Coach Discussion: Paul Maurice Pt II, The gooder, the badder, the uglier.

[jepjepjoo]

That's because the Jets played almost 7 minutes of the game in the 3rd period up a man and Laine was out for virtually the entirety of that time.

Eh... He played 2:57 on the PP. 6on5 counts as ES.

Forwards on PP1 ES TOI 3rd period:

Scheifele 7:18
Wheeler 6:53
Connor 7:21

Laine 4:32

I like your confidence though... "That's because...". Someone even liked your post. There's data out there I'd suggest you use it.

 

[LowLefty]

I agree in principle but Lemieux isn’t gritty AND talented like a Kadri or Wilson for example.
So if we want gritty...that player needs some skill too and I’m not seeing it in Lemieux

How much skill does your gritty 4th liner need to be enough?
It's assumed the Jets are giving him an opportunity and will determine if he's worth his weight (so to speak)
Does he have enough to crack the 4th as a grit (and skill) player? Maybe considering we are talking about today's 4th liner - $1M

 

[Eyeseeing]

We’ve been down the gritty unskilled road before
Honestly why not Dano?
He’s better offensively and is gritty enough to draw penalties...
Anyways cue anti Dano posts
3...2...1

 

[JetsFan815]

Eh... He played 2:57 on the PP. 6on5 counts as ES.

Forwards on PP1 ES TOI 3rd period:

Scheifele 7:18
Wheeler 6:53
Connor 7:21

Laine 4:32

I like your confidence though... "That's because...". Someone even liked your post. There's data out there I'd suggest you use it.

Wheeler line was out on the ice for extended periods of time right before the 2 PPs so they were able to go back to back. That accounts for most of the difference in IT. Wheeler had 2 extra shifts than Laine, doesn't seem unreasonable to me considering how that line happened to be out right before the two PPs and were able to doubleshift.

 

[LowLefty]

We’ve been down the gritty unskilled road before
Honestly why not Dano?
He’s better offensively and is gritty enough to draw penalties...
Anyways cue anti Dano posts
3...2...1

Most are busy with anti Lemmy posts at the moment.
Dano will have to wait his turn

 

[Whileee]

I agree in principle but Lemieux isn’t gritty AND talented like a Kadri or Wilson for example.
So if we want gritty...that player needs some skill too and I’m not seeing it in Lemieux

We haven't seen it at the NHL level yet, but he showed talent at the AHL level and Maurice has publicly mentioned his good shot and hands based on watching him every day in practice. That's why they might be persisting with him, to see if he can show those attributes consistently at the NHL level. If not, he'll be gone.

 

[kelsier]

I'll try harder to explain my comments - here goes:

Your quote -
"Erm, it was a good move and the team lost? I'm little bit confused here cause how can a decision be good when the outcome is bad?"

So, based on this, every decision that doesn't end in a positive outcome, is a bad decision?
That's making stuff up - you are not allowing for any other circumstances to play a role - just the one.
The team may have lost for other reasons - maybe very good apposing goal tending? Maybe hitting the post? Maybe fanning on a shot?

Your second quote:
"So you think it's better to be a one line team than have at least two scoring lines? That doesn't sound quite right either."

I never said that - it's pure hyperbole. I would never suggest we run as a one line team. But I might suggest stacking one up for a few minutes in a smothering situation like last night. So yes, stop making stuff up - or - do a better job of explaining your point it the initial post rather than coming back and pretending I can't read.

Anyway, from there it all went down hill - so let's just move on.

What is the fundamental role of any coach for any hockey team? To coach and lead a team. There are many ways to lead, but strategy is usually the most important and it can be interpreted by many ways. In our little example where P.Mo inverted Ehlers - Connor, we have two different instances now that both support the fact that it was a bad move, not only on theoretical level but practical level as well. Your argument is based fully on the idea that the entire purpose of the switch was to uplift the first line of Scheifele and Wheelers, so lets start with that. We need to go back to the first time Maurice tried this exact same switch before which happened against Rangers and even then you argued that it worked, but the team making the comeback had little to nothing to do with top lines, cause it was the bottom six who deserved the credit for the comeback. So there's that, but I don't even have to further explain what happens to the second line when Ehlers is placed there as I've pointed it out numerous times already. So again, Maurice severely weakened one line and should we look into actual detail from these two games, while this move didn't really even help the first line. So where's the benefit? It sure as h**l cannot be found from the results. So [mod] there's non-existent evidence pointing out for a "smart move" and more than enough data pointing the other way around.

[mod]

[mod] Generally speaking (not referring to the game against St Louis alone) fans often like to overlook the actual decisions that happened in the game as well as the fact of coach getting out-coach/played, which is fine, but it doesn't necessarily hold against thoroughly scrutiny. I prefer to actually focus on the events that actually happened on ice as well as off the ice (behind the bench) and the data itself.

