Coach Discussion: Coaching Thread

[Weezeric]

Not only did Buff quit on the team he screwed the team royally on the way out, I for one lost all respect for the guy after that move!

Pretty tough to fault Mo’s coaching this season, after an extended layoff anyone with a lick of sense knew both Samberg and Heinola would need seasoning in the AHL and for the guys that thought Perfetti would jump right in to the Jets lineup, seriously? Niku’s play kinda proved what Mo and the Jets coaching staff knew all along, only fault with Maurice this year is Thompson in over either Harkins or Versa-Lainen

I agree with every word Sip. Should I be worried for my sanity?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Last year's Jets would have made the playoffs. They were trending the right way before the layoff. Had beaten Washington, their nemesis, had beaten Edmonton. Team was rolling after the trade deadline. So if they finished 9th in points %, a hair behind Calgary, good chance we would have passed either them or Vancouver.

So to say we missed the playoffs in a shortened season deserves an asterisk at the very least.

And to include his first year in which Noel sunk us, is also doing a disservice. Maurice went 18-12-5 taking over, to make the playoffs he would have had to have gone 22-8-5.

I could say in 6 full seasons, Maurice has got the team to the playoffs 4 times, including the farthest in franchise history, and I would be partially right. Looks better that way, especially as we look like a playoff team again.

Just because the season ended with Jets on a winning streak does not mean that streak would have continued. Look a little closer and you can't even say that is likely. Eakin played a pretty big part in that streak and he was not playing well. It was just as likely over as it was to continue.

The fact is that we did miss the PO in '20. You can pretend that we were a PO team if you want to but you are kidding yourself.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Didn’t Buff have 9 points in the 6 playoff games the Jets played before he retired? He was far from a broken player in decline.

He told the team he was thinking about retiring literally the day before training camp. How prepared could you be for that?

And he didn’t just retire. He kept the team in cap purgatory by how he and his agent handled matters. I can’t see how Chevy could’ve handled that any better.

All Chevy had to do was accept Buff's retirement when it first came up. Still would have hurt the team but, come on, the guy has every right to retire if he wants to. He doesn't need to justify that to anyone but himself and his family. But he did have justifications if he chose to use them.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Helle carried the Jets last year. 9 shut outs? Thanks to Maurice?

True - but it was 6 SO, not 9.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Lotta posts here just proving the assertion that Maurice gets an incredible number of excuses made for him. His record is what it is. He has one of the largest ever sample sizes as an NHL HC.

 

[Peggy]

True - but it was 6 SO, not 9.

My bad

Didn't bother to fact check
I knew it was one those numbers just flipped the other way lol

 

[LowLefty]

Lotta posts here just proving the assertion that Maurice gets an incredible number of excuses made for him. His record is what it is. He has one of the largest ever samples sizes as an NHL HC.

It's funny how "excuses" work -

Typically they come about when trying to justify the bad - he lost more than he won because of roster issues, injuries, terrible blue line, bad luck, etc - but not coaching

And then when you look at it from the other perspective where one might try to reward or at least recognize the good - the team is winning games after all. Now you hear a different chorus of excuses from the other side of the argument - he's winning because of goaltending, the weak schedule, elite forwards, etc. - but not coaching

Excuses run down both sides of the street - we just don't always acknowledge the other side.
Lots of posts here and they all sound like excuses.

 

[scelaton]

Lotta posts here just proving the assertion that Maurice gets an incredible number of excuses made for him. His record is what it is. He has one of the largest ever samples sizes as an NHL HC.

Yes, but evaluating Maurice's large 'sample size' en bloc is not at all helpful in the way most people might think.

He started as an NHL coach at age 28-- 1 year older than Scheif and Lowry, and half the age of most pro coaches. There is a steep (and growing) learning curve in the analytical, empirical and interpersonal facets of the game, which is one of the reasons that most pro coaches are not young men. And the game itself has changed enormously, requiring a different skill set than 20 years ago.

