Confirmed with Link: Hynes relieved of his duties, Nasreddine as Interim

[Oneiro]

Yeah, that's a deep cut.

And even worse because you can only use it ironically right now.

 

[billingtons ghost]

Yeah, that's a deep cut.

And even worse because you can only use it ironically right now.

Would've been so nice to come out on a rampage this season, and that meme could've been Shero beckoning Hall to resign at a hometown discount price...

Instead, we've got a big sh*tburger of a coaching job to offer someone, and have to hope that some GM gets tipsy and trades us an A prospect for an unsigned Hall.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Friedman reporting Wood on the block

If only they traded Wood & Severson when I called for it, they actually had value back then.

Here’s the clip...for as much as Stevens says it isn’t coaching it’s the players...he is saying it’s the system.

"Too much east / west in their own zone, and confusing of their forwards"

YEARS.

I have been saying this for YEARS.

 

[Oneiro]

Yeah, quite a few of us have been pointing out these frankly un-NHL-like d-zone turnovers for years.

And I'll bet Sal and Dano have been biting their tongues for a long long time, wanting to say what Stevens said.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Velucci is a stretch to call one of Shero’s Pittsburg boys as he has only coached their AHL team this year. He was in Charlotte before that.

Also I might be wrong, but I think he is thought of rather highly as far as coaches outside the NHL go and should get a few job offers from teams this offseason.

 

[Devilsfan118]

Yeah hindsight is 20/20 - should've traded Wood when he had some value.

Seems like he's been on a downward trend for the past while.. don't expect it to stop with the team being a total dumpster fire.

 

[Tretyak 20]

If only they traded Wood & Severson when I called for it, they actually had value back then.



"Too much east / west in their own zone, and confusing of their forwards"

YEARS.

I have been saying this for YEARS.

At this it's almost not worth bothering to trade Wood. I mean a brainless player in a pickup hockey offense isn't helping his trade value. Probably better to keep him around until we can hire someone like Laviolette, Boucher or Boudreau. Unless they think Bastian is close to ready for a long-term call up.

 

[guitarguyvic]

Yeah I’m not understanding the need to trade Wood right now. Yeah he’s not a smart player, but he is young and generally won’t hurt the team if he’s relegated to the fourth line. And we aren’t going to get anything of great value back in a trade. Best case scenario he manages to start potting a few more goals again under a different regime and then maybe you trade him then when his value is high. It just doesn’t make sense to do it now.

 

[devilsblood]

Tampa doesn't really surprise me actually. They had that ridiculous regular season last year and then promptly got swept, so they're probably in "do we really need to go this hard in November/December?" mode. Which can be precarious if they get stuck there.

Which to me points to how teams can get in a rut, tune a guy out, need the shock of a coach getting fired, and how a new voice can inspire a team.

Systems and structure talk is over done imo. Not that they aren't hugely important, but it's not like Cooper's system has changed from last year to this year.

 

[NJDevs26]

Yeah I’m not understanding the need to trade Wood right now. Yeah he’s not a smart player, but he is young and generally won’t hurt the team if he’s relegated to the fourth line. And we aren’t going to get anything of great value back in a trade. Best case scenario he manages to start potting a few more goals again under a different regime and then maybe you trade him then when his value is high. It just doesn’t make sense to do it now.

That’s why I’m of the camp that this is a motivation tool. Unless they really feel he’s a cancer but if that’s the case why not scratch him for a couple games then?

 

[Nubmer6]

Which to me points to how teams can get in a rut, tune a guy out, need the shock of a coach getting fired, and how a new voice can inspire a team.

Systems and structure talk is over done imo. Not that they aren't hugely important, but it's not like Cooper's system has changed from last year to this year.

Didn't they miss the playoffs just a couple seasons ago? The team seems inconsistent, going from conference finals to missing to conference finals to being bounced in the 1st round. I'm not sure if that points to Cooper or the players.

 

[devilsblood]

Didn't they miss the playoffs just a couple seasons ago? The team seems inconsistent, going from conference finals to missing to conference finals to being bounced in the 1st round. I'm not sure if that points to Cooper or the players.

3 years ago when Stamkos broke his leg. Other then that year, and the collapse of last year, they they've been to a cup finals and 2 ecf's in the last 5 years.

 

[billingtons ghost]

Wood, in perfectly the right fit of a role and hockey team, where he knew what was being asked of him and expected of him, would be an absolute monster.

I'm not willing to give up on that for nothing. Let him get things going, and then trade his arse.

Right now, we are in ultimate trade-low city at this point with all of our players.

If we're going to get rid of folks, it should start with our UFAs, and then with our dysfunctional defense... but AFTER they at least get some looks in a real 'system'.

Almost all of the goals in the past games came when d-men get sucked way out to the walls, and then come coasting back in front of the crease too late to make a decision... that is, the ones where they haven't first made some egregious turnover.

 

[billingtons ghost]

"Too much east / west in their own zone, and confusing of their forwards"

YEARS.

