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

[PhoPhan]

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.

This is roughly where I'm at, but put much more succinctly. Cheers.

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

Bingo. If a player performs poorly under Tippett and then blossoms, it's proof Tippett was holding him back (Turris). If a player performs poorly under Tippett and struggles elsewhere, it's proof Tippett ruined him (Rundblad). If a player excels under Tippett and then struggles elsewhere, well, nobody ever brings those up (Vrbata, Yandle, et al). Dude can't win.

 

[Jakey53]

The poster you two are talking about is often defending Tippett against allegations of ruining young players and is doing exactly that in the post. He's also not saying Tippett ruined them, he simply stated that there's been only two busts under Tippett.

I know what he said, but I'm just saying why is it DT's fault with those two players.

 

[Matias Maccete]

I know what he said, but I'm just saying why is it DT's fault with those two players.

I don't think he's saying it is DT's fault.

 

[Vinny Boombatz]

This is roughly where I'm at, but put much more succinctly. Cheers.



Bingo. If a player performs poorly under Tippett and then blossoms, it's proof Tippett was holding him back (Turris). If a player performs poorly under Tippett and struggles elsewhere, it's proof Tippett ruined him (Rundblad). If a player excels under Tippett and then struggles elsewhere, well, nobody ever brings those up (Vrbata, Yandle, et al). Dude can't win.

I'm in agreement with the following:
Turris was under utilized under Tippett, he found success elsewhere
Rundblad was a bad hockey player before Tippett and a bad hockey player after Tippett
Vrbata has had success here under both TGO & Tippett he is what he is
Yandle luckily was a veteran by the time Tippett came around otherwise he would have been under utilized
Boedker I'd argue Tippett ruined him, he showed so much better as a rookie than what his development became, now he's not much of a player.

At the moment without a doubt I can say that DeAngelo has probably been our best Dman, but he sits, why?

OEL has underperformed, not Tippett's fault, I think he's pressing to do too much because the team can't score and he knows it, so he's taking a lot of high risk plays.

Goligoski is a much better player and has played better lately, but I'd suggest the system isn't a good fit for a more uptempo style player

 

[Jakey53]

I don't think he's saying it is DT's fault.

My bad then. I thought he was.

 

[Jakey53]

I'm in agreement with the following:
Turris was under utilized under Tippett, he found success elsewhere
Rundblad was a bad hockey player before Tippett and a bad hockey player after Tippett
Vrbata has had success here under both TGO & Tippett he is what he is
Yandle luckily was a veteran by the time Tippett came around otherwise he would have been under utilized
Boedker I'd argue Tippett ruined him, he showed so much better as a rookie than what his development became, now he's not much of a player.

At the moment without a doubt I can say that DeAngelo has probably been our best Dman, but he sits, why?

OEL has underperformed, not Tippett's fault, I think he's pressing to do too much because the team can't score and he knows it, so he's taking a lot of high risk plays.

Goligoski is a much better player and has played better lately, but I'd suggest the system isn't a good fit for a more uptempo style player

Boedker has done better with the Coyotes than any other team, because he was given a chance to lead. For one I have to agree with what XX said about Boedker. Would you believe Schlemko has more points than Boedker?

 

[WrinkledPossum]

I'm in agreement with the following:
Turris was under utilized under Tippett, he found success elsewhere

Yandle luckily was a veteran by the time Tippett came around otherwise he would have been under utilized
Boedker I'd argue Tippett ruined him, he showed so much better as a rookie than what his development became, now he's not much of a player.

At the moment without a doubt I can say that DeAngelo has probably been our best Dman, but he sits, why?

The difference between Turris and Yandle's NHL experience when Tippett came around was about half a season. I don't understand how half a season made Yandle "immune from being ruined"

I think Gretzky nearly ruined Boedker and he was salvaged into a player was at, or producing at a 50+ point level the last 3 years for us.

Most of the prospects who came in under Gretzky were considered to be rushed.


And I think the reason why DeAngelo sits is because Stone and Murphy are supposed to be our 2 best RHD. So that leaves Schenn vs DeAngelo. Scratch DeAngelo our PP takes a hit, scratch Schenn our PK takes a hit. And our PK already sucks.

 

[cactus shake]

<snip>

<snip>

Thanks a ton for writing these out. I agree with the pushback on some of the criticisms & am glad it's there to read to counter my own gloom and doom feelings towards Tippett sometimes. I just found it interesting that the counter arguments generally came in the form of breaking apart the criticisms, as opposed to the case ever really being made for what's going right. Which as your post explains why - it's virtually impossible to measure development (or much of anything), from our small viewpoint. But the discussion's still fun and I would love to feel the same optimism beyond the incredible prospect pool that's been built, but which alone obviously doesn't guarantee anything.

I'll leave a proper response for tomorrow as it's getting late here. I think everyone agrees on the record being inconsequential this year, just arguments over the play that's lead to it. And I agree on the known entity point, which has always made complete sense from an ownership perspective with all the doubts the organisation has faced off the ice.

