GDT: Game 14 - Blue Jackets vs Hurricanes - 2/8 7:00 pm

[BullLund]

I've definitely considered this as a possibility. Do you think Laine's misreads are coming from a lack of attention to detail in the defensive game? And that this might be fixed with more focus on the job?

I think the focus has been there for the past 2 seasons already, with Maurice constantly working on his defensive game. But you can't improve it beyond a certain extent. He's not naturally inclined to be a great player defensively. His ceiling in that regard is much lower than his ceiling as an offensive player.

At best I think you can get mediocre results out of him, if the coach and the players are good at communicating to him what needs to be done. Him playing with Buff in the Jets was actually good for him, because Buff would occasionally just yell at him like a sergeant, which lit a fire under his ass. He can hit, he can block shots, he can back-check, and he can get his stick in the way of passing lanes, but as far as positioning himself well and being a good "man-to-man" defender who's capable of coming up with good decisions on the spot, he's not the guy to rely on. You'll see him being out of place and not being able to clear the puck fairly often, especially against teams that are strong on fore-checking.

It's not like he isn't used to being yelled at, or demoted, or benched, because this happened often enough in Winnipeg. The problem at Jets seemed to be the lack of communication at times, and the double standards that were applied on Laine and Ehlers, but not so much Wheeler or Scheifele who could also get lazy defensively.

If Laine starts noticing that he's being punished for things that other people get away with it, that's when it might become a problem. But if he's given a clear-cut, effective strategy through which he can contribute to Columbus winning more games, then I don't think he'll have that big of a problem with it.

 

[Viqsi]

Well it was an anonymous 200 players so only 12 people would have said it. I’d be willing to be most of those had already played for him in the past.

As far as not wanting to play for him, 60 out of the 200 said they wouldn’t. I bet most have never played for him but it could certainly be a deterrent if they had a choice.

The players also still think Carey Price is the best goaltender. They're not all keeping up with the whole league. Name recognition is going to be the biggest factor in polls like these, and Torts has more name recognition than any other coach. I'd pay more attention to what Torts' ex players have to say.

Public perception of him (as opposed to how he actually coaches) is ugly enough that folks might just be reacting to that. That was the only way I knew him way back when, and consequentially I still have vivid memories of when his hiring had me on the warpath wanting to fire Kekalainen. Crow never tasted so good...

That might hinder us in free agency, but, c'mon. Free agency tends to be an easy way to waste money and cap space nowadays anyways.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Presumably you can only pick one (and not your current coach).. so your point stands, I just think it's interesting that for ~12 non-CBJ players he's their #1 choice. And that doesn't rule out the possibility that he's in the top 5 for more.

Well, if you can't vote for your own team, there are 690 players on "other teams."

If you follow the trends, that means 41/42 players in league want to play for him and 207 do not. Out of those 41/42, how many ever actually played for him before would be interesting information.

 

[Monk]

Well, if you can't vote for your own team, there are 690 players on "other teams."

If you follow the trends, that means 41/42 players in league want to play for him and 207 do not. Out of those 41/42, how many ever actually played for him before would be interesting information.

So I guess the question is: do we prefer someone who makes neither list? Because that's gonna be who we end up with post-Torts in all likelihood.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

That might hinder us in free agency, but, c'mon. Free agency tends to be an easy way to waste money and cap space nowadays anyways.

Free Agency won the Buccaneers a Super Bowl. You just need to use it smartly.

 

[Viqsi]

Free Agency won the Buccaneers a Super Bowl. You just need to use it smartly.

Apples and oranges. NHL free agency is different from NFL free agency is different from MLS free agency et cetera. Those kinds of players generally aren't available - and unlike the NFL, you don't get to arbitrarily terminate bad contracts if your free agency experiment doesn't work out.

 

[Monk]

Free Agency won the Buccaneers a Super Bowl. You just need to use it smartly.

Step 1. Sign the Tom Brady of Hockey

 

[Forepar]

I'm not sure if every defensive lapse on his part should be regarded as him not giving 100% effort though.

....

