Tippett's Performance as Head Coach

[Vinny Boombatz]

Come on _Del_, I'm waiting for some clever response concerning where/when Duke is being played.....

Kihekah, question:

Do you think Duclair is better at keeping the puck and making a play or dumping it and trying to get it back?

Do you think Domi is better at keeping the puck and making a play or dumping it and trying to get it back?

Do you think Strome is better at keeping the puck and making a play or dumping it and trying to get it back?


Tippett's best teams were 09-10 and 10-11 and guess how many grinders he had on the team. Yep a ton.

Good Forecheck:
Doan
Lombardi
Korpi
Belanger
Stempniak
Hanzal
Upshall
Pyatt
Fiddler
Prucha
Winnik

Skill Guys:
Whitney
Vrbata

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Someone, somewhere on this forum should be able to offer something specific then. All I keep reading are generalizations that have offered absolutely nothing that resembles anything more than minimal knowledge of some hockey terms, that are loosely thrown around.

Now if someone doesn't like the line juggling, or thinks (on a hunch) that the message is being lost, I can accept that for what it is. Hell if they want a change for the sake of change, or think a new voice would work, it's understandable. But if a poster wants to take it to the ice - give us some specifics.

Okay. How about every time we have a zone entry into the offensive end of the ice, the players immediately forecheck to the dasher boards and stay there like a rust ring around a toilet bowl? Board battle, board battle, throw puck out to the point from a distance, pray the defenseman can get it through heavy traffic in the lanes.

Or how about when the puck moves in the offensive zone, it seems like all the players follow it like my kid's team follows the ball at her pee wee soccer games? Doesn't seem to matter if they're rookies or veterans, they all do this. It's like the actual slot and the open ice between the blue lines and the circles is off-limits. There's no puck-carrying, there's no maneuvering to exploit open ice, it's just pin the damn thing to the dashers and hope you can sneak it back out to the blue line.

In the defensive zone... well, where do I begin? It's like the players are a bunch of Roombas with no directional software. Nobody seems to know who's supposed to go after the puck. When we had Ulf running the back end, we owned our own zone. I don't know whether it's because Ulf ran a more conservative trap system or just was more willing to use defensemen less as scoring QBs and more as zone protectors or what, but of all the shortcomings of our teams back then, defense usually wasn't one of them. We made Ilya Bryzgalov look like a Vezina winner, for Pete's sake.

I presume at this point this is where everyone is going to jump in and say that if I haven't tried it myself on the ice with skates on my feet and a stick in my hand that I should shut up and leave the thinking to someone who has. Sure, fine. But the TL;DR of my post here is that the way this team plays hockey is stupendously predictable for our opponents. We are the easiest team in the NHL to exploit, and our record shows it. If you want to blame execution, fine - then you tell me (SPECIFICALLY!) what it is in the water that has caused this lack of execution from four separate Coyotes teams over the past four years.

 

[Vinny Boombatz]

But the TL;DR of my post here is that the way this team plays hockey is stupendously predictable for our opponents.

emphatically true

 

[_Del_]

Coyote GAA

Playfair replaces Ulf
Season Coyotes (NHL Avg)
2011-12 2.49 (2.54)
2012-13 2.73 (2.54)
2013-14 2.82 (2.56)
2014-15 3.32 (2.52)
2015-16 2.99 (2.31)
2016-17 4.33 (2.82)


I'm sure Tippett-buddy Playfair has not contributed to the slide. It's the lack of Cal O'Reilly and O'Sullivans. And now, the youths. We need more Chipchura and Moss to get below 3 GAA because the Tippett-Playfair system is clearly the best defensive system in the league. We just don't have enough skilled offensive players to compete.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Coyote GAA

Playfair replaces Ulf
2011-12 2.49
2012-13 2.73
2013-14 2.82
2014-15 3.32
2015-16 2.99
2016-17 4.33


I'm sure Tippett-buddy Playfair has not contributed to the slide. It's the lack of Cal O'Reilly and O'Sullivans. And now, the youths. We need more Chipchura and Moss to get below 3 GAA.

Well, again in 2011-12, we had a much better all-around defense at the blue line AND we also had forwards who understood their role (carryover from being coached by Ulf). We only had a few players to turn over at forward from that season and get introduced into our system.

Fiddler --> Gordon (better on F/Os and defensively)
Belanger --> Langkow (even trade)
Stempniak --> Torres (Stemp better on offense, Torres better defensively)

Really, those were the 3 players that really differentiated our 2011-12 team from our 2010-11 team. We got better defensively at the forward positions. Lo and behold, we actually made it further in the playoffs.

The 12-13 and 13-14 seasons were when we started to see the blueliners really show their age, and we also saw started to see our defensive-minded forwards diminish starting in 13-14. It is not hard to see that the quality of our overall team defense decreased in terms of player types. We simply had the right mix of veterans who all bought in properly on defense. Now, we see less buy in overall - is that simply a player thing or a coaching thing? I think the forwards may be a bit of a player thing b/c there are no less than 5 new forwards seeing strong ice time, but are new enough to the team and NHL (Reider, Domi, Duclair, Dvorak, Martinook, plus some others). Considering that Murphy and Stone are now 3 years into their understanding of Playfair's system, with discernible player improvement but no discernible team improvement, it seems like Playfair's management is creating the issues.

 

[_Del_]

How many veteran players or talented players do we need to expect the nominal Tippett-Playfair system to be executed to a degree resulting in numbers approaching league average?

 

[kihekah19*]

Kihekah, question:

Do you think Duclair is better at keeping the puck and making a play or dumping it and trying to get it back?

Do you think Domi is better at keeping the puck and making a play or dumping it and trying to get it back?

Do you think Strome is better at keeping the puck and making a play or dumping it and trying to get it back?


Tippett's best teams were 09-10 and 10-11 and guess how many grinders he had on the team. Yep a ton.

Why that's simple all are at their best doing both. Skilled players have the added advantage of being better at both as well. The fact they have skill doesn't / shouldn't keep them from strapping on the ol' work skates and going to work, as needed. I posted a few days ago about how to open up opportunities and it applies to all players.

You seem knowledgeable and observant enough that you would should agree that the Penguins became more effective and are most effective when they embrace all aspects of the game, to include the yeoman's work.

 

[Vinny Boombatz]

You seem knowledgeable and observant enough that you would should agree that the Penguins became more effective and are most effective when they embrace all aspects of the game, to include the yeoman's work.

Without a doubt, I just see us using the dump and chase way more than we should.

To me it seems that even when we create a turnover in the neutral zone, we dump it, while other teams carry it in, taking it to the net to create opportunities. All the other teams seem to have more opportunities at the net vs our team.

We generally create most of our offense from the points, while everyone else creates it downlow or on the half wall.

 

[rt]

ctwin, del, and feckless are making excellent points. Where is the salient counter argument? I'm not seeing anything that's both compelling and contrary.

 

[BUX7PHX]

How many veteran players or talented players do we need to expect the nominal Tippett-Playfair system to be executed to a degree resulting in numbers approaching league average?

Good question. Pretty sure the answer is 42.

In all honesty, players have their individual strengths and weaknesses, but right now, the team defense part is the most difficult to grasp. The young players will make mistakes defensively - that much is known. It does take time for the youth to get comfortable in the NHL.

The fact is that some of our deficiencies on defense continue to pop up (too many shots allowed between the circles, difficulty matching up in transition, etc.) throughout the years. So for as much talent and skill that we have, when a team of relative rookies at forward are making the same mistakes as relative veterans have over the Playfair regime - maybe the system is causing more confusion than we know.

 

[kihekah19*]

Okay. How about every time we have a zone entry into the offensive end of the ice, the players immediately forecheck to the dasher boards and stay there like a rust ring around a toilet bowl? Board battle, board battle, throw puck out to the point from a distance, pray the defenseman can get it through heavy traffic in the lanes.

Or how about when the puck moves in the offensive zone, it seems like all the players follow it like my kid's team follows the ball at her pee wee soccer games? Doesn't seem to matter if they're rookies or veterans, they all do this. It's like the actual slot and the open ice between the blue lines and the circles is off-limits. There's no puck-carrying, there's no maneuvering to exploit open ice, it's just pin the damn thing to the dashers and hope you can sneak it back out to the blue line.

In the defensive zone... well, where do I begin? It's like the players are a bunch of Roombas with no directional software. Nobody seems to know who's supposed to go after the puck. When we had Ulf running the back end, we owned our own zone. I don't know whether it's because Ulf ran a more conservative trap system or just was more willing to use defensemen less as scoring QBs and more as zone protectors or what, but of all the shortcomings of our teams back then, defense usually wasn't one of them. We made Ilya Bryzgalov look like a Vezina winner, for Pete's sake.

I presume at this point this is where everyone is going to jump in and say that if I haven't tried it myself on the ice with skates on my feet and a stick in my hand that I should shut up and leave the thinking to someone who has. Sure, fine. But the TL;DR of my post here is that the way this team plays hockey is stupendously predictable for our opponents. We are the easiest team in the NHL to exploit, and our record shows it. If you want to blame execution, fine - then you tell me (SPECIFICALLY!) what it is in the water that has caused this lack of execution from four separate Coyotes teams over the past four years.

Quite frankly you are not paying attention to the offensive game this season, if that is what you are seeing. I'm thinking they aren't cycling the puck often enough (toilet bowl analogy for you), but am seeing a better effort at crashing the net. This leads to less possession time and it something (I think) that they are trying to get worked out, or learn when each effort is required. New players, adjusted system and we see a lack of cohesion.

Defensively I believe your memory is doing you a disservice as well because we spent a ton of time hemmed in our own giving up an incredible amount of shots in most every game with Ulfy at the helm. It was a little more conservative, but we had better defenders (generally speaking) that could weather the storm. Now we want to be more aggressive and offensive because we are more talented up front. Again, they need time to put it together and properly execute.

Currently we are easy to exploit, but it's hardly because we run easily exploited system, it's because we are having trouble executing the systems in place.

 

[kihekah19*]

Good question. Pretty sure the answer is 42.

In all honesty, players have their individual strengths and weaknesses, but right now, the team defense part is the most difficult to grasp. The young players will make mistakes defensively - that much is known. It does take time for the youth to get comfortable in the NHL.

The fact is that some of our deficiencies on defense continue to pop up (too many shots allowed between the circles, difficulty matching up in transition, etc.) throughout the years. So for as much talent and skill that we have, when a team of relative rookies at forward are making the same mistakes as relative veterans have over the Playfair regime - maybe the system is causing more confusion than we know.

It was an impossible to answer question, that really isn't worthy of an answer. You are correct however, that defense is up against it. This is in no small part as to why players aren't rushed.

It's like these guys are terrified we'll be like the last many Edmonton years, or something.

 

[kihekah19*]

ctwin, del, and feckless are making excellent points. Where is the salient counter argument? I'm not seeing anything that's both compelling and contrary.

I got busy my friend.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Quite frankly you are not paying attention to the offensive game this season, if that is what you are seeing. I'm thinking they aren't cycling the puck often enough (toilet bowl analogy for you), but am seeing a better effort at crashing the net. This leads to less possession time and it something (I think) that they are trying to get worked out, or learn when each effort is required. New players, adjusted system and we see a lack of cohesion.

No, they definitely aren't cycling the puck enough, because they can't - they're stuck in a perimeter game that weighs heavily on board battles on the initial forecheck. I will grant that in the rare instance when they can successfully establish the forecheck, their puck movement and net presence is improved over previous years - but they are crippling themselves on almost every zone entry because the rule seems to be dump it and battle the boards.

We have youth and speed and that should alter our philosophy about puck-carrying. Instead of these elaborate cross-ice passes in the neutral zone, we need to use that speed to pressure the defense and force them to scramble. Speed destabilizes a defense and discombobulates them.

Defensively I believe your memory is doing you a disservice as well because we spent a ton of time hemmed in our own giving up an incredible amount of shots in most every game with Ulfy at the helm. It was a little more conservative, but we had better defenders (generally speaking) that could weather the storm. Now we want to be more aggressive and offensive because we are more talented up front. Again, they need time to put it together and properly execute.

I think you and I are saying the same thing about what has happened; we did spend a lot of time in our own zone before. The difference was that our system could absorb and weather those attacks far better than our current one can.

It's one thing to play an aggressive "offensive defense" if that offensive defense actually produces goals. But going for an aggressive stance on defense in the opposing zone is futile when you're limiting your guys to long-distance point shots. If you're going to let your defense be mobile and aggressive like we all know OEL can be, take off the handcuffs and let him drive into the zone with it (like Chychrun has done several times this year). Yandle's ability in this area was also squandered on many nights.

Currently we are easy to exploit, but it's hardly because we run easily exploited system, it's because we are having trouble executing the systems in place.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Systems should provide structure for creative play, not dictate the play entirely. I believe that our coaching staff is erring in the latter direction.

 

[PhoPhan]

I'm not really looking to defend or attack Tippett, but I also feel like the current record and even the execution of the system are somewhere between secondary and entirely beside the point at the moment.

We're looking long term. Tippett's main task this year is to put Domi, Duclair, Strome, Dvorak, Chychrun, Crouse, Martinook and even OEL, Murphy, et al in the best position to succeed for the next decade or so. Development is not the only goal here, but when it comes into conflict with game-to-game preparation, it should win out. We don't know what goes on at practice and in the locker room, but if there's an increased focus on equipping these players with what they need to be effective players long term at the expense of some short term frustration, so be it.

Rational minds can disagree on whether Tippett and company are developing these guys properly. If it were up to me, Strome and Crouse would have started the year in the OHL and Chychrun will be sent back after his 9th game (in spite of his strong performance thus far), and the remaining players would see a lot more powerplay time. But while I had criticisms, I was mostly happy overall with how Domi, