Speculation: The Coaching Thread

[CC96]

Not one player in the NHL can give 100% every night. If you are saying most on the Coyotes are not giving an honest effort most nights, all I can say is you are not watching the games.

Are you watching the games?

Are we not literally one game removed from an 8 game stretch, where we gave up 5 goals, every single game, with the only exception being a game where the opposition hit 6 posts?

Are we not literally one game removed from giving up 7 goals to the worst team in the league, after having 5 days off to rest, and prepare?

 

[CC96]

As a GM, it would be worse to have players make their feelings known and ignore it than it would be to make the change. It has already happened in another league this year (given entirely different circumstances):

http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2015/11/9/9696388/update-on-flint-firebirds-owner-firing-coaching-staff-players-quitting-red-wings-vili-saarijarvi

Wat.

The Flint Firebirds situation occurred, because the owner fired the entire coaching staff, since he felt the coaching staff was not giving his son enough ice time. The entire Firebirds roster, including even the owner's son himself, then proceeded to quit the team, as a protest of the owner's favoritism.

How is that even remotely relevant to the Coyotes?

 

[XX]

As I see it, does it look as if though players are purposely trying to oust Tippett?

No. How is that relevant? Why would anyone want to get rid of a coach that makes your job really cushy? Being loved by your players is not a prerequisite for being an effective coach. It can actually hurt. The difference between Andy Murray and Dave Tippett is that Dave went to a team with zero expectations.

It's pretty clear, from the play on the ice, that they don't respond to his input the way they once did. Practice and rest don't seem to make any difference. There's no adjustments. Players are regressing. You're welcome to believe there's zero case for getting a new voice in the room, but that's not what's going on.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Wat.

The Flint Firebirds situation occurred, because the owner fired the entire coaching staff, since he felt the coaching staff was not giving his son enough ice time. The entire Firebirds roster, including even the owner's son himself, then proceeded to quit the team, as a protest of the owner's favoritism.

How is that even remotely relevant to the Coyotes?

B/c if there is an issue with trust between the players of an organization and its GM, or coach, or whomever, it would come to the forefront - which was exactly what happened in this scenario.

In other words, if our team were truly tuning Tippett out, it would have been clear much earlier in the season and the only possible player response would be to literally skate out on the ice and just sit down. We haven't been doing that. We have had struggles, and sometimes they have carried on for a longer time, but in no way have we completely shut down in such a way that it suggests we need to make a drastic move of changing our coach.

Just b/c there are different scenarios doesn't mean that the natural response is different. The players responded to the GM by basically refusing to play for him. Where has that been with Tippett?

 

[BUX7PHX]

No. How is that relevant? Why would anyone want to get rid of a coach that makes your job really cushy? Being loved by your players is not a prerequisite for being an effective coach. It can actually hurt. The difference between Andy Murray and Dave Tippett is that Dave went to a team with zero expectations.

It's pretty clear, from the play on the ice, that they don't respond to his input the way they once did. Practice and rest don't seem to make any difference. There's no adjustments. Players are regressing. You're welcome to believe there's zero case for getting a new voice in the room, but that's not what's going on.

So, you are saying that the players love playing for Tippett b/c he makes it easy for them? So he does not challenge them to get better individually and as a team? Hate to break it to you, but professional athletes hate to lose. When athletes lose, they get frustrated. When they get frustrated, they want to change that culture. So, if Tippett is not challenging them to get better for themselves and team, then why would the players accept that? They wouldn't. But your argument is that they would keep him around, b/c he makes it easy on them, wins and losses be damned.

Get real.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Let's just be clear, Tippett hasn't lost the room.

He has players who are in some cases, young, and in some cases, still finding their way in the league. In some cases, the veterans are slowing down. In some cases their advice/play is heeded and needed. Not everything is going to be perfect in those scenarios, no matter how much people want it to be.

When the team has looked bad, people jump to conclusions. Maybe the conclusion is that we are still progressing as individuals and as a team. Just b/c one player plays a great game doesn't mean that another one does. Things like that can happen outside of X's and O's. But when this team gets on the same page with everyone (could happen tomorrow, could happen in two years), we will see the same results that Tippett has seen in the past.

 

[XX]

Get real.

The only person that needs to "get real" is the person that uses this:

The players responded to the GM by basically refusing to play for him. Where has that been with Tippett?

As their acid test.

 

[BUX7PHX]

^^^

Your arguments are pure folly though.

If you have ever been in any sport, you know how much losing sucks. If the players know that losing is a direct result of the coach, then the players/GM/fans will rise against in that belief. Both players and coach know their are things they can do better, but it pains you to think that it can't be laid on one single person.

