If you have a sincere desire to compare coaches across eras then IMO you should take to effort to do it as accurately as possible, otherwise it just comes off as a groundless pot shot. One way you could legitimately compare coaches is compare regulation wins Vs. regulation loses Vs. regulation ties and put aside OT because not all coaches coached in the full OT era.
Coach Discussion: Paul Maurice: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
- Thread starter Jets4Life
- Start date
- Status
Channelcat
Unhinged user
Hey now, there has actually been a good discussion on tactics, growth and improvement opportunities the last two pages or so. Not much negativity :p
Nope. They're all out partying.
puck stoppa
Registered User
PhilJets
Winnipeg is Good
Snot Rocket
HF anti-tank squad
PMo is currently playing in the off leash park.
I’ve been a critic but Maurice certainly passed tonight’s test.
Enjoy the win. Start criticizing again tomorrow.
Enjoy the win. Start criticizing again tomorrow.
Scheifele55
Registered User
Ducky10
Searching for Mark Scheifele
- Nov 14, 2014
- 19,809
- 31,386
I think this undersells how deadly the Jets are in transition through the middle of the ice. Not sure how realistic it is for a team to have multiple identities at the same time, so much of what they do is predicated on support and making the right read at the right time, it's not like their game looks exactly the same every game. I think they likely could adapt a system to be more effective off the rush, I'm not sold on that being a more effective way to play and it partly discredits how good the team is on the back end defensively. Nashville likes to push the puck up the ice as quickly as possible but their defensive play and support down low is a disaster, along with some crappy goaltending it largely is responsible for them losing the series.
I don't know, I certainly understand what you're saying but I don't really feel it's an overly fair criticism of Maurice. I guess the key will be how long he can keep all the horses in the barn playing this way, sometimes players get bored and that becomes a challenge for the coach. It also depends a bit on how long his present talent remains the same and how that might force him to adapt their play to suit what they may look like in the future.
Game 7. In Nashville. 5-1. Enough said.
Jets4Life
Registered User
MrBoJangelz71
Registered User
- Jan 14, 2014
- 4,965
- 6,063
Remember when we had to listen to negativity towards our coach and GM. So great to see the detractors waking up today wondering how such incompetence could amass such an amazing team, with amazing depth, amazing system, amazing results.
Wonder no more, you were wrong, always were and always will be.
Think I read some moronic statement yesterday with someone calling out Maurice for playing our young players over the past couple of seasons, that PMo was a lost sheep, following Chevy blindly.
LOL like developing young players happens some other way? We are where we are because of that development.
We are lucky to have PMo, he has coached this team well, and handled the development of our young team flawlessly.
Wonder no more, you were wrong, always were and always will be.
Think I read some moronic statement yesterday with someone calling out Maurice for playing our young players over the past couple of seasons, that PMo was a lost sheep, following Chevy blindly.
LOL like developing young players happens some other way? We are where we are because of that development.
We are lucky to have PMo, he has coached this team well, and handled the development of our young team flawlessly.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the theory is... Chevy is a lucky GM, who stumbled into a good roster. Maurice is lucky that he has a lucky GM.
________________________________________________________
I don't think you can compare coaches records across eras to determine the quality of coaches because they all had very different teams, insofar as ability. If your the Coach of a team with Goaltending that's around 92.5% save percentage ( SP) as opposed to a team with Goalie SP AT 89.5 % -- the Coach with great goaltending will very likely have a far superior winning record . Also if these 2 Coaches both had teams where one team had a very poor goal scoring ability, and the other Coach had a team with a high scoring offence and on top of that--great Goaltending--the coach with the Goaltemding at 92% SP and high octane offence, will have a "much superior coaching record. This is quite clearly very evident in Maurice's record this year.
In Maurice's case --let's compare "apples with apples -not apples with oranges. Coach Maurice had a lot of very bad teams to coach who were "bottom dwellers" -- so what kind of coaching record are you going to have ??? --answer is quite simple-"a very lousy record." It's really quite simple. Any coach who coached the 85 Oilers with Gretzky and the 5 hall of famers on that team--would look like a hero. ( Sather ) Give that same Coach the 2017 Buffalo Sabres,and he'll look like a "dud" more than likely.
So let's be fair here -- this year Maurice had a "great team" and had about 92.5 SP % with his Goaltender Helle, and a high octane offensive output. The results speak for themselves-- his winning record this year was likely around 65 to 70% without doing the calculations. Just estimating with no research--but it was great !!! ( 2nd overall) The years where Maurice had sub 500 records-- he had "very bad" teams.
So when judging our Coach--then let's be fair about this and compare apples to apples --and this year it's "very clear" Maurice is an elite coach, who can get the best out of a very young team. He's also working with an excellent GM in Chevy, and also great patient ownership-- so we must put these things in "proper perspective."
Summary -- if we're going to judge Maurice against other winning coaches--then let's do this from the 2017 year, and going forward. That way you'll get the "real picture."
Last edited:
Puckatron 3000
Glitchy Prototype
Other than the nebulous "outcoached" critique (which, to me, seems to often mean "we lost, I'm angry, and I want someone to blame without having to think too hard"), the most common knock against Maurice seems to be roster/line-up decisions. With modern analytics (which are a good thing!), in which players can so easily be summarized by a few stats numbers, it's easy to back this kind of critique. Look, my favorite player has a better XYZ% than this pylon Maurice is playing! He sucks!
While we should of course consider the analytics, there's a lot of valid reasons to play a statistically inferior player in any given game, or sometimes even for a season:
While we should of course consider the analytics, there's a lot of valid reasons to play a statistically inferior player in any given game, or sometimes even for a season:
- The statistically better player is injured
- The statistically better player is in a slump (these are real things, and don't show up in many statistical models which summarize over large stretches of gameplay)
- The statistically worse player has some potential that the coach sees, believes in, and wants to give NHL experience. He believes this will be better for the team in the long run. Example: Tanev
- The statistically better player still has some flaws that would be better served by playing in the AHL.
- The statistically worse player is actually better at whatever 5v5 role (e.g. shutdown line) that the coach is trying to fill.
- The statistically worse player is actually better at whatever special teams role that the coach wants to use him on.
- (controversial, but I believe to be true) The statistically worse player has an important leadership role, such as instilling a strong work ethic, particularly among the younger players of the team. This makes the team better.
- The statistically worse player is a vet with a better grasp on implementing and playing the coach's system, which helps the overall team more quickly and successfully adapt to the new system.
- More generally, having too much young talent on the team at once can cause issues and disruption in systems/attitude/work ethic.
- The statistically worse player matches up better in the particular scenario for the game/team/line that the coach is matching against.
It's also very easy to get frustrated with things you can't control, and the fans control nothing about the Jets other than how loud of a crowd they get to play in front of. I think this explains a lot of the apoplexy around here. Fans want their team to win so badly and would do anything to help them win, so when they lose, or play badly, the first reaction is to fantasize about changing those things you would do, if you had any kind of control. Of course some personalities are more susceptible to this than others...
Good post.
I don't think any NHL coach is infallible, and certainly not Maurice. However, I do think that they sometimes give in to innate biases based on their own experience, social processes, personality issues, etc. Fans don't have to face the players day after day and manage the team's culture and esprit-de-corps. Coaches do. Objectively, playing lesser players is a poor decision, but outside of the heat of the moment, I'm willing to give some latitude in relation to developing an overall team culture. That's why although it frustrated me to no end to see Stuart and Thorburn getting playing time, I was able to take a step back and recognize that Maurice (and Chevy) were playing a bit of a long game. They didn't really expect those teams to compete, but they saw value in having vets like that for the development of a positive team culture and to serve as mentors for the development of young players. As soon as the Jets were really ready to compete and younger players were ready to take more mature roles, they moved Stuart and Thorbs out.
