News Article: ESPN: Why the Jets should be the envy of the NHL

[Weezeric]

2015-16, lineup in games 20-31 with average TOI (I took a break from this board during that exact time):

Ladd (20:37) - Little (20:38) - Wheeler (20:03)
Perreault (17:40) - Scheifele (18:01) - Stafford (18:31)
Ehlers (13:38) - Burmistrov (14:12) - Thorburn (11:15)
Lowry (9:59) - Copp (6:39) - Peluso (6:57)

Enstrom (19:24) - Myers (22:36)
Stuart (15:53) - Trouba (21:09)
Chiarot (13:40) / Pardy (13:40) - Byfuglien (24:15)

note:
- Scheifele's icetime down from his 14-15 average 18:35
- Trouba's icetime down from his 14-15 average 23:18
- Lowry's icetime down from his 14-15 average 13:45

This is not what development looks like. That's what it looks like when the coach thinks he has to win, and the only way to achieve that is by playing the few veterans his GM provided him with. I mean he even cut the minutes of Scheifele and Trouba ffs. Things started to change in January.

A ten game segment is near meaningless. IIRC this is around the time Lowry got sent down to the AHL to work on his game because he was horrible.

It's a careful balance between giving young players opportunity and reinforcing good habits and limiting bad ones. Imo Maurice did a fantastic job and you can't argue with the results.

 

[LadyJet26]

Great article!

 

[mcpw]

A ten game segment is near meaningless. IIRC this is around the time Lowry got sent down to the AHL to work on his game because he was horrible.

It's a careful balance between giving young players opportunity and reinforcing good habits and limiting bad ones. Imo Maurice did a fantastic job and you can't argue with the results.

All this lasted longer, early November till January. I just chose to show this 12-game segment because the lineup was kept the same during that stretch. In January, the team was a safe bet to miss the playoffs, and the youth movement started -- Ehlers back in the top6, Armia went from AHL or <8 minutes to >12, Lowry back to >14, Copp started playing PK, then later Little got injured, Ladd got traded, and the kids played.

I feel like my point wasn't clear. I'm not arguing that PauMau did a poor job developing the kids. He didn't. In the big picture, Ehlers wasn't hurt by playing with Thorburn for ~20 games. I'm not arguing that Chevy chose the wrong direction in 2015. He could have tried to get competitive -- sign Lee Stempniak, sign Andrej Sekera, trade the Roslovic pick for Robin Lehner or Cam Talbot, buyout Stuart, waive Thorburn and go for it. He didn't, and it turned out to be the right choice, with a little help from the lottery.

I'm just arguing these points:

They needed to get younger, and allow those players to make a multitude of mistakes. The growing pains needed to be palpable, with the knowledge that the franchise would eventually be better for it.

Their core in place and surrounded by newbies, the Jets tumbled down the standings in their next season, from a .604 points percentage down to .476 in 2015-16. (...) All of this was by design.

"We put an awfully lot of young players into our lineup for the last two years. They made mistakes, but we played them.

Play the kids a lot, let them make mistakes... sure. My point is: that actually didn't happen until it became clear that we'd miss the 2016 playoffs. The article paints a nice picture of the plan and everybody is on board. But that's wrong. PauMau was not on board with the youth movement. Copp was brought in to be the eventual replacement for Jim Slater -- #4C, first PK unit. He refused to play him more than 7 minutes, he refused to play him on the PK. Trouba remained with Stuart the whole time. Petan was scratched for Peluso. Less minutes for Scheifele, over 20 minutes for the all-veteran top line. Facing adversity (a 0-7 loss in Nashville), his reaction was to demote Ehlers (2.1 P/60, 55% Corsi, +3) to the third line, giving his spot to veteran Stafford (1.2 P/60, 47% Corsi, -9). This is not how a coach on board with a youth movement acts. This is what a coach who doesn't want to get fired and relies on safe veterans to do the job does. I wonder how close PauMau was to getting fired in January 2016.

