Speculation: Fire Bylsma/Shero? We are asking the wrong question

[Jaded-Fan]

Not that I would object to either, especially the fire Bylsma part.

But before we get to whether to fire one or both, I think that you have to think about where you want to go from there. What team do we want to have?
Some posts I made about Boston’s GM Peter Chiarelli got me to thinking about this. Give Boston some credit, they have a vision and stick to it. They have shown some elephant balls over the years, trading three true franchise forwards, arguably at a loss, sticking to the vision of what a Boston player should be. Even give the Flyers credit. They have a vision and stick to it. Even if even their most ardent supporters believe that it is the wrong vision, at least they have a plan. We all know what Boston hockey is, Philly, Devils, and most other franchises who have had success over the years.

What is the plan for the Penguins? Are we a defensive team? Grinding? Fast break, what? I honestly have no clue what a ‘Pens’ player looks like. Do you?

And until you have a vision how can you build a team? Hire a coach or GM to best express that vision? Remember Crosby and Malkin shouldn’t be going anywhere. I would put Letang in that group as well. Those players’ unique skills should play into that vision.

So yeah, I think we are putting the cart way before the horse. And these are questions which should have been asked years ago. It is damning that they are unanswerable today.

Click to read more...

 

[DegenX]

You raise some good points. Admittedly, I'm on the fence.

On the one hand, he should have fired Bylsma after the Philly meltdown. On the other hand, who has been or is available to replace him? Friedman raises some interesting points in his piece about Shanahan retaining Carlyle after taking over the Leafs presidency. Maybe the guy they wanted wasn't available, and good organizations don't hire and fire coaches every other season. He also brings up how the Raptors handled their coaching situation. They fired the assistants while keeping the head coach, then having the front office involved in selecting the new assitants, which is the path Shanny and Nonis are also taking. Shero brought in J. Martin, but didn't fire anyone, which he should have. Meloche was re-assigned, not fired.

Then there's his drafting strategy. While we have gotten some returns from it, you have to wonder where this team would be if he'd actually chosen the best player available, regardless of position. It makes even less sense when he keeps signing UFA defensemen no matter how deep we are at that position. Have to say, that one goes in the 'CON' column.

As for his player signings, well ... this is one where I think it goes back to Bylsma. With very few exceptions, they've been Bylsma players. Glass. Re-signing Adams. Re-signing Duper. Conner. Kobasew. Eaton. I think these are guys he's signing because Bylsma wants them and thinks they fit his system. Shero is simply giving him the tools he says he needs to get the job done.

So, while I'm not entirely happy with Shero's performance recently, I'm not ready yet to jump on the fire him train just yet.

Going forward, I want to see him change his drafting policy, definitely.

As for Bylsma, I want him gone. I've wanted him gone for a while now. But I don't really want Trotz in his place. I keep going back to that Friedman piece. If Babcock and McLellan might be available after next season, it doesn't make sense to fire Bylsma, hire someone, then fire them after a season because the guy you really want is available. So, I guess if I thought the Pens had an actual chance to hire Babcock, but had to wait until the end of next season, I could live with Bylsma for one more year ... provided Reirdan and Granato were gone and Mario and Shero chose their replacements rather than Bylsma.

 

[billybudd]

It's been linked in the other thread, but Rossi's thesis is that non-hockey ops, non-ownership people (cough, David Morehouse) are meddling.

Doesn't explain why Shero signs pylons to make stretch passes or drafts more left-handed D than any club could possibly use, but it does explain why we got away from our old strategy of being "tough to play against."

 

[DoktorZaius]

Totally agree with all of this. I was a Shero supporter for years. Then, last TDL, he paid high prices for garbage players (Morrow and Murray). I mean really, think about that. TWO 2nd's for Murray? This was massive overpayment both at the time and in retrospect. This is a guy who, after the year was out, could only get a 1 year deal for 1.5 million -- that's how little he is regarded by GMs around the league.

Shero's explanation -- "I don't set the prices around the league" -- was nauseating. Yeah, I don't set the price that Chipotle charges either Ray, but if they wanted fifty bucks for a burrito I'd leave the store.

Long story short, what I was BANKING on with Shero was that he had a great insight to all of these PMD's, and that, over time, he was going to raise their value appropriately and sell them off a-la Whitney and Gogo. Even without getting INSANE return-on-investment for them, I figured he'd be able to flip a young legit top-4d prospect for a young legit top-6 wing prospect without much difficulty. But yeah, it's become apparent that that was never really the plan, and that he has 0 talent for asset management. There's NO excuse for not playing Despres in the big show this season -- we need to know what we have in him, trial by fire sort of thing, and we're not figuring that out in the AHL. Same with Borts, even. I mean hell, look at Lovejoy's statline out in Anaheim. What more can you say about Ray? Just ugh, man. Ugh. I thought you had a vision, but you were just an empty suit the whole time.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

That wasn't what I was saying though, although none of that surprises me.

I am saying that we have no identity.

That might be part of Bylsma's problem. He does have a certain type of player he loves, as we well know, but is 'saddled' with some of the best talent of his generation. Maybe that is why he does so well when his stars are on IR and he has a team of AHL slugs.

In any event, what is 'Penguins hokey?' Until we answer that question isn't it a bit hard to decide coaches and GMs?

 

[Fire Shero*]

Shero and Bylsma both need to go.

It seems like Shero's vision is the Nashville Predators 2.0. Shero continues to neglect forwards in the draft. Our cupboards are absolutely empty at forward.

We have to constantly hear about these blue chip prospects, but yet he keeps players like Orpik around and signs a useless Scuderi.

His vision for the bottom six seems to be to sign reclamation projects that simply never turn out well. Good teams build through the draft and don't sign band aids every season.

It's the same nightmare relived every year. Shero simply doesn't do enough in the off-season and we play until the deadline with enormous and obvious holes in the lineup. Shero will pick up some useless **** off the waiver wire in the meantime. But you all sit there and accept it. It's okay Shero will solve our problems at the deadline!

We needed improvements across the board this season. Shero improved our bottom six, but it is still crappy.

Our top 6 wingers are leeches on a good day. Our goalie continues to fail in the playoffs but instead of finding a new goalie, he is sent to therapy. Is this real life?

Shero is living off deadline deals. James Neal was acquired 3+ years ago.

8 years of Shero is enough. Why would anyone in their right mind want this guy here for anther futile off-season?

Shero can't even copy Nashville. Who is our Shea Weber? Our Ryan Suter? Hell, we don't even have a Josi. We also don't have Rinne in net. He failed at copying Nashville.

He can't do anything right

 

[mikethelegacy]

That wasn't what I was saying though, although none of that surprises me.

I am saying that we have no identity.

That might be part of Bylsma's problem. He does have a certain type of player he loves, as we well know, but is 'saddled' with some of the best talent of his generation. Maybe that is why he does so well when his stars are on IR and he has a team of AHL slugs.

In any event, what is 'Penguins hokey?' Until we answer that question isn't it a bit hard to decide coaches and GMs?

I agree, I think if Dan had the roster of the Boston Bruins, he would be a miraculous coach. He doesn't know how to handle stars, and they don't know how to play for him. It's a major problem, and as much as I like Dan as a person, he needs to go. We need someone who understands the stars, and can cater to them, while also setting up a gameplan/team that can play to their individual strengths as well.

 

[SaintLouHaintBlue]

Not that I would object to either, especially the fire Bylsma part.

But before we get to whether to fire one or both, I think that you have to think about where you want to go from there. What team do we want to have?
Some posts I made about Boston’s GM Peter Chiarelli got me to thinking about this. Give Boston some credit, they have a vision and stick to it. They have shown some elephant balls over the years, trading three true franchise forwards, arguably at a loss, sticking to the vision of what a Boston player should be. Even give the Flyers credit. They have a vision and stick to it. Even if even their most ardent supporters believe that it is the wrong vision, at least they have a plan. We all know what Boston hockey is, Philly, Devils, and most other franchises who have had success over the years.