I happen to believe that judging coaches based on their teams' records is flawed in the first place, but if one were to do a performance appraisal on Maurice, I wouldn't go back more than 10 years, because he is not the same person as he was in 1995, and neither are the requirements of the job.

 

[Teemusalami204]

Even if Maurice wasn’t safe for the next 4 years the poolman, laine and Dubois injuries are enough for him to get a pass on this season

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

It's funny how "excuses" work -

Typically they come about when trying to justify the bad - he lost more than he won because of roster issues, injuries, terrible blue line, bad luck, etc - but not coaching

And then when you look at it from the other perspective where one might try to reward or at least recognize the good - the team is winning games after all. Now you hear a different chorus of excuses from the other side of the argument - he's winning because of goaltending, the weak schedule, elite forwards, etc. - but not coaching

Excuses run down both sides of the street - we just don't always acknowledge the other side.
Lots of posts here and they all sound like excuses.

Not what I meant - but good point.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Yes, but evaluating Maurice's large 'sample size' en bloc is not at all helpful in the way most people might think.

He started as an NHL coach at age 28-- 1 year older than Scheif and Lowry, and half the age of most pro coaches. There is a steep (and growing) learning curve in the analytical, empirical and interpersonal facets of the game, which is one of the reasons that most pro coaches are not young men. And the game itself has changed enormously, requiring a different skill set than 20 years ago.

I happen to believe that judging coaches based on their teams' records is flawed in the first place, but if one were to do a performance appraisal on Maurice, I wouldn't go back more than 10 years, because he is not the same person as he was in 1995, and neither are the requirements of the job.

Fair enough. His record the last 10 years is less than stellar. Maybe a little better than the first 10, but he has had more to work with.

I don't think he is a terrible coach. I don't think he is a great one either. There aren't very many of either of those. He is like most coaches, somewhere in the mushy middle.

 

[cbcwpg]

Fair enough. His record the last 10 years is less than stellar. Maybe a little better than the first 10, but he has had more to work with.

I don't think he is a terrible coach. I don't think he is a great one either. There aren't very many of either of those. He is like most coaches, somewhere in the mushy middle.

I don't think he's terrible either and I would expect his next 534 games coaching the Jets will be like his first 534 games coaching the Jets. Better than 0.500 with a hint of winning it all...

 

[voyageur]

You are right to emphasize special teams, but how much ST success is on personnel and how much is on systems/coaching? Especially the PK. PK requires sacrifice but it isn't a high skill role. How long does it take to learn?

I think there is a process of adaptation. The puck moves fast on the PP. A lot of it is video scouting. Talent wise it's pretty fundamental, and I think bigger players, who can win board battles have success (Pardy, Chiarot, Buff), but that's not the only measure of being a good PKer. It's mostly positioning, and reads. Shot blocking is important to mitigate high danger chances. I think being afraid to block shots is why players like Scheifele and Wheeler have never been great on the PK, I'd also say that's part of what is holding Morrissey back this year. I think that a young player like Samberg will be good in this role. Stanley I am not as sure about. He's got the reach but in the past he's been somewhat slow in his first step, which leaves him to be attacked on the cycle, and in his pivots.

Poolman is probably the best example we have of a player who came through the ranks to be a pretty decent PKer. And he still isn't a regular here.

I also think there is an element of experience that comes in handy, because you get to a know an opposing player's tendencies over the years, and their skillset, which is valuable.

I couldn't tell you how much the coaching and systems impact a player's success or lack thereof. A good PP is going to be good no matter who is on the ice against them.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I don't think he's terrible either and I would expect his next 534 games coaching the Jets will be like his first 534 games coaching the Jets. Better than 0.500 with a hint of winning it all...

Just a hint. It is always just over the next hill.