 

[Gabe Kupari]

Isnt it ok to demote the young player when hes struggling? Isnt that what Vets are for... Obviously that year was in fact a building year...

I dont see how demoting a rookie or struggling sophomore is proof of anything. Thats what happens... Hes put Connor on the 4th this year... Guy started on the Moose... He has 25 goals now. This guy should be in the rookie of the year category. Same draft class as Boeser and Barzal... IMO... He should be getting more hype... But Maurice demoted him a few times... Some games young players struggle...

Scheif did.. Laine.. Ehlers.. Connor.. Roslovic.. They are streaky... Not consistent... They have ups and downs and i think its good coaching to demote a player... Rookie or Vet who is struggling.

Seeems to have worked for Fly.. Looks like its worked for Laine and Connor also. Worked for Scheif.... Heck Lowry got sent to the Moose... It happens.

 

[kelsier]

All this lasted longer, early November till January. I just chose to show this 12-game segment because the lineup was kept the same during that stretch. In January, the team was a safe bet to miss the playoffs, and the youth movement started -- Ehlers back in the top6, Armia went from AHL or <8 minutes to >12, Lowry back to >14, Copp started playing PK, then later Little got injured, Ladd got traded, and the kids played.

I feel like my point wasn't clear. I'm not arguing that PauMau did a poor job developing the kids. He didn't. In the big picture, Ehlers wasn't hurt by playing with Thorburn for ~20 games. I'm not arguing that Chevy chose the wrong direction in 2015. He could have tried to get competitive -- sign Lee Stempniak, sign Andrej Sekera, trade the Roslovic pick for Robin Lehner or Cam Talbot, buyout Stuart, waive Thorburn and go for it. He didn't, and it turned out to be the right choice, with a little help from the lottery.

I'm just arguing these points:




Play the kids a lot, let them make mistakes... sure. My point is: that actually didn't happen until it became clear that we'd miss the 2016 playoffs. The article paints a nice picture of the plan and everybody is on board. But that's wrong. PauMau was not on board with the youth movement. Copp was brought in to be the eventual replacement for Jim Slater -- #4C, first PK unit. He refused to play him more than 7 minutes, he refused to play him on the PK. Trouba remained with Stuart the whole time. Petan was scratched for Peluso. Less minutes for Scheifele, over 20 minutes for the all-veteran top line. Facing adversity (a 0-7 loss in Nashville), his reaction was to demote Ehlers (2.1 P/60, 60% Corsi, +4) to the third line, giving his spot to veteran Stafford (1.3 P/60, 47% Corsi, -14). This is not how a coach on board with a youth movement acts. This is what a coach who doesn't want to get fired and relies on safe veterans to do the job does. I wonder how close PauMau was to getting fired in January 2016.

This was a great read and you brought up a lot of good points. Can't really but nod my head. Like you pointed out in regards to prospect utilization, there's been a very clear pattern and I'm sure most people by now can recognize it.

 

[Weezeric]

All this lasted longer, early November till January. I just chose to show this 12-game segment because the lineup was kept the same during that stretch. In January, the team was a safe bet to miss the playoffs, and the youth movement started -- Ehlers back in the top6, Armia went from AHL or <8 minutes to >12, Lowry back to >14, Copp started playing PK, then later Little got injured, Ladd got traded, and the kids played.

I feel like my point wasn't clear. I'm not arguing that PauMau did a poor job developing the kids. He didn't. In the big picture, Ehlers wasn't hurt by playing with Thorburn for ~20 games. I'm not arguing that Chevy chose the wrong direction in 2015. He could have tried to get competitive -- sign Lee Stempniak, sign Andrej Sekera, trade the Roslovic pick for Robin Lehner or Cam Talbot, buyout Stuart, waive Thorburn and go for it. He didn't, and it turned out to be the right choice, with a little help from the lottery.

I'm just arguing these points:




Play the kids a lot, let them make mistakes... sure. My point is: that actually didn't happen until it became clear that we'd miss the 2016 playoffs. The article paints a nice picture of the plan and everybody is on board. But that's wrong. PauMau was not on board with the youth movement. Copp was brought in to be the eventual replacement for Jim Slater -- #4C, first PK unit. He refused to play him more than 7 minutes, he refused to play him on the PK. Trouba remained with Stuart the whole time. Petan was scratched for Peluso. Less minutes for Scheifele, over 20 minutes for the all-veteran top line. Facing adversity (a 0-7 loss in Nashville), his reaction was to demote Ehlers (2.1 P/60, 55% Corsi, +3) to the third line, giving his spot to veteran Stafford (1.2 P/60, 47% Corsi, -9). This is not how a coach on board with a youth movement acts. This is what a coach who doesn't want to get fired and relies on safe veterans to do the job does. I wonder how close PauMau was to getting fired in January 2016.

That's fair. My guess is that at the beginning of the year they were trying their best to win, hoping that the young players might improve on the fly. I don't think they started out the season thinking they were doing their best to be horrible, just that they weren't bringing in veterans to try to salvage that core. They needed a new, young core. The Ehlers, scheifele, trouba etc needed to be the "drivers" (Pomo's catchphrase) and the older players they kept needed to just be support.

 

[mcpw]

Isnt it ok to demote the young player when hes struggling? Isnt that what Vets are for... Obviously that year was in fact a building year...

I dont see how demoting a rookie or struggling sophomore is proof of anything. Thats what happens... Hes put Connor on the 4th this year... Guy started on the Moose... He has 25 goals now. This guy should be in the rookie of the year category. Same draft class as Boeser and Barzal... IMO... He should be getting more hype... But Maurice demoted him a few times... Some games young players struggle...

Scheif did.. Laine.. Ehlers.. Connor.. Roslovic.. They are streaky... Not consistent... They have ups and downs and i think its good coaching to demote a player... Rookie or Vet who is struggling.

Seeems to have worked for Fly.. Looks like its worked for Laine and Connor also. Worked for Scheif.... Heck Lowry got sent to the Moose... It happens.

Ehlers wasn't struggling, though. Fourth highest scoring rate on the team behind LLW. Perreault-Scheifele-Wheeler had 55% Corsi and the best GF/GA of all lines. It was Stafford who was struggling without Scheifele to carry him.

 

[mcpw]

This was a great read and you brought up a lot of good points. Can't really but nod my head. Like you pointed out in regards to prospect utilization, there's been a very clear pattern and I'm sure most people by now can recognize it.

Yup. Check Scheifele, Thorburn, Ehlers, Copp, Armia:

somewhere around game 20: panic mode initiate
somewhere around game 40: season over, play the kids

 

[Flair Hay]

My family is more important than the Jets? That's not what my wife tells me .

As long as you know it on the insidethats what counts

 

[kelsier]

Yup. Check Scheifele, Thorburn, Ehlers, Copp, Armia:

somewhere around game 20: panic mode initiate
somewhere around game 40: season over, play the kids

Ha! Aye, the charts don't lie and they are easily readable with just a bit of an imagination. Too bad an experienced coach can get so badly tangled up with lousy habits that they never really fade. That does indeed indicate some sort of emotional "let go" after the panic. It's been pretty visible with Laine also so far and out of all the youngster out there you just might think he'd be an exception, but no. Wonder if he'll have to again prove his worth come the third year.

 

[DashingDane]

Yup. Check Scheifele, Thorburn, Ehlers, Copp, Armia:

somewhere around game 20: panic mode initiate
somewhere around game 40: season over, play the kids

It's certainly easy to see when Ehlers was put with Scheifele and Wheels

 

[ps241]

That was a really enjoyable article.

 

[Gotaf7]

Good read, win or lose I love this team.

 

[Ippenator]

All I can say is I’m certainly happy that the young guys weren’t developed “properly” according to many posters on here.

Clearly the way they were developed worked out great cause Scheifele, Ehlers, Connor, Laine, Trouba, Morrissey, Lowry all look great.

