just out of curiosity, outside of one magical season what has Maurice done to deserve being labeled as a good coach in the NHL?

Let's say for a moment that Maurice is a bad coach (I do not believe he is), but let's say he is. So if everyone agrees he is a bad coach, then no question, we should get a good coach.

Now, lets say we have our good coach. Do you believe the good coach can turn our existing defensive lineup into a winner? A real winner?

I don't think there is enough wax in Winnipeg to polish this turd of a defense into a functioning lineup.

 

[tbcwpg]

Just out of curiosity, outside of one magical season what has Maurice done to deserve being labeled as a good coach in the NHL?

He's made one Cup final and two other Conference finals. Not a lot of coaches have done that.

 

[AKAChip]

Let's say for a moment that Maurice is a bad coach (I do not believe he is), but let's say he is. So if everyone agrees he is a bad coach, then no question, we should get a good coach.

Now, lets say we have our good coach. Do you believe the good coach can turn our existing defensive lineup into a winner? A real winner?

I don't think there is enough wax in Winnipeg to polish this turd of a defense into a functioning lineup.

I believe a good coach has the potential to turn whatever the defensive group looks like next season into a winner, yes. Or more accurately, I have no confidence that Paul Maurice can. Granted, there isn’t a whole lot of data on the topic because coaches in this situation get rightfully fired after a year and a half straight of bottom of the barrel performance but even if they survive, it’s nearly impossible to come back from this.

The defensive lineup is bad, we know this. But is this roster bad enough to merit having the fourth worst xGF% ever recorded? And why were the team’s metrics nearly as bad last season with what most would consider at least an average defensive lineup?

And again, to return to the original question that wasn’t answered, over the course of his career what has Maurice accomplished to deserve the title of being a “good coach”?

 

[Atoyot]

Let's say for a moment that Maurice is a bad coach (I do not believe he is), but let's say he is. So if everyone agrees he is a bad coach, then no question, we should get a good coach.

Now, lets say we have our good coach. Do you believe the good coach can turn our existing defensive lineup into a winner? A real winner?

I don't think there is enough wax in Winnipeg to polish this turd of a defense into a functioning lineup.

I don't understand why it has to be a fix everything at once solution. It's the same with the argument of "what does it matter if x isn't playing, an upgrade on the 4th line isn't going to make is win". Of course not. No one thing will make us win. It will make us marginally better, or help with development to make us marginally better than marginally better down the road. Is firing Maurice going to make us a contender? No, of course not. I believe it will make us better than we are right now, and that's the goal. To do a bunch of small things that make us a little better until they add up to something that matters.

"If it isn't going to fix everything, why do it?" is an argument that I hear way too often in my life (not those exact words obviously, but you get the idea) and it's probably one of my biggest pet peeves.

 

[AKAChip]

He's made one Cup final and two other Conference finals. Not a lot of coaches have done that.

Sure, fair enough but very few coaches make it to 21 seasons making the playoffs 33% of the time. Far many more lows than highs with him.

 

[Atoyot]

I believe a good coach has the potential to turn whatever the defensive group looks like next season into a winner, yes. Or more accurately, I have no confidence that Paul Maurice can. Granted, there isn’t a whole lot of data on the topic because coaches in this situation get rightfully fired after a year and a half straight of bottom of the barrel performance but even if they survive, it’s nearly impossible to come back from this.

The defensive lineup is bad, we know this. Is this roster bad enough to merit having the fourth worst xGF% ever recorded? And why were the team’s metrics nearly as bad last season with what most would consider at least an average defensive lineup?

And again, to return to the original question that wasn’t answered, over the course of his career what has Maurice accomplished to deserve the title of being a “good coach”?

You know who our current defensive lineup is better than? Vegas' in their inaugural season. Miles better.

EDIT: That's said to reinforce your xGF% argument, not argue against you.