It's more of a matter of putting faith in him being able to cover up those mistakes with his offense, as well as putting him with compatible players. Anyone who thinks he's going to be turned into this great two-way player is kidding themselves, at best such efforts just succeed at nullifying his offense.

....

I bolded and italicized the sentence of your post that caught my attention. And yet this is exactly what Torts wants from every player - be a great two-way player whose defense does not nullify said player's offense. There aren't that many great offensive players who fit that mold - those that have are in the upper pantheons of the HOF. Torts has had to insist on that 2-way play from CBJ players thus far in part because that was what he was hired to do (culture) and b) because other than Panarin, CBJ players did not have enough offensive skill to overcome mistakes.

Laine may also be one of those players whose offense can cover mistakes, but even if Torts in the long run would accept that (not saying he would), Torts won't yet be convinced that he can't convert Laine into a HOF player. I really don't think Torts intentionally stifles offense. He wants BOTH D and O. I tend to think the same way as Torts - if you are incredibly talented at hockey, you can play both ends of the ice. That was the sandpaper with PLD (probably other things, but that's part of it). I think Jarmo has been of the same philosophy as Torts - but may have to change that philosophy a little now. Jarmo got his Panarin replacement but is finding that Laine's D is a) not great positionally, b) not natural to Laine as far as reads, but he will try, albeit it hesitantly not knowing the system; and c) his movement on the ice appears lazy but it may not be, its a slow first step (combined with indecision because of (b), above.

Not sure how this plays out. I am not even thinking that Laine is bucking Torts - he may just not have the hockey sense for D at the same level as someone like Wennberg does (I much prefer Laine). So you have a decision to make philosophically. And that may be where Torts says "enough" (meaning done as the HC), because I don't see Torts ever accepting less than what he perceives as 100% effort on D, regardless that the underlying reason for weakness on D may not be really lack of 100% effort but something else (i.e. lack of understanding, slow first step, lack of reads, ingrained lack of focus). Torts wants the grind for perfect - that's how you develop young players. Or at least that WAS the way to develop them. And he struggles (understatement) to accept anything less.

But I will say this for the first time, because I have been a Torts supporter for the most part....Is that how you coach a team that may be just talented enough (if it can pick up a C or other wing that can carry the puck into the zone) to make a run to SCF? It may be that is how you get an under-talented team to overperform (i.e. make playoffs 4 straight years, sweep TBL in the first round after their historic regular season, etc.). And I have loved that - its fun to root for the little engine that could. Those are the Folignos, Jenners, Atkinsons, Savards, etc.. (all good players but not elite). But it may be precisely how you get a more talented team to underperform, or turn talented players away. Exhibit A being the CBJ team that swept TBL but struggled like hell to just make it into the PO's,. discovering how to play pissed off at just the last moment. It's not so much Torts "my way or the highwway" as much as it is Torts "I WILL help you become the most complete hockey player you can be." That worked. It might still work with a re-boot team. It would probably work with this CBJ team, minus Laine, to make the playoffs again. It would definitely work at the AHL level. I'm just not sure that works at the NHL playoff-success level. And that saddens me, if my speculation has any kernel of truth (it may not, hell as Viqsi said in some thread, "THIS IS THE NEW NORMAL." Because I like Torts as our coach...

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

They should call it expensive/overpaid agency, not free agency.

 

[BullLund]

I bolded and italicized the sentence of your post that caught my attention. And yet this is exactly what Torts wants from every player - be a great two-way player whose defense does not nullify said player's offense. There aren't that many great offensive players who fit that mold - those that have are in the upper pantheons of the HOF. Torts has had to insist on that 2-way play from CBJ players thus far in part because that was what he was hired to do (culture) and b) because other than Panarin, CBJ players did not have enough offensive skill to overcome mistakes.

Laine may also be one of those players whose offense can cover mistakes, but even if Torts in the long run would accept that (not saying he would), Torts won't yet be convinced that he can't convert Laine into a HOF player. I really don't think Torts intentionally stifles offense. He wants BOTH D and O. I tend to think the same way as Torts - if you are incredibly talented at hockey, you can play both ends of the ice. That was the sandpaper with PLD (probably other things, but that's part of it). I think Jarmo has been of the same philosophy as Torts - but may have to change that philosophy a little now. Jarmo got his Panarin replacement but is finding that Laine's D is a) not great positionally, b) not natural to Laine as far as reads, but he will try, albeit it hesitantly not knowing the system; and c) his movement on the ice appears lazy but its not, its a slow first step (combined with indecision because of (b), above.

