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

Status
Not open for further replies.

surixon

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
48,728
69,079
Winnipeg
As far as a pro and cons list:

Pro:
Cares greatly about his players well being and that fosters a great deal of trust (See Mathias's comments)

Communication - Being an excellent communicator can't be understated, poor communication between coach and player has been the death of many a good prospects.

Understanding of European players and their challenges in adapting - His time in Russia opened his eyes and he has been very good at integrating European players into the lineup for the most part.

Overall team system - For the most part he has correctly identified the strengths of the team and designed a game plan around it.

Properly delegated tasks to his assistants, Kompton runs PP, woodcroft skill development etc.

Cons:

Has an affinity to certain player types and is willing to overlook objective evidence in order to keep said player type on the roster and in the lineup.

Usage - overplayes his top guys and can be slow to trust the bottom of his roster especially in special teams situations.

In game adjustments. He seems slow to adapt his systems when a team has game planned us. For example no adjustment was made to our number 1 pp unit against the Blues the other day.

PK is still a mess despite our rankings.
 
Last edited:

pucka lucka

Registered User
Apr 7, 2010
5,913
2,581
Ottawa
This is absolutely an answer.

One of the main critiques of coaches is there ability to develop young talent, Maurice passes that test with flying colours. The other critique of coaches is their ability to win, Maurice proved that he can take this team to within 7 wins of a Stanley Cup. If that's not an answer then you're asking the wrong questions.

His tactics aren't perfect, he doesn't make every decision that I would want him to, but guess what, no coach does. Quenneville just got fired, Babcock has his critics in the Toronto fan base. Obviously Maurice needs to take us to the next step: win the cup, or he will be let go, but he has done a good job so far.

The results say Maurice has been a good coach for the Jets.

You think PoMo is responsible for Scheifele, Trouba, Ehlers, Helle become good players? hah. I think Trouba, Scheifele, Helle & Ehlers and their parent genes are responsible. Scheifele has a personal coach, Helle went and got help outside the org Ehlers was a top 10 draft pick who almost got buried by Thorburn being tied to his ass and Trouba is probably the best athlete on the team who was also a top 10 pick
 

NotCommitted

Registered User
Jul 4, 2013
2,770
3,821
While Laine is an elite goal scorer, he is still extremely streaky at times and still plays like a 20 year old at times. We have to remember that. He still makes plenty of mistakes and has his share of struggles at time. Mo puts a lot of trust into a 20 year old. I’m not sure it’s wise to blindly trust him 100% as some of you suggest.

Well... when he played in the 1st line during his rookie season, he was on ice for defending leads a lot, as an 18 year old. It seemed to work out fine and resulted in quite a few empty netters by him. I'm sure he made mistakes, but if my memory is right at all (which is totally might not be...), he seemed mostly a positive in that situation. Personally, in a tight game, up or down a goal, I wouldn't hesitate to have Laine out there. If there's a guy who can reliably pot in an empty netter from your own end, that's Laine. I know some people think it's the not the smart play to make, but I say if you are good at it and have a good chance of scoring that goal, go ahead and try. I really don't think the potential icing call outweighs the potential game deciding goal. If you are a down a goal, I can't imagine how anything Laine does or doesn't do defensively might outweigh the upside of having his goal scoring ability on the ice, 20 year old or not.

I also tend to look at it through player development - whenever he succeeds, that's something to build on and whenever he fails, that's something to learn from. The long term plan for Laine should be to be one of the go to guys for the Jets in tight spots, so everytime they put him on the spot and he comes away as a better player for it, the Jets are building their future. So there's that, also I don't think he's such a big liability out there it would outweigh the positives, but that's my opinion. Come playoff time, I think it would be good if the coach could feel like "hey, we need a goal, better put Laine out there", but if he never does it during regular season, knowing Maurice he'll be like "hey, we need a goal, let's play Scheifele and Wheeler 30 minutes again tonight!" ;)
 