 

[castle]

Has anybody pointed out that last season the Jets had Byfuglien trouba Myers and chiarot? You’d think losing all those guys would make it hard to be a great team. I agree. Than again, I also think that having all those guys in your lineup would show just how good a coach is. So yeah, PoMo had those guys chugging along at 24th in xGF%. Without those guys, we’re 31st in the league. And it’s not even close. 30th is 3 percent ahead. Detroit is playing like a juggernaut compared to the Jets. Mind boggling. PoMo may be a good guy and maybe the players are still playing for him, and he hasn’t ‘lost the room’. He still hasn’t got the answers right now. A change is needed.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Paul is a good coach but no defence this year has made him look bad.

A good coach should have us really good in some areas of the game. A good coach couldn't possibly be given an NHL lineup and not be really good at something / anything.

What are we really good at?

 

[Upperdeckjet]

I don't understand why it has to be a fix everything at once solution. It's the same with the argument of "what does it matter if x isn't playing, an upgrade on the 4th line isn't going to make is win". Of course not. No one thing will make us win. It will make us marginally better, or help with development to make us marginally better than marginally better down the road. Is firing Maurice going to make us a contender? No, of course not. I believe it will make us better than we are right now, and that's the goal. To do a bunch of small things that make us a little better until they add up to something that matters.

"If it isn't going to fix everything, why do it?" is an argument that I hear way too often in my life (not those exact words obviously, but you get the idea) and it's probably one of my biggest pet peeves.

Your premise is different from mine. I do not believe a coaching change will make us better right now.

 

[leer2006]

Your premise is different from mine. I do not believe a coaching change will make us better right now.

Do you feel that our PK is bad? How bout our PP? We have enough NHL Tallent that neither of these things should be bad.

 

[JetsNut]

Maurice is without a shadow of a doubt a mediocre coach. He’s a great communicator and a media darling. However he’s a stubborn ass mule. He doesn’t have the ability to adapt and change on the fly. He had antiquated systems and refuses to change them.

I’m sorry but the best thing that can happen to this team is Maurice getting canned.

 

[None]

You know who our current defensive lineup is better than? Vegas' in their inaugural season. Miles better.

EDIT: That's said to reinforce your xGF% argument, not argue against you.

I think the Jets have better top end talent than that Vegas team (Morrissey and Pionk vs Schmidt and Theodore) but they had better depth.

I don't think that depth should separate the current Jets from being a bubble team at best or high lottery % team at worst from that 17-18 Vegas roster that made the cup finals though.

I'm not saying the current Jets roster is good enough to make the finals with consistency, the Golden Knights caught lightning in a bottle that season, but they should be better than they are.
Edit to add that they most certainly shouldn't be trending the way they are with young players getting more and more experience.

 

[Buffdog]

Just wondering what all the armchair coaches would do differently that what pomo is doing with the personel he has. Not interested in line combos or roster, but specifically system-wise.

Please be very detailed about the system he's currently running and why you believe its deficient prior to laying out in some level of detail the systems you'd run and why they would be better suited to the personnel you have access to.

(mod)

Thanks

 

[Upperdeckjet]

Do you feel that our PK is bad? How bout our PP? We have enough NHL Tallent that neither of these things should be bad.

I do feel that our PK is bad. We do not have the backend talent. Our PP could be better. We have the blasting power of Neil Pionk (who I like) at the point cause there is no one better from the backend. We do not have a #1 defenseman on the Winnipeg Jets.

 

[leer2006]

I do feel that our PK is bad. We do not have the backend talent. Our PP could be better. We have the blasting power of Neil Pionk (who I like) at the point cause there is no one better from the backend. We do not have a #1 defenseman on the Winnipeg Jets.

I disagree with the premiss that we don't have the backend talent to run a good PK. The problem is not talent but system. When your PK predicates that your players collapse infront of the net and play a passive box that is coaching.
The powerplay has the talent. Our pp1 is static and doesn't move and while having a big slap shot from the point helps. It is not a make or break item that makes a power play good or bad. The ability to get your shot through traffic is way more important. Something I might add that Niki was very good at in the AHL and seems to be pretty good at it in the NHL as well.