 

[kihekah19*]

Maybe we should take a moment to understand just what a players coach is, to avoid further confusion.

http://emuss.blogspot.com/2009/02/defintion-of-players-coach.html

 

[BUX7PHX]

Maybe we should take a moment to understand just what a players coach is, to avoid further confusion.

http://emuss.blogspot.com/2009/02/defintion-of-players-coach.html

Don't worry, XX is confused enough as is. This thread was meant to spark a thought that he knows Tippett is to blame for everything, but the reality is that it is a combination of multiple things. At times, it could be Tippett. But he wants the easy answer and solution, when that's not possible at this time.

 

[XX]

it pains you to think that it can't be laid on one single person.

I haven't laid the blame on a single person. Just the opposite. Maybe pay attention and really think about what is being said? How the team is playing on the ice?

 

[BUX7PHX]

I haven't laid the blame on a single person. Just the opposite. Maybe pay attention and really think about what is being said? How the team is playing on the ice?

They are playing like a team in transition. We added youth, which up to last year, Tippett would have never played. He is, so your theories on Tippett being too stubborn to change are debunked right there.

According to the theory of posters on this forum, when we have a better offensive team, we should be better defensively. That is not happening. Maybe theory doesn't work in this scenario and why I have always said, "Good offense does not lead to good defense. But good defense can lead to good offense." But again, we are a team in transition. Tippett's system may actually take our strengths and use them as best as possible. It is still up to the players to actually make the play though. Maybe against team X, that play gets made. Maybe against teams A, B, C, and D, that play doesn't get made. Should the coach bear that when th player may be at fault?

I would be lying if I said I was thrilled with the way that we are playing, but I do think that we are ahead of the curve in the rebuild, and the results on ice, while not perfect, are promising. Even if they weren't terribly promising, I would still not recommend a complete change of the guard, b/c you also need to get a gauge of where our performance, team-wise and individually, is at, and where we need it to get to. A change of guard can start that process over at a critical time. Short term success is what we are trying to avoid and long term success is the goal.

 

[BUX7PHX]

One other thing:

An element that is being forgotten is that we had a binding force from 2010-2012 in the form of only being able to rely on the people in the room. we had no owner. That alone brings a group together for a goal.

Is it any surprise that the team has started to go downhill once the prospect of ownership (whether the rumors of being moved to Winnipeg in 2011 or the Hulsizer bid) came to fruition, it was a collective sigh of relief from all players that had to go through it?

 

[XX]

They are playing like a team in transition. We added youth, which up to last year, Tippett would have never played. He is, so your theories on Tippett being too stubborn to change are debunked right there.

Don Maloney gave Dave Tippett no choice but to play them. Their play on the ice has forced Tippett to play them. They are often times the only thing going for the Coyotes. You should be embarrassed that you consider this a mark in your (or rather, Tippett's) favor. Even so, DT hasn't risen above playing the kids with centers like Chipchura, and he refuses to keep Domi - Hanzal - Duclair together. There's valid complaints to be had.

According to the theory of posters on this forum, when we have a better offensive team, we should be better defensively. That is not happening.

Moving the puck forward is a function of offense. This team often fails to do that for alarmingly long stretches at times. Establishing and maintaining possession past the redline is a function of offense. This teams also fails at doing that, save for winning faceoffs.

For a defensive coach, Dave Tippett isn't getting very good results. Only the Flames allow more goals per game. 2nd worst this year. Third worst last year. 13th worst the year before. 16th worst the year before that. 5th best the year before that. That's called regression. The Coyotes are now allowing more goals per game than Gretzky's final year. For someone that's supposedly a master defensive coach and great at adjusting, that's a pretty regular and alarming slide.

 

[BUX7PHX]

I haven't laid the blame on a single person. Just the opposite. Maybe pay attention and really think about what is being said? How the team is playing on the ice?

Although I am pretty certain that when someone starts a thread called Speculation: The Coaching Thread, and then poses these questions:

1. What needs to be done?

2. Who needs to be brought in?

3. What is your plan for fixing the front office?

Then you are pretty much assigning blame to either the coach or front office (actually, both). So maybe you need to pay attention.

 

[XX]

So maybe you need to pay attention.

"What needs to be done?" can include nothing, if you feel that way. It's called speculation for a reason. We also have the roster thread for *****ing about under-performing players. I thought all of that was pretty obvious. Apparently not.

It's funny to see your posts devolve into personal jabs at me.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Don Maloney gave Dave Tippett no choice but to play them. Their play on the ice has forced Tippett to play them. They are often times the only thing going for the Coyotes. You should be embarrassed that you consider this a mark in your (or rather, Tippett's) favor. Even so, DT hasn't risen above playing the kids with centers like Chipchura, and he refuses to keep Domi - Hanzal - Duclair together. There's valid complaints to be had.



Moving the puck forward is a function of offense. This team often fails to do that for alarmingly long stretches at times. Establishing and maintaining possession past the redline is a function of offense. This teams also fails at doing that, save for winning faceoffs.

For a defensive coach, Dave Tippett isn't getting very good results. Only the Flames allow more goals per game. 2nd worst this year. Third worst last year. 13th worst the year before. 16th worst the year before that. 5th best the year before that. That's called regression. The Coyotes are now allowing more goals per game than Gretzky's final year. For someone that's supposedly a master defensive coach and great at adjusting, that's a pretty regular and alarming slide.

I addressed our last comment by saying that I don't believe Playfair is a good defensive coach for us.

As far as the rookies go, Tippett could be giving them 4th line minutes. He may not want Duclair and Domi on the ice together b/c it is two rookies together and when you have two newer players, that may compound the mistakes, rather than lessen them. Which would you rather have? Offensive excitement with greater potential for mistakes that take us completely out of games? Or the current version where we make mistakes, but there have been fewer times when we are outright out of games. Even against Columbus and some of our other stinkers, we have been within a goal heading into the 3rd or have made a game of it.

 

[Muppet]

Can we all at least agree that Jim Playfair needs to take a hike? The Tippett back and forth will never end, but surely the majority of us want a defensive coaching change.

 

[XX]

Can we all at least agree that Jim Playfair needs to take a hike? The Tippett back and forth will never end, but surely the majority of us want a defensive coaching change.

If Playfair and Tippett can't collectively put their heads together and handle the D, why are the Coyotes paying both? They should go down with the ship together. I very much doubt Playfair coaches 100% of the D and is free to do as he pleases without any input from Tippett.

 

[BUX7PHX]

"What needs to be done?" can include nothing, if you feel that way. It's called speculation for a reason. We also have the roster thread for *****ing about under-performing players. I thought all of that was pretty obvious. Apparently not.

It's funny to see your posts devolve into personal jabs at me.

Your posts have also devolved that way to me, too.

The reason is that you continually contradict yourself.

First it was that we should have vetted into Ribeiro more and b/c this is our GM and they are getting paid to do so, they should have. Well, they did, and if you were the GM, you would have signed Ribeiro too, as evidenced that you showed no issues to signing him in the thread from two years ago.

Next, it is about players regressing. Some, you can expect to regress, such as Doan and other veterans. I know that you are specifically referring to OEL, Stone, and Murphy - but remember that these players are taking on more responsibility. Before, it may have been easier to hide their mistakes by giving them sheltered minutes.

Then it dealt with record and playoffs - saying that I completely miss the point by focusing on record. We are going to have wins that we don't deserve and losses that we don't deserve. It is hard to be competitive each and every night/shift/second on the ice. We could lose 6-0, and that is the collective result of 2 bad minutes of ice time. So for 58 minutes we played perfect hockey, but you would probably be screaming and crying over it.

Finally, coaches don't lose a room overnight, unless the coach said that he slept with all of the players' wives on the last road trip.

Can we just please lock and remove this thread, b/c it is not getting anywhere? The people that don't like Tippett as our coach will repeat everything that they have said as problems with this team. The people that appreciate Tippett as a coach will fire back b/c they know that a team in transition doesn't just change things overnight and there are going to be growing pains through it all.

 

[XX]

First it was that we should have vetted into Ribeiro more and b/c this is our GM and they are getting paid to do so, they should have. Well, they did, and if you were the GM, you would have signed Ribeiro too, as evidenced that you showed no issues to signing him in the thread from two years ago.

I had little problem with it because I trusted the paid professions who are supposed to do their jobs and vet the guy. They failed. If I had signed Ribiero and not vetted him properly, I'd be taking the heat for it too. A bad decision is a bad decision. It's a mark against both Maloney and Tippett. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool.

Next, it is about players regressing. Some, you can expect to regress, such as Doan and other veterans. I know that you are specifically referring to OEL, Stone, and Murphy - but remember that these players are taking on more responsibility. Before, it may have been easier to hide their mistakes by giving them sheltered minutes.

The D isn't adjusting. The players mentioned have been making the same mistakes for years. Both Murphy and Stone have taken steps backward, regardless of their position in the lineup or their exposure to higher quality competition. Poor coaching.

We could lose 6-0, and that is the collective result of 2 bad minutes of ice time. So for 58 minutes we played perfect hockey, but you would probably be screaming and crying over it.

If you allow 6 goals in two minutes, you aren't a sound hockey team. The flipside of this is that a team would have taken a literal **** on the Coyotes and you'd be happy because "lots of try."

Can we just please lock and remove this thread, b/c it is not getting anywhere?

You don't get to shut down discussion because you disagree with it. If anything, this is a containment zone.

 

[Muppet]

If Playfair and Tippett can't collectively put their heads together and handle the D, why are the Coyotes paying both? They should go down with the ship together. I very much doubt Playfair coaches 100% of the D and is free to do as he pleases without any input from Tippett.

Well, I mean.. it is the Coyotes we're talking about here. I'm sure Tippett has his fair share of input into the defensive structure of this side, but it's specifically Playfair's job description to look after things defensively. Since he took the job, the defense has collectively taken a massive step in the wrong direction, and very quickly went from our strongest attribute as a team, to the weakest. We all know Tippett's entire system since Day 1 has been largely based around a solid defensive structure, which is something we haven't seen in a long time. It's significantly contributed to the downfall of this team in the past few seasons, along with the obvious Casper the Unfriendly Ghost between the pipes.

Basically, there's plenty of arguments for and against Tippett, but I want to see how many people are willing to defend Playfair.

 

[BUX7PHX]

I had little problem with it because I trusted the paid professions who are supposed to do their jobs and vet the guy. They failed. If I had signed Ribiero and not vetted him properly, I'd be taking the heat for it too. A bad decision is a bad decision. It's a mark against both Maloney and Tippett. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool.



The D isn't adjusting. The players mentioned have been making the same mistakes for years. Both Murphy and Stone have taken steps backward, regardless of their position in the lineup or their exposure to higher quality competition. Poor coaching.



If you allow 6 goals in two minutes, you aren't a sound hockey team. The flipside of this is that a team would have taken a literal **** on the Coyotes and you'd be happy because "lots of try."



You don't get to shut down discussion because you disagree with it. If anything, this is a containment zone.

Last I checked, exposure to higher quality competition can't be summed up as simply, "Poor coaching." Maybe one of them has a delayed reaction, which a coach can't help. Maybe they made the right play given the circumstance, covering for someone else who eff'ed up on the opposite end of the ice that led to a break the opposite way.

Last I checked, we have allowed 6 goals in separate games in a span of two minutes b/c we eff'ed up on the PP and allowed quick shorties. Is that on Newell Brown, or the players who eff'ed up?

That's where I am saying - the players may be the ones making the mistakes even in the right position. It is the "Make the play" mentality that occurs in all athletics. It may not be the case every time, but putting every single occurrence on the coaching staff is unproductive. Even the coaching staff has things that they are changing or attempting to change on the team. Sitting Murphy was a prime example of that.

The staff is doing the best they can with what they have. If that results in utter failure sometimes, it happens. If it results in games like the first three of the season, it happens. We will get there with this staff (minus Playfair), contrary to the belief of some...

 

[RemoAZ]

Whether Tippett stays or not, I want the scheme to change. The team is way more fun to watch when they give up a bunch of goals early. He let's them play at that point because he has no choice. Maybe if he'd develop a more offensive approach, we'd actually get some leads early and make the other team play catch up.

I don't like our PP or our tendency to play the majority of the game in our own end. I think next year when the next wave of skilled players hit the roster, Tippett will have a hard time holding them back. Just like he has no choice but to play the young guys this year, he may have to change his approach next year because the talent will scream change. Keeping my fingers crossed anyway.

 

[cobra427]

This thread came up after one pretty bad game in which the team did not play well. Even in that game, we were close in the third period, could have won. If we make the playoffs and Tip wins coach of the year, the same guys on this forum that don't like Tip will want to fire Tip. It really doesn't matter what he does at this point, who he plays, or how the team does.

The big knock on him (only on this board by a few posters) about not playing young guys has been smashed so far this season. Yes, DM picks the players but Tip could limit their minutes if he thought it was best for the team. The young guys are getting more minutes then any of us thought, me included.

The other knock on Tip, he can't coach skilled players and his system is D oriented, which limits opportunities. Right now, we are 10th in the NHL in scoring and 1st in the Pacific in scoring. So that myth is kind of smashed to, even though we have pretty low possession numbers. The we need to "open up the offense" comments are kind of funny, scoring is not our problem.

We are next to last in GAA. Part of this is Smith but most of it is our D. How did this happen? We lost Rosy/AA/Klesla/DMO as they aged out, and we traded Yandle last year. Yandles absence is killing us in our own zone because of his puck moving ability. Yandle was railed on this board for his lack of D, little did we know the value of a world class PMD.

Tip was blasted for not playing Runblad/Gormley. Turns out, so far, he was right. Those 2 busts are what is hurting us now. We are asking Stone or Murphy to be a top pairing D, which is too much at this point. Gormley/Runblad were suppose to be in those rolls eventually. We have never replaced the D we lost over time, and we are 2 players short of the 2012 group.

I didn't expect us to be in playoff contention 30+ games into the season. I figured if we were, Smith would have to be a top 10 goalie. Tip deserves a lot of credit for where the team is at today, all things considered. Tip is part of the solution, not part of the problem.