Discussion in 'Winnipeg Jets' started by jetsforever, Mar 8, 2018.
How is it having a conversation with yourself?
My boss? TV?
I don't begin to understand what you mean here.
Was that in code? Do I need my Little Orphan Annie Decoder Ring?
So tactics aren't a coaches responsibility. Coaching tactics are infallible therefore any failure in results is 100% execution, and on the players. Players not publicly calling out their boss on TV means players love all their coaches decisions and are also experts in coaching strategies and tactics (just like a soldier understands everything about war/battle strategy & tactics). Is there anything else I've missed?
I would argue that there is not that much difference in tactics what it comes down to is execution.
Expand on this. I'd love to hear what it is that makes this the case.
Name one coach who is really using anything revolutionary in tactics. Shoot and defend. Coaches are defined by the players they have in front of them. Good goalie good coach.
I think he said it all. Tactics are one thing. Execution is another.
Expanding on this comes down to cutting & pasting any post game interview with any coach ever.
You can start by navigating to nhl.com
When you find a coach agreeing with your original statement, visit me. I'll be buried at Brookside cemetery.
So you are bowing it with the i'd explain it, but I am too busy consulting with kings on matters of great importance excuse?
I really have absolutely no clue what your point is. I also believe that you don't either.
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph; look at how we're beating each other up after our fourth straight win en route to being a legit top Cup contender.
And while I'm absolutely, 100.0% positively guilty as charged here, man oh man do we need a truce. until the next game.
What we all need is a big fat group hug at Tavern United, preferably with a round on the house
Well, when the attack dogs come out because someone makes a hockey comment in a hockey forum, this is what you get..
Don't know who that is but surprised anyone came up with a name.
I don't know if at this level they would change tactics that have generally been leading to winning. They might change player formation on the fly but tactics..probably not. I mean he might be pissed at there line changes or zone clearances but I doubt he is going to sit Little or Wheeler down and tell them to change what they doing zone to zone. I mean those guys know what to do for the most part. I think they generally work on what they want to do as a whole in practice in all 3 zones and let the players take it from there. He did tell Laine he needed to speed his game up and he did .
At this level if you see a team has got you beat in certain aspects in game, having no alternate tactics to deal with that is not competent.
Like I said, our team when healthy can probably overcome this deficiency until the later rounds when the best teams and coaches are left.
Just because our team is good this year doesn't mean we are the bestest at everything and shouldn't discuss any short comings that might concern whoever wishes to discuss them.
You've been bashing Maurice since the day he was hired 4 years ago, before that it was Noel. You've likely been the most anti-coach poster on here since the day the Jets returned.
If you can dish it out on on a daily basis, you should be able to take a handful of responses.
Listen, I'll attempt to mend fences here. Coaches implore pre game strategy before every game. This isn't just Maurice. There's pro scouts, video coaches & subsequent analysis, assistant coaches, past games & each teams injury situation all considered before employing a game plan.
Your suggestion is that when things aren't working the coach needs to change tactics mid game & forego everything the team worked on as a group, as well as whatever individual coaching that was had in one on one sessions for that particular game.
Sounds a lot like abandoning ship & when losses occur the first thing coaches mention after a loss is the players didn't follow the game plan.
Often simply staying the course pays off. The teams that do so are more often than naught in the win column. Even in losing situations there's a lot to be learned by staying the course, keeping variables uniform & perhaps lead to a different strategy when the teams meet again. Learning what not to do is often just as important as learning what to do.
I'm still standing by what I said however in the first place. Players win hockey games & it's ultimately their performance that dictates wins vs losses.
Dish it out? Are you Paul Maurice? Seriously get some perspective. I was pointing out to another poster why this **** spiral into non-sense.
Bashing, oh that word. Sounds like you take it personally that I have very specific and articulate criticisms of a professional sports coach. You aren't responding to anything. You are talking in tropes and vapid media styled rhetoric. Keeping variables uniform? Why is the coach on the bench? You think after 1200 games PoMo would have all the variable uniformity he needs see to change a tactic. How long does one need to keep the variables uniform for before an evaluation? That sounds pretty scientific.
So why do think PoMo get's paid millions over his career? sounds like a ****ing trivial job.
Doing nothing equals keeping variables uniform. if that isn't the best line i've heard around here in a while.
But I don't think they change tactics every moment of a game. They generally to play the exact same way whether they are up 5 to 0 or down 5 to 0. Execution on the other hand is probably something they discuss every shift.
Our team should be working towards sticking to our game plan more. Which we have been. What better time to test this than on the road, against weaker eastern opponents, when we look like we are destined for 2nd in the division?
At this point we are playing mostly tune up games. Games against other top 10 teams being the only real measuring sticks.
I think most people aren't zoomed in so close looking for problems they can see the big picture
Actually the Jets seem to have been getting a lot of praise around the league for how consistently they have adhered to their system, and how that has contributed to their success. They play a pretty mature and consistent game for such a young team and IMO Maurice deserves some credit for that.
My understanding is that the Jets "blender" their lines relatively rarely compared to other teams in the league, narrative be damned. If this is true, this speaks well for the coaching staff.
Stages of a PGT after a win:
2. Credit where its due
3. Criticism where its due
4. Counter to the criticism
5. All out argument
6. Question coaching decisions
7. Agree that wins are good and that theres still room for growth
8. Aavco Cup Creates pregame thread for next game to move on
9. Zhamnov5goalgame creates an awe inspiring GDT that gets everybody back onboard.
Speaking of coaches I haven't heard the name Wade Flaherty around here for months.
Flaherty is a terrible coach who ruined Hellebuyck and Hutch... something, something, something.... There, that should soothe souls for a bit.
I never like it when a team seems to sit back when in the lead. I think it's only partly tactics, while a lot of it is also psychological. Happens to every team and every coach. The Jets have actually been remarkably adept at maintaining strong play and keeping a lead this season. The stats bear this out. I think that's due to good talent and a good system. I think the game against Jersey was an exception to how they've played most of the season with a lead. Playing without top players, including a couple of key centres and a couple of key D, in the middle of a road trip and a playoff spot all but clinched might have played a role.
Separate names with a comma.