Not sure how this plays out. I am not even thinking that Laine is bucking Torts - he may just not have the hockey sense for D at the same level as someone like Wennberg does (I much prefer Laine). So you have a decision to make philosophically. And that may be where Torts says enough, because I don't see Torts ever accepting less than what he perceives as 100% effort on D, regardless that the underlying reason for weakness on D is not really lack of effort but something else (i.e. lack of understanding, slow first step, lack of reads). Torts wants perfect - that's how you develop young players.

But I will say this for the first time, because I have been a Torts supporter for the most part....Is that how you coach a team that may be talented enough (if it can pick up a C or other wing that can carry the puck into the zone) to make a run to SCF? It may be that is how you get an under-talented team to overperform (i.e. make playoffs 4 straight years, sweep TBL in the first round after their historic regular season, etc.). And I have loved that - its fun to root for the little engine that could. Those are the Folignos, Jenners, Atkinsons, Savards, etc.. (all good players but not elite). But it may be precisely how you get a more talented team to underperform, or turn talented players away. It's not Torts "my way or the highwway" as much as it is "I WILL help you become the most complete hockey player you can be." That worked. It might still work with a re-boot team. It would definitely work at the AHL level. I'm just not sure that works at the NHL playoff level. And that saddens me, if my speculation has any kernel of truth (it may not, hell as Viqsi said in some thread, "THIS IS THE NEW NORMAL."

Yeah, I tried to address that point in another post, which is the coaches' perspective on the whole thing. From Tortorella's perspective, he has a team which doesn't have the necessary pieces to carry the kind of offense that Laine or Jarmo are possibly asking of him.

It's one thing for Toronto to do what they do, because they have talent all over in their forward group, but can we really expect Roslovic, Texier, etc. to be putting up PPG offense all season long? Because that's what you'd need to counter-act any of the potential losses to defense. At the very least you'd need an effective 1C who can drive the play and generate the kind of opportunities for Laine that he himself might struggle to create on his own. Much of Laine's embarrassments are the result of him trying to carry the puck on his own and being crowded by 2-3 players, which leads to him turning the puck over. Yet he's also stubborn in the sense that he'll keep trying if he knows that the other guy will just dump the puck and lose it. It should also be noted that Laine is slow to accelerate although his top speed is good, and he's a big guy, so he can look sluggish at times compared to smaller players who have faster first steps, but not necessarily that much speed at the end of the day. On the rush, his speed gets to shine, whereas when dumping, chasing and cycling, his slow acceleration can make him look out of sorts.

But even beyond all that, if the season doesn't go well, you have to ask yourself as a fan if it's worth having a good system if it only brings you the kind of results that keep you in the dreaded "mid-tier" position in the league, meaning that you'll get no high-level picks, but also don't have a real chance of contending. Especially if that system is dreaded by elite-level players, whose "individual statistics" do play a big part in how much money they make, and how much attention they are given. Some might call that selfish but this is still a business, it's not like the coaches themselves aren't concerned about their pay grade.

 

[majormajor]

Torts has had to insist on that 2-way play from CBJ players thus far in part because that was what he was hired to do (culture) and b) because other than Panarin, CBJ players did not have enough offensive skill to overcome mistakes.

I'm in strong agreement with your post but I will quibble with this bit. Are you suggesting that Panarin was making a lot of defensive mistakes? I've heard that from other posters in the last 24 hours and it couldn't be further from the truth. Panarin was given free rein to handle transition play as he liked to, not because his offense made up for the problems, but because he was better at transitioning the puck himself and lo and behold he became the best transition player in the NHL. If Laine was actually good at transitioning the puck then I don't think there would be so many complaints about him doing it all his way. Panarin was an exemplary defensive player with the Jackets, there weren't mistakes for him to overcome.