 

[Upperdeckjet]

I disagree with the premiss that we don't have the backend talent to run a good PK. The problem is not talent but system. When your PK predicates that your players collapse infront of the net and play a passive box that is coaching.
The powerplay has the talent. Our pp1 is static and doesn't move and while having a big slap shot from the point helps. It is not a make or break item that makes a power play good or bad. The ability to get your shot through traffic is way more important. Something I might add that Niki was very good at in the AHL and seems to be pretty good at it in the NHL as well.

Fair enough. You believe our backend has the talent and reach to pressure to the outside and are agile enough to get back. I do not.
You believe that the missing monster shot from the point is not that important, I do.
You believe that Niku is an option on PP1, I do not.
All good my friend. It would be no fun at all if we all thought the same way.

 

[Ducky10]

Just wondering what all the armchair coaches would do differently that what pomo is doing with the personel he has. Not interested in line combos or roster, but specifically system-wise.

Please be very detailed about the system he's currently running and why you believe its deficient prior to laying out in some level of detail the systems you'd run and why they would be better suited to the personnel you have access to.

(Mod)

Thanks

Been done by many posters around here my friend. Nothing more than detailed suggestions, nobody is pretending to be an NHL coach and lord knows none of us are paid like one.

(Mod)

 

[castle]

Just wondering what all the armchair coaches would do differently that what pomo is doing with the personel he has. Not interested in line combos or roster, but specifically system-wise.

Please be very detailed about the system he's currently running and why you believe its deficient prior to laying out in some level of detail the systems you'd run and why they would be better suited to the personnel you have access to.

(Mod)

Thanks

I had a shorter response to this post that was deleted, I assume because it did not have meaningful content. So I’ll expand.

you want to demand a lot of posters who claim PoMo might not be a good coach. You want specific details about this systems and what other systems should be employed. I will turn this around. Since the team is demonstrably bad, and was bad even when the Jets had Byfuglien, Trouba, Myers and Chiraot in the lineup last year, what exactly about PoMos systems makes you think he should continue to be the coach? Please be very detailed about why you think these are the right systems and why they should work in the league today, if it were not for the personnel he has.

(Mod)

 

[surixon]

Just wondering what all the armchair coaches would do differently that what pomo is doing with the personel he has. Not interested in line combos or roster, but specifically system-wise.

Please be very detailed about the system he's currently running and why you believe its deficient prior to laying out in some level of detail the systems you'd run and why they would be better suited to the personnel you have access to.

(mod)

Thanks

There are numerous posts outlining different system options that could be employed.

Maurice form his own words have prioritized the following areas:

• Wants to prevent rush and odd man chances against
• Doesn't want risky offensive plays at the oppositions blue line
• Wants offense to be derived from the points

What Maurice wants is to limit risk, keep opposition odd man rushes low while he hopes to win on the margins with the team capitalizing on their few chances.

Offensive system:

Maurice emphasises safe zone entries through dumps, chips or curl ups until the team has numbers in the zone. He emphasises the team stay on the outside and get the puck to the point for a point shot. He got annoyed at the team in the press a while ago when they were attempting more controlled zone entries and trying to derive offense off the rush. He would prefer a full team regroup in the nz before attacking the oppositions zone. This largely allows the other teams to get their formation set which forces the team to dump and chase more.

Another hall mark of his offensive system is to have the F3 up high in the zone to prevent odd man breaks. Most teams employ a similar tactic but it isn't as fixed as Maurices system where our F3 stays higher and is largely static.

He also has our dmen playing passive in that they will leave the zone early instead of aggressively gapping to maintain offensive zone puck possession.

The result of this system is a league/historically worse XGF% and results in the following heat map:

The shot map clearly maps the strategy of getting pucks to the points and shooting from distance. Maurice's ultra conservatism also limits the effectiveness of his point based offensive scheme. With forward 3 alway up high it really only allows for one forward to act as a screen on the goalie. You aren't scoring much if the goalie can see it.

As for what I think they should do, I think they need to utilize this teams strengths which is shooting talent and offensive creativity.

They should be attacking quickly through the nz and trying to gain the zone with speed, control and numbers in layers. the goal is to open up a seam pass to one of our elite shooters. If the shot misses/saved then you have numbers to regain possession and start cycling. Forward three would have more freedom to jump into the play when the opportunity arises. Dmen would also have the green light to pinch if they have a forward who rotates up to cover for them. The goal of the cycle would be to open up slot chances for our sharp shooters. Utilization of the points would be a secondary option.

