I'm sure if the team was struggling, Armia would've had a shot in the top 6 but the team was successful and didn't really warrant a change. You have said that Little didn't really work with Ehlers and Laine but the solution isn't moving Armia to that line, and Connor worked so well with Scheifele and Wheeler that there was no need to really adjust that one.
I never suggested of such (moving Armia into second line). The entire scenario was unideal for Armia who had basically played nothing but RW his career. The team had a log jam on the wing and there wasn't anything he could do about it. However, I don't think Ehlers and Laine were or even are a perfect match either. They are both shooters and there was basically no playmaker in the line. I actually wouldn't have been against the idea of giving Armia a look with Laine (L - x - A), especially in the first half of the season when it was quite apparent the ELL wasn't working. As for Connor, like I mentioned, he did well but lets be honest here, he got a lot of things handed over on the plate. We could see him struggle as soon as Scheifele got injured and Connor - Wheelers - Laine line was formed. If I remember correctly, he got dropped out of the equation pretty quickly. Also the first line (CSW) wasn't exactly elite at their own end I don't think he helped much in that regard. Then if we look at for example Ehlers who struggled with Little and Laine, played a handful of games at the beginning with Scheifele and Wheelers and had a number of multipoint nights. Brought this up just to illustrate how "challenging" it was to play with the two of them.
I don't have the stats for all teams TOI but the separation doesn't seem that unusual. Maurice does use his top 3 lines a lot and ignores the 4th, and top 2 when they need a goal, but again, that's not unusual either.
For a deep team like the Jets, I thought it was pretty strange the way Maurice would not try to balance the load and the efficiency of the roster, particularly when clearly there were players who were struggling and everyone could see they wouldn't mesh well together. It is coach's job to try find working combinations and with the tools he had available. Failing to do that and overlooking ongoing issues was rather strange to say the least. I can't really agree with your assessment looking back to the pre-Stastny era specifically.
Too much money, yeah I agree. But I don't think Poolman or Niku were ready - their first pro season was last season so they had no AHL time.
Yet we aren't really talking about the past here. This is about the now and beyond. Poolman got a handful of looks and didn't look too bad and despite Niku being rock solid in the AHL and one of the best defencemen in the league, he got one tryout in the Jets and he completely nailed it. I have no idea why P.Mo decided to leave it to that but Niku definitely looked NHL ready and I have a lot of faith he should be ready come 18-19.
He's not a second line winger so no he wouldn't get a 1st. He might be a 2nd line winger on the Habs based on TOI next season, but we'll see if he produces like one. He certainly may become worth a 1st down the line but he isn't now, and it's not the Jets responsibility to move him up the lineup solely for the purpose of trading him for a first in the near future.
He wasn't second winger in the Jets, sure. Everyone can agree with this. Nevertheless we are talking about a team that arguably was the deepest at the position in the entire league. Armia should easily make it to second line in most of the teams. I have no idea why you have so low impression of him, but nonetheless I have no worry re-visiting this conversation within the next 1-2 years when he's found the right home for himself.
My quote means that using the "most losses" stat as a reason why Maurice is a bad coach is wrong because he's coached so many games, that he's going to have a lot of losses by volume alone.
Maurice addressed the 2nd line stuff this season. He said it wasn't working well but the other lines were working so well that he didn't have the option of breaking them up. Maurice gets criticized for going to the "blender" too quickly, but here he stuck with the lines that were winning games.
Here's a list of coaches with most career games coached:
HHOF Records and Rankings -- NHL Coaches
Scotty Bowman has 10 more seasons under his belt, so without bothering with the simple math that would combine some ~700 or so more games? Isn't it odd that a coach who's managed a team 700 less games can still have more regulation losses than the other coach? Sounds insane. Yeah I know, but he coached Hartford Whalers and whatnot, but still take a look at that list and find six other coaches besides Bowman who've had even more games. Not particularly flattering and perhaps, just perhaps there could be little more to it than just having a bad core of players having to work with throughout the years?
We'll see about ELL this season. I don't think it worked either but no use criticizing a decision that hasn't been made yet.
You didn't mention Stastny in the playoffs. I said that Stastny's play was dipping as the playoffs progressed and that I don't think him at $6.5 is any better than Little at about a million less. And little had a different role in the playoffs than Stastny so I don't think comparing their points is fair - what is true is that Little needs to be better this year.