And as I never wrote it out, the GM aspect of Tippett's/Chayka's role gave me huge optimism this summer. They could have easily shipped out youth for veterans (like my dumb ass suggested, making the argument for moving Chyrchrun before he'd even played a game) but instead added huge pieces to the prospect pool. The Vermette buyout has looked a mistake (my bad, again) but is a move that I still don't mind them making, as it gave the young centres every chance of making the team. They could have easily compounded that mistake by playing Strome before he was ready, which I agree, he did not look. And as bad as the constant scratching was at the time, I'm not sure the alternatives were better. Immediately sending him back to juniors after the season he had might not have sent the right message, which it seems he might not have got the previous year (focus should be on physically maturing & playing a complete game). It gets said enough that some adversity is likely a good thing for a prospect's development & I think the start of this year sucking as much as it would have done for Strome, combined with the paycheques and the practices, can really focus & drive him on if he has the mind to match the talent.

Sloppy reading on my part. Sorry about that.

No need or I'll feel bad for being a smartass. The point still stood, it just made me look it up.

 

[AZviaNJ]

Longest NHL playoff droughts:

Edmonton 10 years (7 coaches during that period)
Carolina 7 (3)
Buffalo 5 (4)
Arizona 4 (1)
Toronto 3 (3)

Instability has clearly been a issue in Edmonton and teams shouldn't have 7 coaches in 10 years, however, as the Coyotes head for a 5th non-playoff the question needs to be asked. Do we have the right coach to take us forward?

I've always been and still am a Tip fan, however, as others have said there needs to be a new voice in the room.

Unfortunately with 4+ years left on the contract the only way he's out as coach is:
A). a new primary investor joins IAC and wants him out or
B). Tip quits.
C). he moves f/t into the VP role (and that likely creates a problem for the new coach)

Not sure any of these scenarios are likely.

Ugly situation.

 

[RemoAZ]

Only way he goes is if he quits. The only way I see that happening is if ownership mandates changes as in firing his coaches and forcing change to the roster and/or playing time. Tippett might be too hard-headed to accept that although I still can't see him walking away from all that cash.

 

[PhoPhan]

For what it's worth, "optimistic" is probably way too strong a word for how I'm feeling these days. "Pessimistic" isn't quite right, either, but it's a whole lot closer. It's just definitely not "fatalistic," though. There's hope, however faint it may be.

 

[XX]

Bingo. If a player performs poorly under Tippett and then blossoms, it's proof Tippett was holding him back (Turris). If a player performs poorly under Tippett and struggles elsewhere, it's proof Tippett ruined him (Rundblad). If a player excels under Tippett and then struggles elsewhere, well, nobody ever brings those up (Vrbata, Yandle, et al). Dude can't win.

As if Dave Tippett has anything to do with Vrbata's inability to play elsewhere, or somehow gets credit for Yandle's success. You can build an amazing case for DT if you misattribute credit, apparently. Dave Tippett didn't even cultivate the two way game in Rieder and Martinook, arguably his two biggest accomplishments. Both developed that aspect of their game before they ever played a single game for him.

He can only develop and cultivate talent in a very narrow band of player, which is why he immediately plays Holland more than Dvorak, because he hasn't reached the "I'm in love with this two way player" stage yet with Dvorak.

It's almost impossible for a coach (even great ones) to suffer multiple awful seasons and then come out the other side an effective leader. He's just gone stale, along with Playfair.

Most of what makes a player a star in this league is on the player himself.

Fundamentally wrong, so I can see where your deference to DT comes from. You need a willing player, but organizations focus on development for a reason. Only a precious few players every draft have what it takes to make the league regardless of their coaching and development. Many that do 'make it' pale in comparison to the player they could have been in a more favorable situation.

 

[Mosby]

Scratch DeAngelo our PP takes a hit, scratch Schenn our PK takes a hit. And our PK already sucks.

I agree with the first part, but our PK has improved. It's rated better than our PP.

 

[Guest]

Last I checked the Coyotes were second in the league only behind the Avs. Clearly they are doing something right.

 

[WrinkledPossum]

I agree with the first part, but our PK has improved. It's rated better than our PP.

Yeah, that was mostly based off of last night. Still room for more improvement though.

And yeah our PP has been garbage. It should be one of our strengths. We have guys with skill and lets a spot where we could use it. And it's not like we could turn the puck over and give up more SH goals than last year. Right now it relies too much on our dmen.

 

[rt]

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.

Okay. I think Tippett's system sucks and has always been unsustainable. Even during the WCF our game plan was duck, cover, turtle up, rely on Smith to stop 40+ shots and hope we get lucky on a couple of quick counter-strikes. It barely worked then and hasn't worked since. It's been five years of embarrassingly awful performances by this team. The vets are sick of losing and they know that the system is trash. Bye-bye try.