What is the plan for the Penguins? Are we a defensive team? Grinding? Fast break, what? I honestly have no clue what a ‘Pens’ player looks like. Do you?

And until you have a vision how can you build a team? Hire a coach or GM to best express that vision? Remember Crosby and Malkin shouldn’t be going anywhere. I would put Letang in that group as well. Those players’ unique skills should play into that vision.

So yeah, I think we are putting the cart way before the horse. And these are questions which should have been asked years ago. It is damning that they are unanswerable today.

Well, whatever "style" they play is up to the next coach.
Basically I have no preconceived notions, but as long as he can articulate that he does, in fact, have a system - and ices players who can play that style, I'll probably go along with it.

I think the penguins already have enough good players in place to play a "fast" game, as opposed to a Bruins/St. Louis type of hockey. I think we would do well with a blue-line similar to that of St. Louis or Chicago (Pietrangelo, Bouwmeester, Shattenkirk, or Chicago, who has no liabilities on their blueline and only one "heavy" defensemen in Seabrook), except our forwards are maybe a little speedier.

I'm not so qualifited to talk about systems, but what's most important to me, is that the next coach uses the best possible line combinations each and every night, and stays consistent with it.

 

[billybudd]

That wasn't what I was saying though, although none of that surprises me.

I am saying that we have no identity.

That might be part of Bylsma's problem. He does have a certain type of player he loves, as we well know, but is 'saddled' with some of the best talent of his generation. Maybe that is why he does so well when his stars are on IR and he has a team of AHL slugs.

In any event, what is 'Penguins hokey?' Until we answer that question isn't it a bit hard to decide coaches and GMs?

I believe the crux of why we have no identity is that the identity Shero and Dan want ("tough to play against" and "grind these *****es down," respectively) has been forbidden. So they're just flailing, aimlessly.

Remember, a few weeks prior to Cooke getting his lifetime achievement award from Campbell, Shero gave some tone-deaf interview where he said he'd talked to Cooke several times about not finishing enough checks and intimated that his being dirty helped the club a lot.

Like I said, though, this doesn't explain the draft strategy or some of the free agent signings. To me, that's a product of Shero hiring crap scouts like Don Waddell and two jerks with little history of draft success.


Edit: thought, to be fair, they do have an identity, now that I think about it. Lazy, soft, prima donna pansies. I expect that's not something that was planned, though.

 

[DoktorZaius]

It's an interesting point Jaded. It's like trying to write a good paper without knowing what your thesis is. Even if you have some extremely strong points (Crosby, Malkin), it's all just incoherent rambling if you don't fit it into a consistent framework.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

It's an interesting point Jaded. It's like trying to write a good paper without knowing what your thesis is. Even if you have some extremely strong points (Crosby, Malkin), it's all just incoherent rambling if you don't fit it into a consistent framework.

The Boston example is a great one to me.

They are not afraid to eject truly great forwards to keep to their vision. It is why it works.

 

[Zbynek]

I would argue that the coach is essentially, and by definition, at the forefront of a team's vision. This can change given capable coaching - the 2011 Cup-winning Bruins are a much different team than their squad today. Compare that to the difference between the 2011 Penguins and the Penguins facing game 7 elimination, and well, there's your answer.

Bylsma's vision hasn't changed since 2009, and that's why he's being run out of town.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

I think that there's no cohesion. So assuming some things.

Someone in the organization wants to be the clean image that forces change or whatever. Shero used to build tough teams with some less than clean and marketable players as far as their image went. These two things clash. Bylsma, I have no idea. I don't think he knows what grinding *****es down even is, his system is speed based and requires certain skills, he likes slow players with no skill. He ****ing said that he thinks they're a grinding team this season, he struggles with talent. So he's his own contradiction that can't be effective, I doubt he's useful for trying to create a cohesive identity. Then you have Shero's obsession with drafting defensemen and Bylsma's issue with youth, and Bylsma's love with mini hims. They all want a different identity, all there is is an agreement on old inoffensive defensemen and forwards.