Defensively:

Maurice runs a Man to Man hybrid defensive scheme. The biggest issues with this is to know when to switch off and on. This has been picked apart by other teams recently. Due to our players running around in this scheme it makes our breakouts disorganized as we often have Morrissey up at the blue line and say Connor down low covering for him which leads to some disjointedness.

Given that this team isn't full of defensive talent on the backend and that many of our forwards aren't great defensively the team should likely be using a more simple zone and overload system. Switches are easier in a zone scheme as you know to take your man when they enter your area and switch off when they leave your zone. An overload would utilize the teams speed to quickly overwhelm the opposition puck carrier and force turn overs. An overload system also leads to quicker and more organized breakouts which would support the offensive neutral zone scheme as mentioned above.

In the end I think Maurice is far too focused on trying to shore up the teams weakness on defense that he has forgotten the teams strengths and isn't optimally utilizing them. Successful organizations and teams leverage their strengths to derive success while actively seeking to shore up their weaknesses. Maurice is only focused on the one area and the numbers are fairly bleak. In order to marginally shore up our defense he has cratered this teams offensive ability (A team strength). The questions that should be asked by our coaching staff is how can we maximize our offensive players knowing that the talent and depth of our defense is a large constraint.

 

[Mud Turtle]

There are numerous posts outlining different system options that could be employed.

Maurice form his own words have prioritized the following areas:

• Wants to prevent rush and odd man chances against
• Doesn't want risky offensive plays at the oppositions blue line
• Wants offense to be derived from the points

What Maurice wants is to limit risk, keep opposition odd man rushes low while he hopes to win on the margins with the team capitalizing on their few chances.

Offensive system:

Maurice emphasises safe zone entries through dumps, chips or curl ups until the team has numbers in the zone. He emphasises the team stay on the outside and get the puck to the point for a point shot. He got annoyed at the team in the press a while ago when they were attempting more controlled zone entries and trying to derive offense off the rush. He would prefer a full team regroup in the nz before attacking the oppositions zone. This largely allows the other teams to get their formation set which forces the team to dump and chase more.

Another hall mark of his offensive system is to have the F3 up high in the zone to prevent odd man breaks. Most teams employ a similar tactic but it isn't as fixed as Maurices system where our F3 stays higher and is largely static.

He also has our dmen playing passive in that they will leave the zone early instead of aggressively gapping to maintain offensive zone puck possession.

The result of this system is a league/historically worse XGF% and results in the following heat map:

The shot map clearly maps the strategy of getting pucks to the points and shooting from distance. Maurice's ultra conservatism also limits the effectiveness of his point based offensive scheme. With forward 3 alway up high it really only allows for one forward to act as a screen on the goalie. You aren't scoring much if the goalie can see it.

As for what I think they should do, I think they need to utilize this teams strengths which is shooting talent and offensive creativity.

They should be attacking quickly through the nz and trying to gain the zone with speed, control and numbers in layers. the goal is to open up a seam pass to one of our elite shooters. If the shot misses/saved then you have numbers to regain possession and start cycling. Forward three would have more freedom to jump into the play when the opportunity arises. Dmen would also have the green light to pinch if they have a forward who rotates up to cover for them. The goal of the cycle would be to open up slot chances for our sharp shooters. Utilization of the points would be a secondary option.

Defensively:

Maurice runs a Man to Man hybrid defensive scheme. The biggest issues with this is to know when to switch off and on. This has been picked apart by other teams recently. Due to our players running around in this scheme it makes our breakouts disorganized as we often have Morrissey up at the blue line and say Connor down low covering for him which leads to some disjointedness.

Given that this team isn't full of defensive talent on the backend and that many of our forwards aren't great defensively the team should likely be using a more simple zone and overload system. Switches are easier in a zone scheme as you know to take your man when they enter your area and switch off when they leave your zone. An overload would utilize the teams speed to quickly overwhelm the opposition puck carrier and force turn overs. An overload system also leads to quicker and more organized breakouts which would support the offensive neutral zone scheme as mentioned above.

