Coyotes Fans Only: Is Tippett(coaching staff) the Problem

[XX]

Yeah I think that's true. Doing it that way would make some games more entertaining but I think we would also be in for more blowouts.

Doubt it. Tippett robs himself of a true shutdown line by 'balancing' the lines.

Martinook - Hanzal - Rieder could probably win some games if matched up right.

 

[CC96]

I think that one thing that hurts rookie point production is Dave Tippet's tendency to try to balance out lines (not completely but relatively). This makes it harder for our purely skilled rookies to step in to a top line role and excel. Personally, I think trying to have balanced lines is another thing that hurts us. Stops best players from being out on the ice more.

Why would you want two lines that can score, when we can have four that can't instead?

 

[RemoAZ]

Why would you want two lines that can score, when we can have four that can't instead?

Defend the deficit!

 

[BUX7PHX]

BS
This is a revisionist lie. He slotted in immediately as 2C and had 13 points and was +13 in his first 16 games with Ottawa. Nice try.

http://thehockeywriters.com/kyle-turris-journey-to-first-line-centre/

This article has him as first being a #1 C due to injuries to Cs ahead of him in 12-13 season. He and Greening were the de facto #2 Cs for the Senators.

There is also context - Turris happened to be joining a team that won 10 of its next 13 after the trade - was that all Turris? Or did the team just start to play confident hockey? If you want to put the 13 points in 16 games all on Turris, then that should also let you know that he was sandbagging his way through Phoenix. If Turris were playing that well in practices, showing the right attitude, and carrying that over, then there wouldn't have been any need to explore trading him.

 

[Lilhoody]

Good morning all. I have lurked about for awhile and read most of the Coyotes threads, including this one. I'm convinced DT and his staff are the major issue with the team; I almost wonder if the team has started to subtly protest him and his ways. Regardless, change is almost always good. Perhaps a clean break and fresh start would benefit the team?

BTW: what bothers me most about DT is his his lack of personal accountability. I can't remember a time he has spoke to the media and owned the team's performance. He blames and shames...that isn't leadership.

 

[PhoPhan]

I remain confused by the two main critiques of Tippett.

On one hand, I keep seeing that he's "lost the room," the players don't respect him anymore, they've tuned him out, etc. This would connote a lack of structure on the ice.

On the other hand, I also see frequently that the rigidity of his system and how strictly he enforces that system are choking the creativity out of otherwise offensively brilliant players. This would connote too much structure.

These ideas are obviously in direct conflict with each other, and I'm not sure how that tension can be overlooked. As importantly, neither really stands up to scrutiny on its own.

Regarding players tuning him out, which players? Tippett has long had a reputation as a coach beloved by his players. We've all seen the polls that ranked him as the top coach in the league that players want to play for. Moreover, the players on this team are by and large so new to the organization that they can't possibly have tuned him out already. I agree fully that every coach has a shelf life and that even the best bench boss will wear out his welcome eventually, but I'm really not seeing any evidence of that. Have players made even remotely critical comments publicly? Have players been coasting? That's the sort of smoke you see when there's a fire burning in the locker room, but everyone seems to be on the same page.

As for the "too much structure" comment, it ignores a number of offensive players who have flourished under Tippett (disproportionately from the back end but Ray Whitney matched his career bests for goals and assists here, as just one example). Peter Holland was just quoted as saying he is afforded far more agency in Tippett's system than he had under Babcock.

I'm not saying Tippett is a perfect coach, or even that he's necessarily the best option right now. But these criticisms ring hollow. They're the sorts of conclusions people make blindly and then work backwards from, but there is not enough evidence to support either idea, much less both.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

I agree. I don't see the coach's hand in all of the dumb passes in the D zone which cross the middle and get picked off. I don't see the coach's hand in the inability to separate opposing forwards from the puck. I certainly don't see the coach's hand in Duclair and OEL's poor campaigns to date (although I suspect that OEL has a wrist or hand injury based upon his play.

 

[PhoPhan]

I get the anxiety over a coach with a reputation for botching young players (which is almost entirely undeserved, for too many reasons to count) during such a pivotal moment for this rebuilding franchise, but thinking a new coaching staff will move the needle more than a little bit is lazy and aspirational.