 

[Forepar]

Yeah, I tried to address that point in another post, which is the coaches' perspective on the whole thing. From Tortorella's perspective, he has a team which doesn't necessarily have the necessary pieces to carry the kind of offense that Laine or Jarmo are possibly asking of him.

It's one thing for Toronto to do what they do, because they have talent all over in their forward group, but can we really expect Roslovic, Texier, etc. to be putting up PPG offense all season long? Because that's what you'd need to counter-act any of the potential losses to defense. At the very least you'd need an effective 1C who can drive the play and generate the kind of opportunities for Laine that he himself might struggle to create on his own. Much of Laine's embarrassments are the result of him trying to carry the puck on his own and being crowded by 2-3 players, which leads to him turning the puck over. Yet he's also stubborn in the sense that he'll keep trying if he knows that the other guy will just dump the puck and lose it. It should also be noted that Laine is slow to accelerate although his top speed is good, and he's a big guy, so he can look sluggish at times compared to smaller players who have faster first steps, but not necessarily that much speed at the end of the day. On the rush, his speed gets to shine, whereas when dumping, chasing and cycling, his slow acceleration can make him look out of sorts.

But even beyond all that, if the season doesn't go well, you have to ask yourself as a fan if it's worth having a good system if it only brings you the kind of results that keep you in the dreaded "mid-tier" position in the league, meaning that you'll get no high-level picks, but also don't have a real chance of contending. Especially if that system is dreaded by elite-level players, whose "individual statistics" do play a big part in how much money they make, and how much attention they are given. Some might call that selfish but this is still a business, it's not like the coaches themselves aren't concerned about their pay grade.

Good points. But I'm not sure about Toronto reference. They are fun to watch but they have certainly not out-performed CBJ as far as playoffs are concerned. They could use some D-focus, imo.

I may give Torts too much credit, but at this point in his career, I don't think he cares about his pay grade. He wants to develop a team that can win it all. But his vision of how to do that is not consistent with Laine's strengths/weaknesses. Torts vision is more in line with CBJ's focus on defense (as part of inherent lack of offensive skill). And you are right - having a team in the middle, or a defensive system that attracts team players who keep you in the middle, but not elite offensive players who want/need to score goals regardless of goals against, likely keeps you from winning a SC. Because to win 4 rounds, you need great goal tending and 2 or 3 "go to" players who can control the puck and score even when the defensive intensity is ramped up. Laine is likely one of those 2 or 3 "go to" players, but he's not a puck handler by himself.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Apples and oranges. NHL free agency is different from NFL free agency is different from MLS free agency et cetera. Those kinds of players generally aren't available - and unlike the NFL, you don't get to arbitrarily terminate bad contracts if your free agency experiment doesn't work out.

Step 1. Sign the Tom Brady of Hockey

In either format, teams use free agency and/or trade deadlines to get their last missing piece of the puzzle. Entire teams aren't built out of those formats but they just help complete the puzzle.

If a player is a perfect fit for the puzzle and doesn't want to be the piece that completes it because of Torts, that is a hinderance and perhaps Torts isn't the right person who should be helping put the puzzle together. Then we become the team that starts trying to force the incorrect piece in the wrong place in the puzzle because it kinda looks like it should fit.

 

[Forepar]

I'm in strong agreement with your post but I will quibble with this bit. Are you suggesting that Panarin was making a lot of defensive mistakes? I've heard that from other posters in the last 24 hours and it couldn't be further from the truth. Panarin was given free rein to handle transition play as he liked to, not because his offense made up for the problems, but because he was better at transitioning the puck himself and lo and behold he became the best transition player in the NHL. If Laine was actually good at transitioning the puck then I don't think there would be so many complaints about him doing it all his way. Panarin was an exemplary defensive player with the Jackets, there weren't mistakes for him to overcome.

No, I am not suggesting Panarin made major D mistakes...because of his puck-handling skills, he did have free rein. I agree with you. My point (not so well spelled out) is that Laine is not up to Panarin's level of D...because Panarin could play D but it was not so much his role. Panarin had the ability to anticipate plays at both ends of the ice; Laine is limited in that ability on the defensive end.