I have been saying this for YEARS.

So, it is interesting to me the fact he points out that Hynes 'wants to control the puck in our own zone' - whereas Stevens was urging patience, reading the play, and getting the puck out of the zone north-south.... don't worry about controlling the puck in the Dzone as much.

What I'm interested in is: Folks are always squawking about quantifying something like this in statistics. How does this actually read in advanced statistics, or does it just not register? We've gone back and forth about the value of Corsi for defensemen - it would seem that a zone-exits stat would be more telling, no?

I'm just curious - since Nas is in theory more likely to look at advanced stats...

 

[BenedictGomez]

So, it is interesting to me the fact he points out that Hynes 'wants to control the puck in our own zone' - whereas Stevens was urging patience, reading the play, and getting the puck out of the zone north-south.... don't worry about controlling the puck in the Dzone as much.

What I'm interested in is: Folks are always squawking about quantifying something like this in statistics. How does this actually read in advanced statistics, or does it just not register? We've gone back and forth about the value of Corsi for defensemen - it would seem that a zone-exits stat would be more telling, no? I'm just curious - since Nas is in theory more likely to look at advanced stats...

THIS.

It's one of the reasons I dont care so much about this Corsi nonsense. I don't care how much "possession" you have if you're turning the puck over in your zone. Running up possession time never used to be a thing. This isnt soccer. GET THE PUCK OUT OF YOUR ZONE used to always be the first directive of defense. Nobody cared if that meant the other team may get the puck for the next possession, OUTSIDE of your zone.

The desire to possess the puck at all times is a very recent, and IMO illogical thing. Those 3 Devils Stanley Cup winners? They all did whatever they could as soon as they could to get the puck OUT of their defensive zone. That used to be basic hockey fundamentals. But playing that way will not maximize your Corsi, that's for sure, it will lead to a lower Corsi.

 

[Devils731]

THIS.

It's one of the reasons I dont care so much about this Corsi nonsense. I don't care how much "possession" you have if you're turning the puck over in your zone. Running up possession time never used to be a thing. This isnt soccer. GET THE PUCK OUT OF YOUR ZONE used to always be the first directive of defense. Nobody cared if that meant the other team may get the puck for the next possession, OUTSIDE of your zone.

The desire to possess the puck at all times is a very recent, and IMO illogical thing. Those 3 Devils Stanley Cup winners? They all did whatever they could as soon as they could to get the puck OUT of their defensive zone. That used to be basic hockey fundamentals. But playing that way will not maximize your Corsi, that's for sure, it will lead to a lower Corsi.

I think Devils under Hynes are the team you’re saying you don’t want to be. Also, Hynes didn’t care about Corsi looking good. Hynes career about high danger chances which wouldn’t be hurt by flinging the puck out of the zone looking for homeruns while clearing the zone.

Defenseman were supposed to move the puck quickly out of the zone but they never had good options so would often turn it over in zone or in the neutral zone. So the goal was to get the puck out of the defensive zone almost immediately but the defenseman had no effective way to do it so they’d hold onto the puck hoping an option would appear that didn’t directly give the puck to the other team. Turning the puck over in the neutral zone was also a bad look for the Devils because 3 forwards were all up ice so it would let the other teams easily attack with numbers.

A possession based team wouldn’t look anything like the Devils of this season. One of the Devils big problems this year is that they possess the puck much less than the other team.

 

[Triumph]

THIS.

It's one of the reasons I dont care so much about this Corsi nonsense. I don't care how much "possession" you have if you're turning the puck over in your zone. Running up possession time never used to be a thing. This isnt soccer. GET THE PUCK OUT OF YOUR ZONE used to always be the first directive of defense. Nobody cared if that meant the other team may get the puck for the next possession, OUTSIDE of your zone.

The desire to possess the puck at all times is a very recent, and IMO illogical thing. Those 3 Devils Stanley Cup winners? They all did whatever they could as soon as they could to get the puck OUT of their defensive zone. That used to be basic hockey fundamentals. But playing that way will not maximize your Corsi, that's for sure, it will lead to a lower Corsi.

The Devils absolutely dominated Corsi during their 1995-2003 run. They crushed on the shot board pretty much every year between those seasons in a way that few teams have. So, one of two things is true -

A: Every team played to get it out of their zone, with no regard for what came next; the Devils were just better at it
B: The Devils were better at getting it out of their zone with possession than other teams, and we know that getting it out with possession leads to better offensive (and defensive) results than not.

I'd bet it's a little of both.

 

[TrufleShufle]

I think the issue with not just getting the puck out and stopping the play to get control isn't a "east/west" thing. It's the system of constantly going for those long break out passes. They would do fine with east west play if it was progressing forward quickly at the same time, not east west until they find that one long stretch pass to a guy standing on the far blue line who either misses and ices, or gets it flat footed and it becomes a dump and chase regardless.