Despite some of these misgivings, it's hard to argue with the results, both in terms of process and outcome. The Jets have become a top team by almost any underlying metric.
Beyond the analytics, I think there are a few things about Maurice that are very positive. First, the Jets work hard. I've seldom been concerned about lack of effort, and the team has the fitness and "hardness" needed for a playoff run. Second, the team seems cohesive. This was a very dysfunctional team a few years ago, but they are now all on the same page, it would seem. Third, the players appear to like and respect Maurice. This might not be important in the short term, but in the long term it's important that the young star players respect and like the coach. Coaches that have a short shelf life (like Torts) aren't a good recipe for a long run of success. Maurice seems to have a personality that will be conducive to sustained success with a talented young roster.
JetsWillFly4Ever
PLAY EHLERS 20 MIN A NIGHT
I still hate our PK tho.
Seriously though, great job coaching by Paul this year. Hendricks usage and PK are my only complaints and there will be complaints for any coach so I can live with this.
Seriously though, great job coaching by Paul this year. Hendricks usage and PK are my only complaints and there will be complaints for any coach so I can live with this.
Jetfaninflorida
Southernmost Jet Fan
I think that no experienced NHL coach could benefit more for his reputation than Maurice by winning the Stanley Cup. Standings / your record / your stats counts in any professional sport. It is largely how you are measured including playoff appearances. This is true for GMs, coaches and players. IMHO, obfuscating the fact that Maurice has a coaching record of 648 wins, 700 loses and 99 ties by using the argument that it depends on what the definition of a loss is, doesn't change what a loss is.
I live in South Florida. Dan Marino comes up all the time. He was great. But you know what, he doesn't have a Superbowl ring. In his case, his record and personal statistics show that he is one of the greats, but he is always being brought down by the fact that he couldn't get it done in the big game and it hurts his reputation big time. People always come back to him not having a championship vs his great record.
Maurice is kind of the opposite. His record shows that he is a mediocre coach with lots of experience and no championship. But if he is successful in guiding this team to a Stanley Cup, I could see his reputation flip. People would focus on what he did in winning a the Stanley Cup, as opposed to his own very mediocre record. I hope it happens.
Just a personal observation.
I live in South Florida. Dan Marino comes up all the time. He was great. But you know what, he doesn't have a Superbowl ring. In his case, his record and personal statistics show that he is one of the greats, but he is always being brought down by the fact that he couldn't get it done in the big game and it hurts his reputation big time. People always come back to him not having a championship vs his great record.
Maurice is kind of the opposite. His record shows that he is a mediocre coach with lots of experience and no championship. But if he is successful in guiding this team to a Stanley Cup, I could see his reputation flip. People would focus on what he did in winning a the Stanley Cup, as opposed to his own very mediocre record. I hope it happens.
Just a personal observation.
Jetfaninflorida
Southernmost Jet Fan
And his D men utilization was questionable against Nashville. But he handled our injuries generally very well. He stuck with Helle in that game where we were down 0-3 and it payed off. And his line blender worked that game as well.
We are in the Western Conference final so it's hard to be critical with his overall coaching this year, just some specific questionable decisions that I guess all coaches get from time to time.
____________________________________________________
Interesting post Florida Jet--and I especially like your Dan Marino parallel. To me Dan Marino was "a good passer"-- but that's about it. I don't believe he tried to use his running game properly. That was a problem--so he was the Sunday afternoon hero, during "regular season games." Could be he didn't have a good enough running back ???--but I don't think this was the case.
It reminds me lot of John Elway who for years tried to get it all done by himself, but soon found out after losing a couple Superbowls that's not going to get it done. Then Elway matured and got a great running back in Terrel Davis, and "used him" and they won 2 Superbowls back to back. Elway realized he couldn't do it by himself.
That was the difference between Elway and Marino--Elway changed, but Marino stayed the same. When the big games are on the line--the Marino type guys get eaten alive by great defences. Like you post there Florida Jet.
Last edited:
- Status