 

[Vinny Boombatz]

I agree. I don't see the coach's hand in all of the dumb passes in the D zone which cross the middle and get picked off. I don't see the coach's hand in the inability to separate opposing forwards from the puck. I certainly don't see the coach's hand in Duclair and OEL's poor campaigns to date (although I suspect that OEL has a wrist or hand injury based upon his play.

I see it almost like Tippett is "over coaching", basically telling the players you must do X, Y & Z. It's like a car making a road trip, there are over a zillion ways to get from point A to point B, but under Tippett there is only 1 way.

Tippett has sucked the creativity out of Duclair & Domi and can't wait for him to do it to Keller and Strome.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

I see it almost like Tippett is "over coaching", basically telling the players you must do X, Y & Z. It's like a car making a road trip, there are over a zillion ways to get from point A to point B, but under Tippett there is only 1 way.

Tippett has sucked the creativity out of Duclair & Domi and can't wait for him to do it to Keller and Strome.

So you're saying that over the summer Tippett changed his scheme to the point where Domi and Duclair couldn't function as they did last season? This whole Tippett bashing thing makes no sense. It is group think coupled to the heart racing excitement of a lynch mob.

 

[Vinny Boombatz]

So you're saying that over the summer Tippett changed his scheme to the point where Domi and Duclair couldn't function as they did last season? This whole Tippett bashing thing makes no sense. It is group think coupled to the heart racing excitement of a lynch mob.

Nope, I said last year that you could tell that early in the season both Domi & Duclair were playing some really creative hockey, but yet Tippett wouldn't play them together all that often, and when he did, they did some great things.

By the end of the season, the creativity that Domi & Duclair showed was all but gone and we're left with what we have this season.

The first 25 games last year were "fun" to watch because you didn't know what Domi & Duclair were going to do...well that simply faded away by season's end.

To my point, you can over coach someone. You don't think that most coaches in todays NHL have taken the creativity out of the game? I do

Every time Tippett says that someone "plays the right way", I know that he has a single path and it's the only way he thinks it works. or when he says he's a really good 2-way player.

I don't think that everyone has to be a 200ft player. What I mean is that as long as the player is competent on the backend, it's ok as long as he is a game-changer on the front end. DeAngelo is a good point, he is absolutely dynamic, yes, he's not quite a force on the back-end, but he doesn't need to be to move the needle in the right direction. There is 'zero' reason why he should be sitting.

Just looking at the players, they all look uninspired, just going through the motions, this has been OEL's worst season since his rookie year. Gogo is much better than this.

I'm tired of watching Doan do what he does in 17+ mins and seeing someone like Dvorak who is going to be really, really good getting 9 mins.

 

[_Del_]

Veterans have zero accountability. Young players are "over- accountable". That's a new word I just coined, but Tippett might have it trade marked. Remember Maloney's comments about people being here too long and being complacent? His comments again a year later about not being here to sing kumbaya? How about Nieuwendyk's comments about veteran players not being held accountable under Tippett? What about Les Jackson's comments about youth and opportunity?

Coaches have a shelf life. Dave Tippett would be great for a couple of years in LA who is built with size and speed, or with another veteran heavy roster elsewhere. He is the last person who should be in charge of this rebuild.

And you're kidding yourself if you don't think Tippett has a reputation regarding young players. I don't think multiple people around the league saying things like, "now they are going to do it the dumb way" were based on Tippett's glowing reputation as a developer or evaluator of talent.
They ought to be careful, because even if that reputation is wholly unmerited, it doesn't matter. That perception is all that is going to matter to the kids on the roster. When Marner looks at the opportunities and sees that other lesser regarded prospects are getting, and he isn't getting them, he's going to wonder if he's going to end up like Eriksson or Turris under this coach. And unlike Eriksson, he doesn't have someone in management who will intercede because Tippett is the management now.
When you even have Tippett guys like Rieder who voiced complaints about his usage and hinted maybe they'd all be happier with a split. I doubt that Rieder thinks he'd have less opportunity or worse development elsewhere. And that's a guy being fed minutes, not healthy scratched or demoted despite generally good play.

 

[jacobhockey13]

Why would you want two lines that can score, when we can have four that can't instead?

Pretending to do John Chayka's job and see why this would happen and why it's more effective to stack the top line even when not accounting for ice time distribution (Would love to hear critiques because I'm certainly a novice when it comes to statistics):

Mathematically, I would theorize that it's not a linear trend line and instead an exponential line.