Not because of Maurice that much though. When players are talented enough they are developing more themselves with the training people that they have. I honestly don’t believe that Maurice has that much to do with these player’s great development. Sure he has given them some advice and some pointers that have helped them get focused in some things that Maurice likes, which has made them to the develop more in some things that Maurice especially wants from them, and through that gain a bit better his trust.

But those guys are as talents so good, that they would have become at least as great or likely even better without Maurice as the coach. I still don’t buy it that Maurice is anything but an average coach, so I’m not going to give him easily praise for things that most of the coaches would have had anyways.

 

[Ducky10]

Not because of Maurice that much though. When players are talented enough they are developing more themselves with the training people that they have. I honestly don’t believe that Maurice has that much to do with these player’s great development. Sure he has given them some advice and some pointers that have helped them get focused in some things that Maurice likes, which has made them to the develop more in some things that Maurice especially wants from them, and through that gain a bit better his trust.

But those guys are as talents so good, that they would have become at least as great or likely even better without Maurice as the coach. I still don’t buy it that Maurice is anything but an average coach, so I’m not going to give him easily praise for things that most of the coaches would have had anyways.

Quite honestly, you have no clue what effect Maurice has had on their development.

No praise for what most coaches would have done anyways? So you'd possibly praise another coach, just not Maurice? Even though they likely would have done the same things?

Makes sense.....

 

[Whileee]

Meanwhile, Wiecek with a stupid piece in the WFP, basically critiquing the Jets for using the "Chicago way". He points to the current struggles a big contracts to Toews and Kane. If he can't see the difference, he's thicker than I thought.

 

[Ippenator]

Quite honestly, you have no clue what effect Maurice has had on their development.

No praise for what most coaches would have done anyways? So you'd possibly praise another coach, just not Maurice? Even though they likely would have done the same things?

Makes sense.....

I said HAD, not DID or MADE. I believe that other as average coaches as Maurice would have had the same results with these top players. Because of those players having the talent and the drive to develop themselves with the help of good people that they personally have hired, without an average coach like Maurice affecting their development much.

 

[larmex99]

Not because of Maurice that much though. When players are talented enough they are developing more themselves with the training people that they have. I honestly don’t believe that Maurice has that much to do with these player’s great development. Sure he has given them some advice and some pointers that have helped them get focused in some things that Maurice likes, which has made them to the develop more in some things that Maurice especially wants from them, and through that gain a bit better his trust.

But those guys are as talents so good, that they would have become at least as great or likely even better without Maurice as the coach. I still don’t buy it that Maurice is anything but an average coach, so I’m not going to give him easily praise for things that most of the coaches would have had anyways.

That is the great thing about hockey forums. Every member can believe what they choose to. Always makes for interesting reading whether you are right or not.

 

[Adam da bomb]

It's not like Chevy and Mo were insightful enough to realize that Helly was capable of turning it around if they gave him another shot. I think we get lost with semantics and outliers on this board but I think if Mo did what most other good coaches would have done with the players that's pretty good. Most of us are ordinary neither terrible or great. Why should we expect Mo to be any different. Mo also does not get paid more than average. He is not the Thorburn or the Laine of coaches. He deserves praise when things go his way and when they don't all you can really say is that sucks.

 

[SUX2BU]

A good read and a pleasure watching this team grow into the success story they are today.

 

[DowntownBooster]

It was refreshing to read something of a positive nature about the Jets from an external media source. How many times in the past have we had to put up with stories of how Winnipeg was the least desirable place for players and how free agents would never want to play here? It's good to see the focus on the Jets becoming one of a positive nature for a change. Great job by Chevy in being the architect behind the Jets development into one of the top teams in the league.

 

[ps241]

Meanwhile, Wiecek with a stupid piece in the WFP, basically critiquing the Jets for using the "Chicago way". He points to the current struggles a big contracts to Toews and Kane. If he can't see the difference, he's thicker than I thought.

It must be getting tougher and tougher for him to find negative ways to spin the Jets success. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but all opinions are not created equal.