JetsWillFly4Ever

PLAY EHLERS 20 MIN A NIGHT
May 21, 2011
6,211
8,996
Winnipeg MB.
You think PoMo is responsible for Scheifele, Trouba, Ehlers, Helle become good players? hah. I think Trouba, Scheifele, Helle & Ehlers and their parent genes are responsible. Scheifele has a personal coach, Helle went and got help outside the org Ehlers was a top 10 draft pick who almost got buried by Thorburn being tied to his ass and Trouba is probably the best athlete on the team who was also a top 10 pick
Ok so if you aren’t going to give him any credit for players developing you can’t blame him for any not developing, right ?
 

pucka lucka

Registered User
Apr 7, 2010
5,913
2,581
Ottawa
Ok so if you aren’t going to give him any credit for players developing you can’t blame him for any not developing, right ?
What did he do specifically to develop them? Right you don't know anything specifically. I don't doubt he has some influence on aspects of their game, why don't you blame him for Petan then? Or Dano? Or Myers being subpar 2 of every 3 games?
 

MrBoJangelz71

Registered User
Jan 14, 2014
4,948
5,987
What did he do specifically to develop them? Right you don't know anything specifically. I don't doubt he has some influence on aspects of their game, why don't you blame him for Petan then? Or Dano? Or Myers being subpar 2 of every 3 games?

So if we dont have specifics it means it doesn’t happen, yet you are absolutely positive that Maurice didn’t have any influence over Scheif, Trouba, Helly and Ehlers’development, but you have zilch for specifics, oh wait, other than they had personal trainers and coaches?

This is the type of stuff that makes your posts so transparent and obvious. Its a single note you keep playing over and over.

Fyi, every player has personal coaches or trainers, which must mean every head coach to ever coach, had zero influence over their player’s development, which most know is a crock of crap.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JetsWillFly4Ever

Gm0ney

Unicorns salient
Oct 12, 2011
14,428
12,680
Winnipeg
At the risk of being a little anal, I think that it should be 114/164 and from my university days (a long time ago) 69.5% was a solid C+ (only 0.5% away from a B or B-). :)
Damn, I would've had a C+ in math if I'd gone to your school...well, maybe a C. An F mark today though... :laugh:
 

Slimy Sculpin

Registered User
Dec 29, 2013
1,399
2,183
Damn, I would've had a C+ in math if I'd gone to your school...well, maybe a C. An F mark today though... :laugh:
Well, I was at the U of Winnipeg and I did get a C in Intro Calculus and a C+ in Intro Stats......I moved on to Biology. (Turned out OK.) :)
 

KingBogo

Admitted Homer
Nov 29, 2011
31,529
38,962
Winnipeg
As far as a pro and cons list:

Pro:
Cares greatly about his players well being and that fosters a great deal of trust (See Mathias's comments)

Communication - Being an excellent communicator can't be understated, poor communication between coach and player has been the death of many a good prospects.

Understanding of European players and their challenges in adapting - His time in Russia opened his eyes and he has been very good at integrating European players into the lineup for the most part.

Overall team system - For the most part he has correctly identified the strengths of the team and designed a game plan around it.

Properly delegated tasks to his assistants, Kompton runs PP, woodcroft skill development etc.

Cons:

Has an affinity to certain player types and is willing to overlook objective evidence in order to keep said player type on the roster and in the lineup.

Usage - overplayes his top guys and can be slow to trust the bottom of his roster especially in special teams situations.

In game adjustments. He seems slow to adapt his systems when a team has game planned us. For example no adjustment was made to our number 1 pp unit against the Blues the other day.

PK is still a mess despite our rankings.
Not a bad overview though I disagree on the special teams critics. In game adjustments on the PP is on the players not the coach. Laine can move up and down from the point to the side of the net, and Wheeler/Buff can shift the Lanes as needed. Scheifele can drift in and out of the slot. Guys at this level don't need to be told that. And the PK has looked pretty good to me. Top 10 is top 10.
 

pucka lucka

Registered User
Apr 7, 2010
5,913
2,581
Ottawa
Lol, such logic being applied.

So if we dont have specifics it means it doesn’t happen, yet you are absolutely positive that Maurice didn’t have any influence over Scheif, Trouba, Helly and Ehlers’development, but you have zilch for specifics, oh wait, other than they had personal trainers and coaches?

This is the type of stuff that makes your posts so transparent and obvious. Its a single note you keep playing over and over.