You make assumptions and declare things I've never said like for instance:

Sure there were other options - but he picked the one I'm defending. He could only pick one - right? Sorry Pal, but he didn't pick your option because it wasn't a good one.

To me it sounds like you clearly indicated me saying that promoting Laine into the top unit as opposed to Connor would have been a better idea, which I never said or even suggested.

[mod]

 

[Ducky10]

Lowry and Copp aren't physical players who can drive the net?

They should be.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Thought Lemieux played better last game, generated some chances, spent time in the offensive zone.

There is such and aversion on this board towards players of Lemieux’s ilk, one that drives comparisons immediately of Thorburnlike player capable only of Thorburnlike production.

With only 23 NHL games, still a couple of years away from being 24, I am not sure what Lemieux will be, but I think we need to allow for more opportunity to find out.

Petan has over a 100 games in the league, but IMO, it was not until his past 5 games that I actually saw Nic as an NHL player, still not fully convinved though. Lemieux after a 100 games could be a completely different player for us.

Based off the last game, Lemieux deserves another game against Philly

 

[Howard Chuck]

I’ll say that it seems that we are winning enough regular season games while at the same time still bringing rookies into the lineup and working them in. That’s very good for our future and we’re fortunate to be able to do this for the 2nd or 3rd straight year?

It’s a good problem to have. Every player we are discussing usage of, is a young guy, not a 30 year old journeyman.

We are still walking that line, just further down the lineup.

 

[10Ducky10]

Showing some class by not playing the PP1 or PP2 with the big lead.

 

[KingBogo]

Showing some class by not playing the PP1 or PP2 with the big lead.

Yup. And it goes a long way with the 3rd and 4th line to get double shifted and PP time in a game like that.

 

[Whileee]

Jets now have the best points percentage in the West, and 3rd in the NHL, with 0.910 from the starting goalie. Maurice is making some of the right decisions, evidently.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

The great thing about the Jets is that we have a strong enough lineup to mask a mediocre coach during the regular season, especially early in the year. Late in the season, the effects of utilization decisions by coaches (good and bad) throughout the year will be evident on teams. And in a Playoff series where you are up against the same lineup game after game - the effect of coaching on the overall outcome of the series becomes more evident in that you can see which coaches are making decisions that give their team a higher probability of success.

 

[CaptainChef]

The great thing about the Jets is that we have a strong enough lineup to mask a mediocre coach during the regular season, especially early in the year. Late in the season, the effects of utilization decisions by coaches (good and bad) throughout the year will be evident on teams. And in a Playoff series where you are up against the same lineup game after game - the effect of coaching on the overall outcome of the series becomes more evident in that you can see which coaches are making decisions that give their team a higher probability of success.

Agree with that assessment for sure. We have an unbelievable lineup to chose from. Maurice has to make sure he doesn't tire out his work horses before the end of the season & playoffs. So far I haven't seen that from him. He's using Wheelers line far too much, too often & overplaying our starting goalie. Both those decisions will come back to bite you later in the season & in playoffs.

 

[Ducky10]

The great thing about the Jets is that we have a strong enough lineup to mask a mediocre coach during the regular season, especially early in the year. Late in the season, the effects of utilization decisions by coaches (good and bad) throughout the year will be evident on teams. And in a Playoff series where you are up against the same lineup game after game - the effect of coaching on the overall outcome of the series becomes more evident in that you can see which coaches are making decisions that give their team a higher probability of success.

Can you show us some tangible proof of this throughout the years? Like actual examples of where these wrong decisions occurred and their direct impact on the overall outcome? How high is the probability btw, any actual numbers? Which decisions are right and which are wrong? To what degree does each contribute to the actual outcome?
I don't just mean pointing at teams who have lost and you deciding it was because of "poor coaching" btw, because that would just be an opinion.

Remember that whole "Jets lose it's on Maurice, Jets win it's because the team is so good" lecture? Yeah, you're kind of doing it and most of us know it.

 

[Whileee]

The great thing about the Jets is that we have a strong enough lineup to mask a mediocre coach during the regular season, especially early in the year. Late in the season, the effects of utilization decisions by coaches (good and bad) throughout the year will be evident on teams. And in a Playoff series where you are up against the same lineup game after game - the effect of coaching on the overall outcome of the series becomes more evident in that you can see which coaches are making decisions that give their team a higher probability of success.

So, should we remind ourselves that the Jets had a very young line-up with very little playoff experience that got to 114 points, beat the #1 regular season team and Stanley Cup favourite in a 7-game series, and got to the Conference Finals.