Which can be made sense of with a simplified model. A certain number of good plays are required on average to get a goal (Sometimes it might be one, but usually it's more than one, say a good pass and a good shot, and this is why stacking lines result in better chances). Not making a good play results in losing the puck. (Good players are going to have a higher probability of making a good play).

Let's theoretically have two good players (Let's call them Domi and Duclair) along with four average players. After research we determine on that the average number of good plays needed to score a goal is three (Could be any number, the higher it is the greater benefit to stacking lines). We can either play Domi and Duclair together on the top line or we can separate them and play one on each line. Let's say each player gets one opportunity to make a good play. Thus, we have a probability of scoring if we stack the lines and a probability if we don't. The probability of scoring with the Domi and Duclair together will always be greater than that of them playing separately.

G is the probability of good players making a good play, b is the probability of bad player making a good play. Function s represents stacking the lines, function b represents balancing the lines.

Where G>B and 0 < B < G < 1

s=G*G*B + B*B*B > b=G*B*B + G*B*B

s will always be greater than b.

/end of psuedomath rant

 

[rt]

I remain confused by the two main critiques of Tippett.

On one hand, I keep seeing that he's "lost the room," the players don't respect him anymore, they've tuned him out, etc. This would connote a lack of structure on the ice.

On the other hand, I also see frequently that the rigidity of his system and how strictly he enforces that system are choking the creativity out of otherwise offensively brilliant players. This would connote too much structure.

These ideas are obviously in direct conflict with each other, and I'm not sure how that tension can be overlooked. As importantly, neither really stands up to scrutiny on its own.

Regarding players tuning him out, which players? Tippett has long had a reputation as a coach beloved by his players. We've all seen the polls that ranked him as the top coach in the league that players want to play for. Moreover, the players on this team are by and large so new to the organization that they can't possibly have tuned him out already. I agree fully that every coach has a shelf life and that even the best bench boss will wear out his welcome eventually, but I'm really not seeing any evidence of that. Have players made even remotely critical comments publicly? Have players been coasting? That's the sort of smoke you see when there's a fire burning in the locker room, but everyone seems to be on the same page.

As for the "too much structure" comment, it ignores a number of offensive players who have flourished under Tippett (disproportionately from the back end but Ray Whitney matched his career bests for goals and assists here, as just one example). Peter Holland was just quoted as saying he is afforded far more agency in Tippett's system than he had under Babcock.

I'm not saying Tippett is a perfect coach, or even that he's necessarily the best option right now. But these criticisms ring hollow. They're the sorts of conclusions people make blindly and then work backwards from, but there is not enough evidence to support either idea, much less both.

Setting aside anything we've seen on the ice and speaking strictly to your asserted mutual exclusivity, can we consider what the following scenario might look like: Tippett installs a rigid, prevent defense, dump and chase, cycle it kind of scheme. The players color within these lines but do so largely in a half hearted manner. It's the same motions but without urgency or gusto. That doesn't necessarily mean we'll see guys go rogue and suddenly start playing an up-tempo, offensive, possession based game to spite the coach who's lost the room. Wouldn't they still play by his rules only less effectively?

 

[_Del_]

The players color within these lines but do so largely in a half hearted manner. It's the same motions but without urgency or gusto.

They certainly didn't respond to the trade threat. You would have expected a small raise in blood pressure if the team wasn't completely checked out already.

 

[PhoPhan]

Setting aside anything we've seen on the ice and speaking strictly to your asserted mutual exclusivity, can we consider what the following scenario might look like: Tippett installs a rigid, prevent defense, dump and chase, cycle it kind of scheme. The players color within these lines but do so largely in a half hearted manner. It's the same motions but without urgency or gusto. That doesn't necessarily mean we'll see guys go rogue and suddenly start playing an up-tempo, offensive, possession based game to spite the coach who's lost the room. Wouldn't they still play by his rules only less effectively?

But in that case, the system isn't the problem. The lack of effort is. And even in that case, it's not clear that the lack of effort is stemming from a coaching issue.

Beyond that, that doesn't really resemble what's going on, so I'm not sure there's much value in thinking about a hypothetical like that.