I still think that Shero and Bylsma are toxic together, they bring out the worst in each other and Bylsma is allowed to do whatever he wants for the most part when he needs to be handled. They don't communicate well.

 

[tom_servo]

Wait, what is Philly's plan? Be a team that can beat Pittsburgh?Their ballsy trades have paid off, but their signings leave a lot to be desired. Plus they've had full managerial turnover in the past year.

I thought the Pens' grinding philosophy would at least result in a blue collar work ethic, but if you never even practice...

The Pens used to be able to cycle with all lines, so it had some merit as a regular season system, but where they always lacked the versatility in coaching, they now lack the same with the roster. A roster which doesn't even match that one philosophy. I thought some players would be a little more useful then they've proven to be (Neal, Scuderi).

The Bruins have that versatility. I don't think of a single identity with Boston. They accrue depth, have scoring balance, confidence-inspiring goaltending, and lack arrogant stubbornness.

Really, the Pens have a clearer identity than most teams. It's just not a good one.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Boston - strong two way play. Hit you, to and beyond the whistle. Wear you down.

Philadelphia - similar to Boston in that everyone hits you to and beyond the whistle, wear you down. Always has at least one player most likely to get an NHL lifetime ban. Goalies? Who needs stinking goalies?

New Jersey - trapping team.

Teams do have identities that they play to and fit players to.

 

[Shady Machine]

That wasn't what I was saying though, although none of that surprises me.

I am saying that we have no identity.

That might be part of Bylsma's problem. He does have a certain type of player he loves, as we well know, but is 'saddled' with some of the best talent of his generation. Maybe that is why he does so well when his stars are on IR and he has a team of AHL slugs.

In any event, what is 'Penguins hokey?' Until we answer that question isn't it a bit hard to decide coaches and GMs?

Who do you think forms an identity? Isn't that the GM's job?

 

[wgknestrick]

The only identity that I want in this team is "smart".

CHI is the model franchise on this. They are "smart" because they don't have an identity or value it over what really matters, effective hockey. Sure there are different ways to be effective (physical vs skilled), but CHI doesn't care how their players are effective (just that they are). CHI constantly evaluates player performances and tailors their roster around it. You won't find any dead weight on that team, or players holding better players in the minors. They ice 4 lines of net positive players. Why? Because they fit some "ideal"? No. Because first and foremost, CHI values net positive 5v5 play....ie effective players.

What this means is you don't kick effective players out because they don't fit some "ideal" you have about the team (like Seguin), you kick them out for not being effective (or because you can make a better team without them via trade).

This is all we need, and these/our teams will start to develop an identity of their own....winning. Identity is nothing if it is not effective (see PHI).

 

[Jaded-Fan]

The only identity that I want in this team is "smart".

CHI is the model franchise on this. They are "smart" because they don't have an identity or value it over what really matters, effective hockey. Sure there are different ways to be effective (physical vs skilled), but CHI doesn't care how their players are effective (just that they are). CHI constantly evaluates player performances and tailors their roster around it. You won't find any dead weight on that team, or players holding better players in the minors. They ice 4 lines of net positive players. Why? Because they fit some "ideal"? No. Because first and foremost, CHI values net positive 5v5 play....ie effective players.

What this means is you don't kick effective players out because they don't fit some "ideal" you have about the team (like Seguin), you kick them out for not being effective (or because you can make a better team without them via trade).

This is all we need, and these/our teams will start to develop an identity of their own....winning. Identity is nothing if it is not effective (see PHI).

That is a bit of a stretch. The Steelers for instance for years could draft these tweener linebackers late that no one wanted because only they played a system that could use them effectively. If you are a pass first team the best running back in the world is great to have, but likely will not be the greatest in the world on your team.