Fyi, every player has personal coaches or trainers, which must mean every head coach to ever coach, had zero influence over their player’s development, which most know is a crock of crap.


Uhh no, if you are going to try and debate a topic in an open forum some evidence or demonstrating you actually have obtained some information from watching the game go a long way. Look stop making things up. You realize you quoted my post which contradicts your claims about my thoughts. That's dishonest. That I don't have time for.
 

surixon

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
48,728
69,079
Winnipeg
Not a bad overview though I disagree on the special teams critics. In game adjustments on the PP is on the players not the coach. Laine can move up and down from the point to the side of the net, and Wheeler/Buff can shift the Lanes as needed. Scheifele can drift in and out of the slot. Guys at this level don't need to be told that. And the PK has looked pretty good to me. Top 10 is top 10.

It was more so switching tactics since the Blues were taking away both Scheifele and Laine despite them moving. Wheeler should have started going down low to Connor more often and having him walk it to the net or pass to Scheifele or Laine. Change the where the final pass is coming from to throw them off.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
You think PoMo is responsible for Scheifele, Trouba, Ehlers, Helle become good players? hah. I think Trouba, Scheifele, Helle & Ehlers and their parent genes are responsible. Scheifele has a personal coach, Helle went and got help outside the org Ehlers was a top 10 draft pick who almost got buried by Thorburn being tied to his ass and Trouba is probably the best athlete on the team who was also a top 10 pick
It's difficult to assign credit precisely, but many talented young players have been mismanaged by coaches. At the very least, Maurice has created a situation for them to excel.

I wouldn't underrate the very strong work ethic the team has.

Buff and Wheeler have blossomed under Maurice, and they are not uncomplicated as players to coach to their best performances.

In the end, the results so far have been satisfactory in relation to the talent the team has. Yes, they lost to Vegas in the playoffs, but that happens when the opponent's goalie is substantially better in a series.

I still question a lot of his decisions, but will base my overall perspective on the team's performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FFHockey

KingBogo

Admitted Homer
Nov 29, 2011
31,529
38,962
Winnipeg
It was more so switching tactics since the Blues were taking away both Scheifele and Laine despite them moving. Wheeler should have started going down low to Connor more often and having him walk it to the net or pass to Scheifele or Laine. Change the where the final pass is coming from to throw them off.
But that is just an extension of what I was saying. It is up to the players to take what is there. Sometimes they may get a little stubborn to force what they want to happen, but overall our PP is pretty nimble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ducky10

MrBoJangelz71

Registered User
Jan 14, 2014
4,948
5,987
Uhh no, if you are going to try and debate a topic in an open forum some evidence or demonstrating you actually have obtained some information from watching the game go a long way. Look stop making things up. You realize you quoted my post which contradicts your claims about my thoughts. That's dishonest. That I don't have time for.

I think I may have misread your post, my bad, sorry.
 

TheJadePipe

Registered User
Mar 8, 2016
1,094
858
I think PoMo is a very good coach...
He is critiqued by some for being out coached against Vegas but it was so obvious we just caught MAF on an absolute heater of a series. But for arguement sake, we beat Nashville so I guess PoMo out coached Laviolette whom coached the best team in the NHL last year(ranking wise)
I believe PoMo to be the the most well spoken coaches out there. His communication skills are second to none, I believe this is exactly what a young core of players needs... Clear, Direct, Honest feedback and direction delivered in a non emotional manner.
Also read the way he uses his top players so much more than 4th line... I believe this to be a positive not a negative, PoMo knows what his thoroughbreds can handle more than any of us fans. I think this can be debatable as to it being positive vs negative.
Go Jets Go
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBoJangelz71

surixon

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
48,728
69,079
Winnipeg
I had just wrote a large thing on players who haven't developed under him and then there was a stupid error and deleted all of it :mad:

Suffice to say I am not going to rewrite it again but the main highlights are that Maurice is very good when it comes to putting players who fit traditional roles in paces to succeed and develop.
  • If your a top 6 player and there is a spot i.e Connor, Scheifele, Laien, Ehelers etc he will put you in the top 6 and leave you there and allow you to grow.
  • If you fit what his archetype for what he wants in a checking or bottom 6 role (grit, hitting, forechecking, defense, safety and speed) like Copp, Tanev, Lowry etc he will also leave you there and let you develop.
Where I find he has a lot of trouble is the "in between" player. This player may not be talented enough to be an everyday top 6 player nor gritty or safe enough to fit Maurice's view of what a bottom 6 player should be. These players rarely if ever develop under him despite tangible evidence that they can succeed and thrive in depth roles. I am talking about the Petan's, Postma's and Dano's etc of the world. Maurice has no idea what to do with these player types. They end up sitting in the press box because he would rather default to a player such as Lemieux who plays the style of game that better fits the style of play he believes is needed.