 

[CC96]

Good morning all. I have lurked about for awhile and read most of the Coyotes threads, including this one. I'm convinced DT and his staff are the major issue with the team; I almost wonder if the team has started to subtly protest him and his ways. Regardless, change is almost always good. Perhaps a clean break and fresh start would benefit the team?

BTW: what bothers me most about DT is his his lack of personal accountability. I can't remember a time he has spoke to the media and owned the team's performance. He blames and shames...that isn't leadership.

I like you. We're going to get along, and this is the best first post I've seen form a lurker, for a long time.

 

[BUX7PHX]

I see it almost like Tippett is "over coaching", basically telling the players you must do X, Y & Z. It's like a car making a road trip, there are over a zillion ways to get from point A to point B, but under Tippett there is only 1 way.

Tippett has sucked the creativity out of Duclair & Domi and can't wait for him to do it to Keller and Strome.

Actually, those who argue against Tippett are the ones who make it a one way street. It must all be Dave's fault, and the players aren't the problem. As Holland said in his interview, Tippett actually allows more freedom than people realize. The fact that the players do dump and chase is probably more of a sign of seeing something that they can take advantage of.

Defenseman is closer to blue line than goal-line extended? Dump and chase so that you have a better opportunity to get to the puck.

Defenseman closer to goal-line extended and more stay-at-home type? Skate the puck in b/c he is giving the player room.

Tippett teaches both, but it is up to the player on ice to make that decision, too. The same way that an NFL QB has different options to pass to, our players have different opportunities to play the puck into the offensive zone. Some may have better outcomes than others, but it is not a situation where only one play is available, which would be the NFL equivalent of sending one WR on a pass pattern.

This is the exact reason why Tippett states that the NHL is not a developmental league. The awareness of what to do is defined by seeing the situation over and over again. That can be done in junior, the AHL, or the NHL. The difference is that when you get to the NHL, everyone is in the bigger/stronger/faster variety, so those decisions need to be made correctly and without hesitation far more often than in other leagues.

 

[rt]

But in that case, the system isn't the problem. The lack of effort is. And even in that case, it's not clear that the lack of effort is stemming from a coaching issue.

Beyond that, that doesn't really resemble what's going on, so I'm not sure there's much value in thinking about a hypothetical like that.

But then there's no longer that mutual exclusivity. It can be both the system and the effort at that point, right? The system sucks and the players have given up. New coach time.

 

[rt]

Good morning all. I have lurked about for awhile and read most of the Coyotes threads, including this one. I'm convinced DT and his staff are the major issue with the team; I almost wonder if the team has started to subtly protest him and his ways. Regardless, change is almost always good. Perhaps a clean break and fresh start would benefit the team?

BTW: what bothers me most about DT is his his lack of personal accountability. I can't remember a time he has spoke to the media and owned the team's performance. He blames and shames...that isn't leadership.

Great first post.

 

[PhoPhan]

But then there's no longer that mutual exclusivity. It can be both the system and the effort at that point, right? The system sucks and the players have given up. New coach time.

The criticism isn't just "the system sucks" though, and if it were, I don't think there would be the same hysteria. The criticism has repeatedly been "it's too rigid for anyone to be creative." And if they're still playing within that system, then they're still following Tippett's orders and he hasn't "lost the room."

Like I said, I'm not interested in hypothetical non sequiturs here.

 

[cactus shake]

On the assumption that the main criticisms here of Tippett are baseless - what's the argument in favour of the job the coaching staff is doing? It's a bad team with a record to match, but what can be pointed to in terms of the team's play that provides optimism for future seasons? If Tippett's contract was up at the end of the season, what are the arguments for its renewal?

And not to pass up a chance for pointless pedantry as the assists part and overall point still stands, but 2011/12 was Whitney's joint 6th best season for goalscoring.

 

[Heldig]

I was reading The Hockey News (august issue) and there is a story titled New Schools Of Thought. It is about the new wave of analytics in the game. At one point they talk about Mike Sullivan changing the Pens to a North south speed game and possession. Of course other teams follow suit. BUT there is a caution from Canucks coach Willie Desjardins, "as a coach you have to be careful because it's one thing to run a system with one team, and then all of a sudden you have different personnel, and the system won't work with different personnel. You always have to adjust what you are doing to your personnel."

DT needs to adjust what he is doing. What worked 6 or so years ago is not working with the players he has now.

