Player Discussion jussi jokinen thread: just jokinen

[Hit the post]

Yet he seems bench-proof...

This isn't the Eriksson thread.

 

[Shareefruck]

Gentlemen. Look at past history since Benning came on board. Your argument with each other has a simpler answer. Any new piece acquired by Benning automatically gets a regular shift and often PP time no matter what for a lot of games. Once the guy finally proves he just sucks his ice goes way down and he gets some scratches. Eventually he is moved on or sent to the AHL. Some sooner than others but there is a definite pattern.

I see Motte already got scratched for the first time after impressing some with speed, but the rest have recognized he hasn't got much else. Chicago and Columbus already figured that out.

Exactly.

 

[F A N]

Even good coaches fall victim to this as well. What the hell does AV see in Tanner Glass?

I actually think the NHL is full of people doing jobs they shouldn't do, and coaches seem to take on a scouting role and I don't think they should. I think coaches can be too close to the team and I think pro scouts and player development personnel should be making a lot of decisions regarding the roster, while coaches just execute those decisions and manage the bench/locker room.

When Willie sees something in Linden Vey and feeds him prime ice time including PP time for half a season, I'm not sure he should really be making any roster decisions whatsoever.

You make good points. It's hard to say. NHL coaches traditionally are responsible for the lineup cards (i.e. in charge of deciding the lineup that gives the team the best chance to win). While it's not uncommon for GMs to have some input nowadays, I still think that a coach is in the best position to make the judgment as to the best lineup to win a given game. And there are certainly coaches who managed to win if you gave him players that fit his style of play (e.g. Lemaire and Darryl Sutter). In the end, I'm not sure that in the past 10-15 years there are many coaches who consistently won by adapting their style to the players vs having players that adapt to their system.

Personally, I think a coach who is "a good scout" is a strong asset. At the end of the day if you have a coach who correctly identifies a player who can excel in his system that's a big advantage. As a GM, you're much better acquiring a Tanner Glass for AV than a player AV isn't going to play and trust.

As for Willie and Vey, for what it's worth, Vey got off to a great start on the PP.

I do believe that there should be some coordination. But if you have a great coach like a Scotty Bowman, would you dictate roster decisions or would you listen to him as to what he thinks the roster needs to win?

 

[Intangibos]

You make good points. It's hard to say. NHL coaches traditionally are responsible for the lineup cards (i.e. in charge of deciding the lineup that gives the team the best chance to win). While it's not uncommon for GMs to have some input nowadays, I still think that a coach is in the best position to make the judgment as to the best lineup to win a given game. And there are certainly coaches who managed to win if you gave him players that fit his style of play (e.g. Lemaire and Darryl Sutter). In the end, I'm not sure that in the past 10-15 years there are many coaches who consistently won by adapting their style to the players vs having players that adapt to their system.

Personally, I think a coach who is "a good scout" is a strong asset. At the end of the day if you have a coach who correctly identifies a player who can excel in his system that's a big advantage. As a GM, you're much better acquiring a Tanner Glass for AV than a player AV isn't going to play and trust.

As for Willie and Vey, for what it's worth, Vey got off to a great start on the PP.

I do believe that there should be some coordination. But if you have a great coach like a Scotty Bowman, would you dictate roster decisions or would you listen to him as to what he thinks the roster needs to win?

Well I don't think Scotty was necessarily a slouch at assessing talent. Maybe that's part of what made him successful.

I think a big challenge would be actually integrating the scouting into the day to day coaching. I'm not sure how you could really integrate it because they're not always going to be on the same page. I agree that it can be better to have a Tanner Glass(maybe a bit of a stretch tbh) over a player the coach wont trust, but I also think having a scout giving input would be pointless unless the coach trusted his assessment.

I also don't think it's necessarily about changing your system to suit the players. I do think that there can be a quite a bit of wiggle room in how systems are executed that can vary from player to player. Rome wasn't exactly playing the same breakout system as guys like Ehrhoff and Edler, and the Sedins weren't playing the defensive system the same as Malhotra. They were all playing the same system with various adjustments to play to their strengths. I do think the coach needs to be able to do what he thinks is best, but if I were managing the team I'd want my scouts giving reports after games to the coach about what they saw. Maybe they'll notice something the coaches didn't or have an explanation for something with the coach having the final say in decisions. That may be exactly how it's done today, we don't really know what goes on behind the scenes. I'm sure the scouts and the coaches do coordinate somewhat, but I just hope it's an extensive collaboration.