 

[Gm0ney]

It's funny how "excuses" work -

Typically they come about when trying to justify the bad - he lost more than he won because of roster issues, injuries, terrible blue line, bad luck, etc - but not coaching

And then when you look at it from the other perspective where one might try to reward or at least recognize the good - the team is winning games after all. Now you hear a different chorus of excuses from the other side of the argument - he's winning because of goaltending, the weak schedule, elite forwards, etc. - but not coaching

Excuses run down both sides of the street - we just don't always acknowledge the other side.
Lots of posts here and they all sound like excuses.

When he puts in lower skill guys, useless vets and says it's because of their penalty killing prowess - and then plays them 30 seconds on the PK over the course of two games, then that's on the coach.

When he says young players aren't going to rot on the taxi squad, and then the taxi squad is chock full of rotting young players, that's on the coach.

When the team is playing shitty hockey, getting speedbagged by the likes of the Canucks and Senators, that's on the coach.

When the team is terrible at zone exits and zone entries, that's on the coach. Ok - maybe some of it is on the players, but Maurice is not helping the team with these systems...higher skill players would probably help, but it's just not optimal. When Connor-Scheifele-Wheeler get hemmed, the excuse can't be that the players aren't talented enough - it's the system. Or maybe they're refusing to play the system, not listening...that's still on the coach!

The team IS winning because of high skill players converting on their rare chances. Or because one of our goalies stands on his head, or the other team's goalie has a bad night. You can't credit coaching for that.

No team in the league has a worse xGF% than the Jets. They're 5th worst in SCF%. Worst in HDCF%. Look at the lineup - this is unacceptable.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think there is a process of adaptation. The puck moves fast on the PP. A lot of it is video scouting. Talent wise it's pretty fundamental, and I think bigger players, who can win board battles have success (Pardy, Chiarot, Buff), but that's not the only measure of being a good PKer. It's mostly positioning, and reads. Shot blocking is important to mitigate high danger chances. I think being afraid to block shots is why players like Scheifele and Wheeler have never been great on the PK, I'd also say that's part of what is holding Morrissey back this year. I think that a young player like Samberg will be good in this role. Stanley I am not as sure about. He's got the reach but in the past he's been somewhat slow in his first step, which leaves him to be attacked on the cycle, and in his pivots.

Poolman is probably the best example we have of a player who came through the ranks to be a pretty decent PKer. And he still isn't a regular here.

I also think there is an element of experience that comes in handy, because you get to a know an opposing player's tendencies over the years, and their skillset, which is valuable.

I couldn't tell you how much the coaching and systems impact a player's success or lack thereof. A good PP is going to be good no matter who is on the ice against them.

Certainly there is an element of experience in PK'ing. But it is not complicated. It can be learned very quickly. The reads take experience and there is only 1 way to get that.

The PK is quite different for the forwards than it is for the Dmen. The D need to block more shots. The F need to try more to break up the PP and get the puck out of the zone.

Stanley's first step is still slow. Very slow. But he does take up a lot of space on the ice. He can block 2 shooting lanes at once. And then there is that long reach. He might be a good PK'er, or not. It would be interesting to see.

But PK remains the technically easiest role. Block shooting lanes, block passing lanes, try to get the puck out of the D zone. It is painful, it requires guts, but it is not complicated.

 

[JetsFan815]

When he says young players aren't going to rot on the taxi squad, and then the taxi squad is chock full of rotting young players, that's on the coach.

To that Maurice replies:

 

[LowLefty]

When he puts in lower skill guys, useless vets and says it's because of their penalty killing prowess - and then plays them 30 seconds on the PK over the course of two games, then that's on the coach.

When he says young players aren't going to rot on the taxi squad, and then the taxi squad is chock full of rotting young players, that's on the coach.

When the team is playing shitty hockey, getting speedbagged by the likes of the Canucks and Senators, that's on the coach.

When the team is terrible at zone exits and zone entries, that's on the coach. Ok - maybe some of it is on the players, but Maurice is not helping the team with these systems...higher skill players would probably help, but it's just not optimal. When Connor-Scheifele-Wheeler get hemmed, the excuse can't be that the players aren't talented enough - it's the system. Or maybe they're refusing to play the system, not listening...that's still on the coach!