I am not saying the Laine is trash. Just a different player...no one has THAT shot (well, maybe Ovie).
I will say that Panarin is just an elite player. PERIOD. He could do lots of things at the elite level, including skating the puck, which made for easy outlets for others in the D zone to find him and get the puck up the ice. Laine needs someone like Panarin to get him the puck.

 

[BullLund]

Good points. But I'm not sure about Toronto reference. They are fun to watch but they have certainly not out-performed CBJ as far as playoffs are concerned. They could use some D-focus, imo.

I just brought them up as a team that's basically all about offense, who can get decent results even though their defense is almost non-existent at times. The only way you can get away with it is if you have that kind of talent. And as you've said, when it comes to playoffs, they haven't really delivered, although part of that is that they just haven't really been able to "raise their game" in physicality unlike most other teams.

I may give Torts too much credit, but at this point in his career, I don't think he cares about his pay grade. He wants to develop a team that can win it all. But his vision of how to do that is not consistent with Laine's strengths/weaknesses. Torts vision is more in line with CBJ's focus on defense (as part of inherent lack of offensive skill). And you are right - having a team in the middle, or a defensive system that attracts team players who keep you in the middle, but not elite offensive players who want/need to score goals regardless of goals against, likely keeps you from winning a SC. Because to win 4 rounds, you need great goal tending and 2 or 3 "go to" players who can control the puck and score even when the defensive intensity is ramped up. Laine is likely one of those 2 or 3 "go to" players, but he's not a puck handler by himself.

Tortorella should, most of all, see Laine as a solution to Columbus's PP woes. That's really his calling card, and I think that's why Kekäläinen brought him in. His impact on power-play as just one player, is pretty significant. You could argue that his price tag might be worth it, just for that reason alone. Especially for a team like Columbus which has struggled to convert chances on power-play. The first game against Carolina, although not a win, showed how devastating he can be during PP opportunities. Two snipes of that caliber, and a third on its way during the final seconds (which was blocked), how many can accomplish that?

Obviously though, you can't just keep a guy on the bench and bring them out for the occasional power-play, so they'll have to figure out a strategy on how to best utilize Laine on 5on5 while still remaining a net positive player. In Maurice's case, he usually tried to match Laine against defensively weaker lines and during offensive zone face-offs. It's not that he should be totally protected from difficult scenarios, but it does make sense to utilize him as a goal-scoring weapon rather than a guy who can shut down the other team's offense. Columbus has plenty of guys who can do the latter, not so many who can do the former.

 

[sakux]

I don't think they actually accept that. There are bottom sixers around the league that are pissed off that the top guys don't get benched more often. It happened with the Jackets when Johansen was here, they were lobbying for him to be benched!

If that's the case they should either improve their skills or know their place. Bottom sixers are of course important, but they are easily replaced..

 

[Forepar]

I just brought them up as a team that's basically all about offense, who can get decent results even though their defense is almost non-existent at times. The only way you can get away with it is if you have that kind of talent. And as you've said, when it comes to playoffs, they haven't really delivered, although part of that is that they just haven't really been able to "raise their game" in physicality unlike most other teams.



Tortorella should, most of all, see Laine as a solution to Columbus's PP woes. That's really his calling card, and I think that's why Kekäläinen brought him in. His impact on power-play as just one player, is pretty significant. You could argue that his price tag might be worth it, just for that reason alone. Especially for a team like Columbus which has struggled to convert chances on power-play. The first game against Carolina, although not a win, showed how devastating he can be during PP opportunities. Two snipes of that caliber, and a third on its way during the final seconds (which was blocked), how many can accomplish that?

Obviously though, you can't just keep a guy on the bench and bring them out for the occasional power-play, so they'll have to figure out a strategy on how to best utilize Laine on 5on5 while still remaining a net positive player. In Maurice's case, he usually tried to match Laine against defensively weaker lines and during offensive zone face-offs. It's not that he should be totally protected from difficult scenarios, but it does make sense to utilize him as a goal-scoring weapon rather than a guy who can shut down the other team's offense. Columbus has plenty of guys who can do the latter, not so many who can do the former.