There was an interesting tid bit on Spittin Chiclets about Pronger, and how if wingers would cheat and rush up the ice the second he got the puck he would just slap it down the ice on the other goalie because he hated that. Now realizing that has been our entire game plan for the entire season, it might be time to try a different approach.

 

[Blackjack]

I think the issue with not just getting the puck out and stopping the play to get control isn't a "east/west" thing. It's the system of constantly going for those long break out passes. They would do fine with east west play if it was progressing forward quickly at the same time, not east west until they find that one long stretch pass to a guy standing on the far blue line who either misses and ices, or gets it flat footed and it becomes a dump and chase regardless.

There was an interesting tid bit on Spittin Chiclets about Pronger, and how if wingers would cheat and rush up the ice the second he got the puck he would just slap it down the ice on the other goalie because he hated that. Now realizing that has been our entire game plan for the entire season, it might be time to try a different approach.

Chris Pronger was a weird dude. My enduring memory of him is slapping the ice with his stick because he didn't like the way the Lightning were (not) forechecking.

 

[billingtons ghost]

The Devils absolutely dominated Corsi during their 1995-2003 run. They crushed on the shot board pretty much every year between those seasons in a way that few teams have. So, one of two things is true -

A: Every team played to get it out of their zone, with no regard for what came next; the Devils were just better at it
B: The Devils were better at getting it out of their zone with possession than other teams, and we know that getting it out with possession leads to better offensive (and defensive) results than not.

I'd bet it's a little of both.

Nonsense.

The Devils killed it on Corsi because they ruled the neutral zone.
They're plan was all about getting it out of the zone regardless of possession, in fact GIVING the puck to the opponent deep in their zone, and then setting up a neutral zone trap, create a takeaway and counterattack, in which they would strip the puck and go the other way. You can win both the Corsi battle and the game by reducing shot chances in your own zone by getting it out of the zone and being a good forechecking team putting pressure on opposing D.

Your suppositions above are both garbage.

 

[Triumph]

Nonsense.

The Devils killed it on Corsi because they ruled the neutral zone.
They're plan was all about getting it out of the zone regardless of possession, in fact GIVING the puck to the opponent deep in their zone, and then setting up a neutral zone trap, create a takeaway and counterattack, in which they would strip the puck and go the other way.

Your suppositions above are both garbage.

I mean, as usual, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how hockey works - even at their best, the Devils were still allowing between 20 and 25 shots a game, and were only averaging somewhere around 58% of the shots in a given game. That means they spent some time in their own zone, probably not that much less than they spent in their opponent's zone. So while counterattacking was part of their strategy, it certainly wasn't the whole thing, and the coaching staffs would've had to have come up with efficient ways to exit their own zone, because the puck would end up there quite often.

 

[billingtons ghost]

I mean, as usual, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how hockey works - even at their best, the Devils were still allowing between 20 and 25 shots a game, and were only averaging somewhere around 58% of the shots in a given game. That means they spent some time in their own zone, probably not that much less than they spent in their opponent's zone. So while counterattacking was part of their strategy, it certainly wasn't the whole thing, and the coaching staffs would've had to have come up with efficient ways to exit their own zone, because the puck would end up there quite often.

See, the above is a fundamental misrepresentation of what actually happened in reality.
Counterattacking *was* the whole thing, and that is why the 1995 Red Wings, who liked to play a Russian-esque possession game got eaten up.

The fact is, possession hockey only works if you have the players who are good at possessing the puck. Maybe the above strategy changes a bit when Gomez and Mogilny come along. But not fundamentally.

Taylor Hall, with his attempts to dipsy doodle around two people in the neutral zone, or at our blueline, proves that: If even HE can't do it, there are plenty of folks on this team who shouldn't do it.

Watch the games, man, or at least watch Stevens' breakdown. Vatanan forcing a pass to get out of the zone, Greene getting trapped and turning it over trying to get out of the zone, Severson's pass too hard/far for Butcher to handle cleanly...

This is why the puck ends up in the back of our net. We're not a team who can get the puck deep and forecheck because even our best (Vatanan, Butcher, Subban) are PROVING that they aren't up to the task of being that classic puck carrying defensemen, and our forwards are no help defensively.

I'd love to hear why you think the above ISN'T the case.

 

[AfroThunder396]

Wood isn't going to suddenly grow a hockey IQ overnight.

-He skates fast in straight lines
-Sometimes he hits (though not as much as he used to)
-Rarely he fights (though not as much as he used to)
-He draws a lot of penalties
-He takes a lot of penalties

He's basically if Bobby Boucher from Waterboy was a hockey player

 

[Oneiro]

Is there any kind of metric for the magnitude of a team's errors? Passes that lead to shot attempts against? Basically, a measure of how catastrophic a decision is and how regularly such catastrophic decisions occur. Or are total shot attempts supposed to encompass that?

It'll be kind of interesting to see if teams can put some machine learning to use with video from years past.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Wood isn't going to suddenly grow a hockey IQ overnight.

He's basically if Bobby Boucher from Waterboy was a hockey player

I can definitely imagine him listening to everything his Mamma said.