The team IS winning because of high skill players converting on their rare chances. Or because one of our goalies stands on his head, or the other team's goalie has a bad night. You can't credit coaching for that.

No team in the league has a worse xGF% than the Jets. They're 5th worst in SCF%. Worst in HDCF%. Look at the lineup - this is unacceptable.

Based on your post, you can't credit him for anything - somehow a coach that can do absolutely nothing right, but still manages to hang around as long as he has.

Regardless, I was just having a little fun with Mort - there was really no need for you to prove my point

 

[Gm0ney]

Based on your post, you can't credit him for anything - somehow a coach that can do absolutely nothing right, but still manages to hang around as long as he has.

Regardless, I was just having a little fun with Mort - there was really no need for you to prove my point

Hold on - just the other day I was crediting him for going with 3F - 0D in OT! (although after the game he said he only did that because Poolman was hurt and they were down to 5 D - but that doesn't even make sense...what, was he worried about running out of D in 5 minutes of OT or something? Not like Poolman was going to play in that situation anyway...you just can't trust anything he says).

Anyway, my point is, if Maurice had this team playing great hockey I would have no complaints. Like I said in another thread, I'd give him way more benefit of the doubt on his questionable lineup decisions if I thought he was doing a great job elsewhere.

There's evidence that goalies don't really change much from coach to coach. So it's not like Maurice is whispering some magic words in Hellebuyck's ear to get him to play Vezina level hockey. When the team is relying on elite goaltending, then I don't think it makes sense to credit the coach. It's not just some spiteful withholding because Maurice ruined Sami Niku's career or something.

Speaking of Niku, Maurice's latest load of crap is that he's playing him because a puck moving defenseman is just what the doctor ordered against Montreal's tenacious forecheck. I ask you, with this team, when would it be a detriment to have a skilled puck mover playing in the lineup? Apparently Maurice thinks the answer is "most of the time". Or maybe he doesn't? (see paragraph 1 above)

You know what team got Globetrottered regularly but somehow managed to pull wins out of the fire anyway, deluding a large portion of their fanbase into believing they had a legitimately decent team? The Randy Carlyle Maple Leafs. When the Jets would dominate and lose (*cough* thanks Pavs *cough*) we'd say we just got Leafed. Now we're the goddamn Carlyle Leafs - except we actually have a better lineup...

 

[Whileee]

I'm not sure why so many fans seem to get wound up by Maurice's daily media briefings. Most of his answers are not intended to provide fans (or the media) deep insights into his evaluation of players. More likely, he's constantly thinking about how his answers might be interpreted by his players because his main purpose in life is to get them to play as well as they can. So when he gives a reason for putting a player into the line-up instead of another (e.g. Niku instead of Stanley), he's most likely thinking about how it will be perceived by Stanley. At least, that's how I would be thinking in that leadership role. Maybe he's been particularly happy with Niku's work in the practice sessions, compared to Stanley. But he's never going to say that publicly.

I have found Maurice to be more interesting this season in his interviews mainly because I think there are some reporters (particularly Murat) that have focused more questions on systems and metrics. I think he's probably also a bit sensitive to some of the blogosphere and social media memes that suggest that Maurice has no knowledge or appreciation for data. To me, those interviews / comments are infinitely more interesting than trying to assess Maurice based on his comments on the line-up. I basically take that with a grain of salt.

 

[garret9]

That's a penalty kill... #oof

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

So why isn’t demelo playing with morrissey again?

 

[Gm0ney]

So why isn’t demelo playing with morrissey again?

So we can get noted puck mover...uh...Nathan Beaulieu onto the top pairing and move Morrissey to his off-side to...um...get him going agan?

 

[Whileee]

Not sure if it fits under the "Coaching" thread, but I think one of the Jets' success factors this season has been a positive penalty differential.

 

[DRC]

Starts at 4:40