Welcome insights. I had some background on Laine's usage in Winnipeg, but not with the conciseness or clarity that your post brings. That simplifies things for me, anyway!

Still not sure a "not quite sheltered" role for Laine fits Torts' goals, at least not initially. He will still try to get Laine to become solid on D, not matter how much that may be a square peg/round hole issue. Hopefully Torts and Laine find a way to quickly maximize Laine's contributions without either or both of them exploding. The benchings need to stop, for all concerned. Not that it was deserved or not deserved, but that will not help the team long-term and I think it stresses Torts out too. Oh, he will do it but I think it shortens his time as HC just from the standpoint of wanting to do that. I still am hopeful that Torts wants to and will coach this team, and finds a way to best utilize Laine as part of the team, albeit with a sniper's role. That probably has been several posters' complaints over the years - Torts trying to force offensively skilled players into 2-way players. But I will say it appears to have worked with Bjorkstrand - he is outstanding 5x5.
But I also realize Torts is on last year of his contract...so who knows. It would be fun to see him still coach hard but with just a tad softer edge if that's what it takes to get CBJ to the next level.

 

[Monk]

In either format, teams use free agency and/or trade deadlines to get their last missing piece of the puzzle. Entire teams aren't built out of those formats but they just help complete the puzzle.

If a player is a perfect fit for the puzzle and doesn't want to be the piece that completes it because of Torts, that is a hinderance and perhaps Torts isn't the right person who should be helping put the puzzle together. Then we become the team that starts trying to force the incorrect piece in the wrong place in the puzzle because it kinda looks like it should fit.

Sure, but my comment was meant to be facetious because the TB example is pretty unique. It'd be like if CBJ signed Sidney Crosby (Brady), then Crosby's #1 passing/scoring target who happens to be the#2 all time winger (Gronk), then signed a maligned but still all-star caliber winger (Antonio Brown), etc.

Do we even want Tom Brady if he isn't willing to play for Torts?

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Sure, but my comment was meant to be facetious because the TB example is pretty unique. It'd be like if CBJ signed Sidney Crosby (Brady), then Crosby's #1 passing/scoring target who happens to be the#2 all time winger (Gronk), then signed a maligned but still all-star caliber winger (Antonio Brown), etc.

Do we even want Tom Brady if he isn't willing to play for Torts?

At this point, if Tom Brady knew how to skate I'd sign him just to run the power play and nothing else.

 

[Viqsi]

In either format, teams use free agency and/or trade deadlines to get their last missing piece of the puzzle. Entire teams aren't built out of those formats but they just help complete the puzzle.

If a player is a perfect fit for the puzzle and doesn't want to be the piece that completes it because of Torts, that is a hinderance and perhaps Torts isn't the right person who should be helping put the puzzle together. Then we become the team that starts trying to force the incorrect piece in the wrong place in the puzzle because it kinda looks like it should fit.

In that particular situation, that is likely correct. I just feel that that particular situation as described - particularly given the state of free agency in the NHL - is so rare that its impact as a "hinderance" is minimized.

* * *​

If that's the case they should either improve their skills or know their place. Bottom sixers are of course important, but they are easily replaced..

This sort of attitude does not lead to a healthy team dynamic in which folks are supporting eachother the way one has to when competing at the highest level of the sport.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

At this point, if Tom Brady knew how to skate I'd sign him just to run the power play and nothing else.

Just imagine all the penalties that would be called against the other team. It would be a PP all game for us.

Oh, wait...

 

[sakux]

This sort of attitude does not lead to a healthy team dynamic in which folks are supporting eachother the way one has to when competing at the highest level of the sport.

Every team on all kinds of levels in all sports are divided in groups within the team. It's impossible to get a group of this size where everyone likes each other. The support for one another will still be there because of the will to win and desire of healthy contracts.

 

[Viqsi]

Every team on all kinds of levels in all sports are divided in groups within the team. It's impossible to get a group of this size where everyone likes each other. The support for one another will still be there because of the will to win and desire of healthy contracts.

Of course there's always gaps. That doesn't mean it's helpful or productive to legitimize and encourage them.