There are players who fit certain systems better than others. Yeah, if you have a Crosby you build the system around him, but for lesser beings, you do well to have an identity and style of play and get players who fit that.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Who do you think forms an identity? Isn't that the GM's job?

Wasn't that the point that I made?

Ultimately it is both, but the GM should choose a coach who fits the identity that the GM wants for that team.

 

[wgknestrick]

That is a bit of a stretch. The Steelers for instance for years could draft these tweener linebackers late that no one wanted because only they played a system that could use them effectively. If you are a pass first team the best running back in the world is great to have, but likely will not be the greatest in the world on your team.

There are players who fit certain systems better than others. Yeah, if you have a Crosby you build the system around him, but for lesser beings, you do well to have an identity and style of play and get players who fit that.

hockey =/ football

There is not a system in the world that will make Craig Adams or Tanner Glass effective players. There is not a system in the world that Malkin would not fit in and be a star.

Do you see the difference? Do not grasp at straws to explain away incompetence in this team to see where the value is. It is not in some ideal or some "prototypical player mold". It is in identifying (obtaining), and retaining effective players. If you neglect this, your identity is stupidity (which this org has clearly owned).

 

[ColePens]

Not that I would object to either, especially the fire Bylsma part.

But before we get to whether to fire one or both, I think that you have to think about where you want to go from there. What team do we want to have?
Some posts I made about Boston’s GM Peter Chiarelli got me to thinking about this. Give Boston some credit, they have a vision and stick to it. They have shown some elephant balls over the years, trading three true franchise forwards, arguably at a loss, sticking to the vision of what a Boston player should be. Even give the Flyers credit. They have a vision and stick to it. Even if even their most ardent supporters believe that it is the wrong vision, at least they have a plan. We all know what Boston hockey is, Philly, Devils, and most other franchises who have had success over the years.

What is the plan for the Penguins? Are we a defensive team? Grinding? Fast break, what? I honestly have no clue what a ‘Pens’ player looks like. Do you?

And until you have a vision how can you build a team? Hire a coach or GM to best express that vision? Remember Crosby and Malkin shouldn’t be going anywhere. I would put Letang in that group as well. Those players’ unique skills should play into that vision.

So yeah, I think we are putting the cart way before the horse. And these are questions which should have been asked years ago. It is damning that they are unanswerable today.

This is a terrific thread and I accidentally merged it... so I apologize.

I just want to have a vision. I want to play fast but also very defensive minded. That doesn't mean ignore offense, but 100% certain on defense before we move out. I don't want guys leaving the zone early unless we know we have possession. I want to come up with speed. I want to be a ton of knats flying around pissing people off all game w/ speed.

I also want the 2-3. Backchecking and our defensive zone are the two major changes I would make.

 

[ColePens]

Bare with me for a sec folks - i merged the two wrong threads and am working on getting them back. I apologize for the delay.



edit: Should be good to go. Any problems please PM me

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

This talk in another thread about Moorhouse (sp) or Lemieux being at fault for wanting to eliminate any sort of physicality from the Pens' identity doesn't really look at a bigger picture.

Namely, you can have a successful team without having to have an overly physical team. Look at Detroit and Chicago as recent examples. Neither carry an enforcer (unless you think Bollig qualifies), neither are overly physical compared to other teams like the Bruins or Blues. Yet they're successful.

The difference between them and the Pens? They actually build skilled rosters. Not just that, but they target skill in their drafting. How many small, finesse forwards have the Wings drafted recently? Not all will pan out, but they're all the similar mold.

The Pens' problem is they want to play a "finesse" game, but lack the personnel to do so apart from the obvious three or four guys. And Shero neither drafts nor addresses this lack of skill through trades.

So I don't think the Pens having their balls cut off by higher management is the entire issue.

 

[spcastlemagic]

Hell, we don't even have a Josi.

I'm all for firing Shero, but this is Olli Maatta

 

[Shady Machine]

Wasn't that the point that I made?

Ultimately it is both, but the GM should choose a coach who fits the identity that the GM wants for that team.

I guess so

In that case, we are in agreement.