In the end I think Maurice is far too focused on trying to shore up the teams weakness on defense that he has forgotten the teams strengths and isn't optimally utilizing them. Successful organizations and teams leverage their strengths to derive success while actively seeking to shore up their weaknesses. Maurice is only focused on the one area and the numbers are fairly bleak. In order to marginally shore up our defense he has cratered this teams offensive ability (A team strength). The questions that should be asked by our coaching staff is how can we maximize our offensive players knowing that the talent and depth of our defense is a large constraint.

Fantastic post. Bang on.

 

[FonRiesen]

There are numerous posts outlining different system options that could be employed.

Maurice form his own words have prioritized the following areas:

• Wants to prevent rush and odd man chances against
• Doesn't want risky offensive plays at the oppositions blue line
• Wants offense to be derived from the points

What Maurice wants is to limit risk, keep opposition odd man rushes low while he hopes to win on the margins with the team capitalizing on their few chances.

Offensive system:

Maurice emphasises safe zone entries through dumps, chips or curl ups until the team has numbers in the zone. He emphasises the team stay on the outside and get the puck to the point for a point shot. He got annoyed at the team in the press a while ago when they were attempting more controlled zone entries and trying to derive offense off the rush. He would prefer a full team regroup in the nz before attacking the oppositions zone. This largely allows the other teams to get their formation set which forces the team to dump and chase more.

Another hall mark of his offensive system is to have the F3 up high in the zone to prevent odd man breaks. Most teams employ a similar tactic but it isn't as fixed as Maurices system where our F3 stays higher and is largely static.

He also has our dmen playing passive in that they will leave the zone early instead of aggressively gapping to maintain offensive zone puck possession.

The result of this system is a league/historically worse XGF% and results in the following heat map:

The shot map clearly maps the strategy of getting pucks to the points and shooting from distance. Maurice's ultra conservatism also limits the effectiveness of his point based offensive scheme. With forward 3 alway up high it really only allows for one forward to act as a screen on the goalie. You aren't scoring much if the goalie can see it.

As for what I think they should do, I think they need to utilize this teams strengths which is shooting talent and offensive creativity.

They should be attacking quickly through the nz and trying to gain the zone with speed, control and numbers in layers. the goal is to open up a seam pass to one of our elite shooters. If the shot misses/saved then you have numbers to regain possession and start cycling. Forward three would have more freedom to jump into the play when the opportunity arises. Dmen would also have the green light to pinch if they have a forward who rotates up to cover for them. The goal of the cycle would be to open up slot chances for our sharp shooters. Utilization of the points would be a secondary option.

Defensively:

Maurice runs a Man to Man hybrid defensive scheme. The biggest issues with this is to know when to switch off and on. This has been picked apart by other teams recently. Due to our players running around in this scheme it makes our breakouts disorganized as we often have Morrissey up at the blue line and say Connor down low covering for him which leads to some disjointedness.

Given that this team isn't full of defensive talent on the backend and that many of our forwards aren't great defensively the team should likely be using a more simple zone and overload system. Switches are easier in a zone scheme as you know to take your man when they enter your area and switch off when they leave your zone. An overload would utilize the teams speed to quickly overwhelm the opposition puck carrier and force turn overs. An overload system also leads to quicker and more organized breakouts which would support the offensive neutral zone scheme as mentioned above.

In the end I think Maurice is far too focused on trying to shore up the teams weakness on defense that he has forgotten the teams strengths and isn't optimally utilizing them. Successful organizations and teams leverage their strengths to derive success while actively seeking to shore up their weaknesses. Maurice is only focused on the one area and the numbers are fairly bleak. In order to marginally shore up our defense he has cratered this teams offensive ability (A team strength). The questions that should be asked by our coaching staff is how can we maximize our offensive players knowing that the talent and depth of our defense is a large constraint.

Thanks for going in depth - this matches my 'eye test'. It would be interesting to hear the conversations going on in the coaches' offices - who actually thinks it's worth pursuing these approaches??