 

[WrinkledPossum]

On the assumption that the main criticisms here of Tippett are baseless - what's the argument in favour of the job the coaching staff is doing? It's a bad team with a record to match, but what can be pointed to in terms of the team's play that provides optimism for future seasons? If Tippett's contract was up at the end of the season, what are the arguments for its renewal?

And not to pass up a chance for pointless pedantry as the assists part and overall point still stands, but 2011/12 was Whitney's joint 6th best season for goalscoring.

I think Tippett's a good coach but I also think a new voice could be good for the team. But I don't think it would make a huge difference like a lot of people seem to think.

The roster isn't that good, no matter who the coach is the record isn't going to be great. There's going to be mistakes, there's going to be bad games.

My issue with the majority of the Anti-Tipp arguements is how ridiculous they are. Many are of them are not factually backed up. Many completely ignore what is normal in the NHL. Many cherry pick evidence, (blame tippett for Turris leaving, ignore successful players from that time)Blame him if a player is doing bad for awhile(HE RUINED HIM!), then when the player later improves it is in spite

A lot of it is quite comical and reminds me of when someone blames the president for everything that goes wrong.

 

[PhoPhan]

On the assumption that the main criticisms here of Tippett are baseless - what's the argument in favour of the job the coaching staff is doing? It's a bad team with a record to match, but what can be pointed to in terms of the team's play that provides optimism for future seasons? If Tippett's contract was up at the end of the season, what are the arguments for its renewal?

I am not sure I would have renewed his contract personally, but it is what it is, and we're probably stuck with it for a while. Is he perfect? Absolutely not. Are there better options available right now? Maybe, but not many if so. Is he an absolute train wreck that is dooming this franchise? No, and that's what what I'm trying to push back against.

My main argument for Tippett is that he's a known entity. Most of what makes a player a star in this league is on the player himself. There's little a coach can do to get him there. But it's very easy to ruin a player, and that comes more from personal mistreatment than from inconsistent usage. Players love Dave Tippett, and that is a good environment in which to develop players. We all know how the Turris episode went down, but as others have discussed, those wheels were in motion long before Tippett came aboard.

As I've said before, I could not care less about record this season. The focus should be on player development. That's extremely hard to assess over less than half a season, and it's asinine to judge it based on granular details game to game, especially when there are so many players vying for protected usage. Last year, we saw Domi, Duclair, Martinook, Murphy and Stone all raise their games to another level. This year, DeAngelo and Chychrun were bright spots out of the gate, Crouse is improving every night (a trajectory that has me eating crow), and Perlini has looked far better than I expected him to. Dvorak has had some ups and downs, but I was never as high on him as most folks seem to be, and he's coming along nonetheless.

Strome looked overmatched in nearly every appearance, but that appears to have been almost entirely physical, and he's now back in Erie working on his strength and skating. I said a few times this summer that they should have done that from the start, but I can respect that they gave him a shot anyway.

Basically, what I'm saying is: we're privy to so very little of the development process (most of which happens outside of game situations, let alone on the ice at all) that we can only really assess the results, and the results are not problematic. That some of these young guys have had struggles is to be expected, and there will be more to come.

The Eriksson example that everybody brings up is actually pretty illustrative. I have my doubts about how it actually went down given we're basing this account on very little substance, but let's say it happened the way Tippett's detractors describe it, which usually goes something like: Tippett was forcing Eriksson into too defensive a role and not giving him a chance to grow as an offensive player, management twisted his arm and told him to change up his usage, and then Eriksson finally unleashed his offensive ability. (Nevermind that his shooting percentage that year was 50% higher than his career average and almost 4 points higher than any other season in his career, or that it's not remotely uncommon for players to start hitting their offensive peak around age 23, his age at the start of that season.) Tippett saw things one way, management told him to change, and then he did. Isn't that what everyone keeps saying he's incapable of?

If the essence of all the different Tippett criticisms can be rolled into one point, it's that he's too rigid and stuck in his old ways. From what I can see, he's a very adaptive coach and approaches the game differently from how he did when he joined the organization. He certainly has flaws, but how can I take his critics seriously when they're more stuck in the past than he is?

And not to pass up a chance for pointless pedantry as the assists part and overall point still stands, but 2011/12 was Whitney's joint 6th best season for goalscoring.

Sloppy reading on my part. Sorry about that.