Like many fans, I question a lot of Maurice's decisions, but I remain puzzled that so many were highly critical of Maurice for his career record (based on coaching a lot of terrible teams with lousy goaltending), but then don't want to give him any credit for pretty good results. Factored into an assessment should be how the Jets' young players have developed, especially when you consider how many young players on other teams have struggled. I really can't think of any top prospect that hasn't developed well under Maurice... Trouba, Morrissey, Hellebuyck, Scheifele, Ehlers, Connor, Laine, Lowry, Copp, etc. Also, does he receive any credit for Byfuglien's transition from a somewhat mercurial D with inconsistent fitness into a really steady star defenseman who is now consistently fit? When Maurice arrived, many fans (and even coaches) weren't sure Buff was even a defenseman.

 

[Whileee]

Records (points percentage)...

Maurice (with Jets, 5+ seasons): 0.583 (team save percentage 0.909)
Babcock (with Leafs, 3+ seasons): 0.562 (team save percentage 0.912)

 

[Duke749]

The great thing about the Jets is that we have a strong enough lineup to mask a mediocre coach during the regular season, especially early in the year. Late in the season, the effects of utilization decisions by coaches (good and bad) throughout the year will be evident on teams. And in a Playoff series where you are up against the same lineup game after game - the effect of coaching on the overall outcome of the series becomes more evident in that you can see which coaches are making decisions that give their team a higher probability of success.

You could probably pick a better time to make a post like this instead of one where we double shift the 3rd and 4th line for most of the 3rd period. Like after a game where he rides Scheif and Wheels at ES to 24 or 25 minutes perhaps?

 

[pucka lucka]

we could quite easily measure the impact of playing 2 or 3 Lemieux/Thorburn/Chiarot/Morrow vs players with 5-10% better simple shot metrics over a full season.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

You could probably pick a better time to make a post like this instead of one where we double shift the 3rd and 4th line for most of the 3rd period. Like after a game where he rides Scheif and Wheels at ES to 24 or 25 minutes perhaps?

It was a good move by Maurice to give Scheif and Wheels a break when up by a ton of goals. Also good for him to hold back on the power play units to try to keep the game from getting out of hand. It's hard to think of more obvious things for an NHL coach to do.

 

[pucka lucka]

You could probably pick a better time to make a post like this instead of one where we double shift the 3rd and 4th line for most of the 3rd period. Like after a game where he rides Scheif and Wheels at ES to 24 or 25 minutes perhaps?

Really? So we can only discuss history as far back as 1 game? forum rule?

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Can you show us some tangible proof of this throughout the years? Like actual examples of where these wrong decisions occurred and their direct impact on the overall outcome? How high is the probability btw, any actual numbers? Which decisions are right and which are wrong? To what degree does each contribute to the actual outcome?
I don't just mean pointing at teams who have lost and you deciding it was because of "poor coaching" btw, because that would just be an opinion.

Remember that whole "Jets lose it's on Maurice, Jets win it's because the team is so good" lecture? Yeah, you're kind of doing it and most of us know it.

His coaching record is long, tangible and proof that he is a mediocre coach with lots of experience. In career, in season, in series and in game decisions and examples have been discussed in this board at nauseum. I already know that you will take exception to most things that describes Maurice in a non-favorable light.

The additional tangible proof thing you are searching for in your post - you should hold yourself to the same standard of tangible proof if you believe him more than an average coach.

 

[Ducky10]

His coaching record is long, tangible and proof that he is a mediocre coach with lots of experience. In career, in season, in series and in game decisions and examples have been discussed in this board at nauseum. I already know that you will take exception to most things that describes Maurice in a non-favorable light.

The additional tangible proof thing you are searching for in your post - you should hold yourself to the same standard of tangible proof if you believe him more than an average coach.

I think he's an average coach, I think most of them are. Teams have won with average coaches before, they'll do it again.

I don't take exception to describing Maurice in a negative light, I do it myself when its warranted. I also describe him in a positive light when warranted.

 

[Adam da bomb]

His coaching record is long, tangible and proof that he is a mediocre coach with lots of experience. In career, in season, in series and in game decisions and examples have been discussed in this board at nauseum. I already know that you will take exception to most things that describes Maurice in a non-favorable light.

The additional tangible proof thing you are searching for in your post - you should hold yourself to the same standard of tangible proof if you believe him more than an average coach.

Does mediocre mean bad or does it mean average to bad? If it means average slightly below average I'd agree. He is not the worst coach and he's not the best coach.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Does mediocre mean bad or does it mean average to bad? If it means average slightly below average I'd agree. He is not the worst coach and he's not the best coach.

I see Maurice as mediocre as in middle tier. In the group of mediocre/average coaches. He also has a lot of experience at the NHL level.