He's been figured out and can't get anything to work anymore. Evidence? How many games has the team played in the last five seasons? How many have they won? That alone is more than enough to fire any coach. I don't believe any modern NHL coach has ever been allowed to win so few games in a five year span without losing his job. Why should this joker get a pass?

So you've got vets going through the paces. What about young guys? They're working in a failed system. A system that doesn't work anymore even with complete team buy-in. When half the roster is passengers in a system designed against creativity, young players who are offensively creative aren't going to shine.

Replace this coaching staff with some other group and I think the team would go from a 29-30th place team to a 19th-20th place team. At least. And that's with a sub-par coaching staff that's just a little less clinically stubborn and a little more reasonably adaptable.

 

[_Del_]

Nevermind games: how many of the 96 periods this year have been good periods from the stand point of "compete level", to steal Dave's term? We might average one period a game where it looks like the team is engaged?
The last four years have all been the same. They look checked out. I blamed the players first, too, but we've turned over nearly the entire roster since then, and they look just as disinterested as ever. Nothing has changed but the names on the roster.

Even if Tippett's system is flawless, even if he's made no mistakes and it's all on the players, if he cannot get the team to engage and "execute" he needs to go. They obviously didn't respond to the trade threat. They haven't responded to anything he's said the last four years behind closed doors. The Neuiwendyk and Maloney quotes about complacency should be concerning to everybody who has watched this team sleepwalk through the last five years. It is only getting worse.

 

[CC96]

He's been figured out and can't get anything to work anymore. Evidence? How many games has the team played in the last five seasons? How many have they won? That alone is more than enough to fire any coach. I don't believe any modern NHL coach has ever been allowed to win so few games in a five year span without losing his job. Why should this joker get a pass?

Technically you're wrong, because no coach in NHL history (other than expansion Predators Barry Trotz), has missed the playoffs four straight years, and lived to see a fifth.

But on the real though, I definitely agree we could be about 7 or 8 placed higher in the standings with a halfway competant coaching staff.

 

[CC96]

Also, does anyone truly feel like Tippett deserves to get paid like a top-3 coach, with his current performance?

 

[hbk]

I think I'd like to see a coaching change just to stop the fire Dave Tippett talk and actually talk about something else.

 

[kihekah19*]

I think I'd like to see a coaching change just to stop the fire Dave Tippett talk and actually talk about something else.

 

[SniperHF]

I don't believe any modern NHL coach has ever been allowed to win so few games in a five year span without losing his job. Why should this joker get a pass?

FWIW as a "other problems are worse" voter, this argument is by far the most persuasive. If I wasn't already on team GTFO due to the FO coup this would surely move me there.


I had them pegged 23rd (81pts) in the league going into the year and obviously they are well under performing on that. But I don't think a new staff actually increases the team's performance standings wise this season.

In the same prediction thread I also mentioned that I saw last years team as having a lot of good fortune and a lot of what we're seeing is the opposite this season. Though Smith is playing out of his mind, just about everyone else isn't. I know you and others would partially or even completely attribute this to coaching. I don't much.

I am concerned about the approach in-game though with things like DeAngelo sitting. This is partially where I'd disagree with Pho's big post awhile back on how Tip will get blame for players in all circumstances. The issue with the Rundblad's of the world wasn't so much that Tippett ruined him, it was the approach. Was sitting him all the timethe best use of him? Even in a situation where Tip was 100% sure Rundblad was a lost cause and no shot to be a regular NHLer? I just don't believe any staff is THAT sure of their analysis. It doesn't even have to be a full season, give the player one of Tippett's famous 10 game segments for cryin out loud.

But I really don't believe in lost the room type theories at all when the team isn't established. When Dan Bylsma loses the Penguins? Yeah fine. More likely Hanzal is declining a tad due to wear and tear after peaking, Doan's lost whatever bit of tread he had on the tires, OEL is still 25 and inconsistent, Duclair's S% fell through the floor and his confidence was shattered, Domingue was a flash in the pan, Goligoski has his foot off the gas off his last big contract, Stone and Murphy's young careers are defined by inconsistency, and on and on. Most every player based argument has a clear counter because it's subjective.

These cases make sense to me:
1. Just standard accountability
2. The idea that a player can't play for Tip if they aren't a "complete" project.

The rest is a lot of noise that convolutes the argument. Especially if we're going all the way back to 2009.

 

[Matias Maccete]

I think I'd like to see a coaching change just to stop the fire Dave Tippett talk and actually talk about something else.

Yup.

 

[CC96]

I think I'd like to see a coaching change just to stop the fire Dave Tippett talk and actually talk about something else.

If the team wasn't so bad, then when we would have more than one topic to discuss.

 

[KG]

What's more depressing than admitting Tippet sucks is admitting our prospect pool isn't as great as we though so maybe that's why so many of us dislike Tip.