I truly hope we don't see ELL this season cause no matter how much the youngsters have progressed during the summer, it still won't make this line anywhere close to ideal. Even if they would get better results, it'd still be bad asset management since they clearly have zero chemistry and it's not just going to magically puff into play.
I would take Stastny at 6,5m/season for the next 3 years over Little at 5,3m/season for 6 years without hesitating for a second. Regardless, lets not overlook the fact that Little had 82 games to prove himself worthy and at the same time claim or/and re-claim his role in the second line but he didn't. In fact he didn't only struggle with the two particular youngsters but pretty much with every other line he centered. Didn't they even try Wheelers with him? There was only one line combination that seemed to suit him the entire year but it didn't last long. Sure I hope as much as anyone that he could get back to his old form but lets just be realistic here and accept the fact that this season wasn't just about a bad streak or whatnot.
As Fans it's easy to assume all evaluations of a player come from 'game' action/results (is that correct/is that what you're suggesting). Regardless, in my opinion, that premise would be completely wrong, and misguided. Practice is the place where a lot of knowledge is gained, shared and exchanged; between coaches, management and the players.
What seems obvious to you- in ice time allocation and the roles within the Roster; is even more evident to those same teammates playing the game. Do you believe Joel felt he outperformed others (Blake, Nik, Patrik, Mathieu, Kyle) on a daily basis; in work ethic and skill, therefore he was denied an 'earned' role better suited to his skill-set? IMO, communication is imperative, it's the key dynamic. The players are held accountable. And therefore, roster composition rarely surprises those involved. Blake and Mark know why they play together. And the Organization knows the types of individuals that will most easily succeed with that style/commitment.
You, may blame the coaches for 'any' player's perceived mistreatment; but most players realise the solution to finger pointing, when assigning 'blame'...is to focus on the last two letters. Cheers.
I was talking about consistency, meaning mostly on ice results. Practise is another thing and while it obviously is directly or indirectly linked to results, it's just one factor out of many in the big picture. If you're suggesting that Armia could have harnest better results by better practise as opposed to playing bigger minutes and actual skilled line mates, then I certainly can't say I can agree with that. Hockey is a team sport and unless you're McDavid or Crosby, there's only so much one can do with limited resources. Lets take a look at Laine for example. He scored 44 goals while averaging 16+ minutes a game. No other player in the history of the game have achieved such results with so little ice time (since they started counting TOI). It takes special gifts. In case of Armia I think he is gifted youngish player, but again, we are not talking about a rainmaker here.
I'm not a mind-reader and I can't assume what anyone is thinking and even if I did, it wouldn't really make a difference. The organization has clearly shown dedication to even younger core of which Armia was never part of. He wasn't part of the big picture as we can all see now. Like I've pointed out already Connor was gift wrapped a role in the first line and was he the better player compared to Ehlers or Laine for instance? I think not. Armia was assigned to a role from where he could not break loose. If he clearly showed he was better than Connor for instance, would they have inverted? No I don't think so. Why? Cause one player could play mature two-way game and the other was a rookie who was still learning and adapting.
I bolded the remark that seems rather baffling in particular. Since you think the organization is this greatly aware of which players are so greatly meshing up with each other, would you care to elaborate the ELL experiment? I'm genuinely interested hearing how it was so beneficial, or how it helped the team or players themselves.
I really don't grasp the concept of players themselves being responsible for not clicking, not finding chemistry or even remotely functional game. There are players like Scheifele and Wheelers or even Scheifele and Laine who sync in well together and there are players like Laine and Little or even Ehlers and Little that simply don't function well together at all. It's about how each think and play the game. Also as for pointing fingers I don't think generally especially the rookie or sophomore year, young players dare to to challenge the authority even if they feel out of place since most of them are well aware how much hold the organization has over them due to regulations in the league and via contracts. It's particularly strange to read and hear someone who pretty clearly holds youngsters the most accountable especially now that we have such a fresh example to look at. What happened again during the "reign" of ELL and what followed after the arrival os Stastny? Did the blame of dysfunctional hockey fall on two youngsters or did it fall down on the coach who was assigning them their respective roles and lines?