In almost all cases over the years the players Maurice has deployed have had vastly inferior results to the skilled in-between players. In the Postma days he wanted and played gritty Pylons such as Pardy, Stuart and Harrison over Paul, in large part because he liked their sand paper and perceived safer defensive game. These players were in large part nowhere near NHL caliber and our third pair was a joke for the most part because of this. The same thing with Lemieux and Petan. Petan while not fitting the crash and bang preference still performs and helps the line perform significantly better then Lemieux (Gritty) in that role. At times I still greatly question just how far he has come as a coach. He still has many of the same biases now as he had when he first got here. He would still rather handcuff the bottom of his roster then step out of his comfort zone and play a player who doesn't mesh with his template.
 

Adam da bomb

Registered User
May 1, 2016
12,611
9,479
I had just wrote a large thing on players who haven't developed under him and then there was a stupid error and deleted all of it :mad:

Suffice to say I am not going to rewrite it again but the main highlights are that Maurice is very good when it comes to putting players who fit traditional roles in paces to succeed and develop.
  • If your a top 6 player and there is a spot i.e Connor, Scheifele, Laien, Ehelers etc he will put you in the top 6 and leave you there and allow you to grow.
  • If you fit what his archetype for what he wants in a checking or bottom 6 role (grit, hitting, forechecking, defense, safety and speed) like Copp, Tanev, Lowry etc he will also leave you there and let you develop.
Where I find he has a lot of trouble is the "in between" player. This player may not be talented enough to be an everyday top 6 player nor gritty or safe enough to fit Maurice's view of what a bottom 6 player should be. These players rarely if ever develop under him despite tangible evidence that they can succeed and thrive in depth roles. I am talking about the Petan's, Postma's and Dano's etc of the world. Maurice has no idea what to do with these player types. They end up sitting in the press box because he would rather default to a player such as Lemieux who plays the style of game that better fits the style of play he believes is needed.


In almost all cases over the years the players Maurice has deployed have had vastly inferior results to the skilled in-between players. In the Postma days he wanted and played gritty Pylons such as Pardy, Stuart and Harrison over Paul, in large part because he liked their sand paper and perceived safer defensive game. These players were in large part nowhere near NHL caliber and our third pair was a joke for the most part because of this. The same thing with Lemieux and Petan. Petan while not fitting the crash and bang preference still performs and helps the line perform significantly better then Lemieux (Gritty) in that role. At times I still greatly question just how far he has come as a coach. He still has many of the same biases now as he had when he first got here. He would still rather handcuff the bottom of his roster then step out of his comfort zone and play a player who doesn't mesh with his template.
It's interesting ppl mention Dano as he was on waivers and yet no other teams took a chance on him. Colorado only wanted 6 games and then they were done. That's Dano this year who to my eye looks much better than last years Dano.
 

surixon

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
48,728
69,079
Winnipeg
It's interesting ppl mention Dano as he was on waivers and yet no other teams took a chance on him. Colorado only wanted 6 games and then they were done. That's Dano this year who to my eye looks much better than last years Dano.

Well Dano has spent the better part of the last 2 seasons sitting on the bench on not playing. He is the same age as Morrissey, pretend for a minute that Morrissey had been in the PB as much the last two seasons, how much do you think his game would have grown during that time.

My point was that by not playing these players their development stalled because for the most part you need to play to develop. Who knows where Dano would be if he was allowed to play regularly, gain confidence and develop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigfish and Gm0ney

Adam da bomb

Registered User
May 1, 2016
12,611
9,479
Well Dano has spent the better part of the last 2 seasons sitting on the bench on not playing. He is the same age as Morrissey, pretend for a minute that Morrissey had been in the PB as much the last two seasons, how much do you think his game would have grown during that time.

My point was that by not playing these players their development stalled because for the most part you need to play to develop. Who knows where Dano would be if he was allowed to play regularly, gain confidence and develop.
In that case someone would have sweettalked Dano off Chevy for a second. Also how much better was Dano this camp than previous 2 years. Gee maybe if he had come to camp ready to go. Naw
 
Last edited:

TheJadePipe

Registered User
Mar 8, 2016
1,094
858
I had just wrote a large thing on players who haven't developed under him and then there was a stupid error and deleted all of it :mad:

Suffice to say I am not going to rewrite it again but the main highlights are that Maurice is very good when it comes to putting players who fit traditional roles in paces to succeed and develop.
  • If your a top 6 player and there is a spot i.e Connor, Scheifele, Laien, Ehelers etc he will put you in the top 6 and leave you there and allow you to grow.
  • If you fit what his archetype for what he wants in a checking or bottom 6 role (grit, hitting, forechecking, defense, safety and speed) like Copp, Tanev, Lowry etc he will also leave you there and let you develop.
Where I find he has a lot of trouble is the "in between" player. This player may not be talented enough to be an everyday top 6 player nor gritty or safe enough to fit Maurice's view of what a bottom 6 player should be. These players rarely if ever develop under him despite tangible evidence that they can succeed and thrive in depth roles. I am talking about the Petan's, Postma's and Dano's etc of the world. Maurice has no idea what to do with these player types. They end up sitting in the press box because he would rather default to a player such as Lemieux who plays the style of game that better fits the style of play he believes is needed.


In almost all cases over the years the players Maurice has deployed have had vastly inferior results to the skilled in-between players. In the Postma days he wanted and played gritty Pylons such as Pardy, Stuart and Harrison over Paul, in large part because he liked their sand paper and perceived safer defensive game. These players were in large part nowhere near NHL caliber and our third pair was a joke for the most part because of this. The same thing with Lemieux and Petan. Petan while not fitting the crash and bang preference still performs and helps the line perform significantly better then Lemieux (Gritty) in that role. At times I still greatly question just how far he has come as a coach. He still has many of the same biases now as he had when he first got here. He would still rather handcuff the bottom of his roster then step out of his comfort zone and play a player who doesn't mesh with his template.
Postma and Dano couldn’t develop on other rosters either... Maybe the players have something to do with their own success? I’m sure we will see the same result with Petan on another team with a different coach as well
 

surixon

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
48,728
69,079
Winnipeg
In that case someone would have sweettalked Dano off Chevy for a second.

Why would you pay something for a player who can't get into the lineup if you are another team. I'm not saying the player is blameless but for a young player the coach holds a lot of power over your career. With an exception of the best prospects (1st round picks) most young players careers in most cases are made or broken based on opportunities. Some coaches are happy to give certain players numerous opportunities over other players. Its just the nature of the business. Maurice prefers certain players for depth roles, we have enough of a track record with him now to know this.
 

Adam da bomb

Registered User
May 1, 2016
12,611
9,479
Why would you pay something for a player who can't get into the lineup if you are another team. I'm not saying the player is blameless but for a young player the coach holds a lot of power over your career. With an exception of the best prospects (1st round picks) most young players careers in most cases are made or broken based on opportunities. Some coaches are happy to give certain players numerous opportunities over other players. Its just the nature of the business. Maurice prefers certain players for depth roles, we have enough of a track record with him now to know this.
You mean all coaches. All coaches have preferences whether those preferences are the same or not.
 

ffh

Registered User
Jul 16, 2016
8,362
5,073
Well Dano has spent the better part of the last 2 seasons sitting on the bench on not playing. He is the same age as Morrissey, pretend for a minute that Morrissey had been in the PB as much the last two seasons, how much do you think his game would have grown during that time.

My point was that by not playing these players their development stalled because for the most part you need to play to develop. Who knows where Dano would be if he was allowed to play regularly, gain confidence and develop.
Morrissey wouldn't be in the press box for any length of time. Because he can play hockey. Dano and petan can't. If you are given 100 plus games in the league you can't say they were never given a chance. Their development didn't stall by anything Maurice did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->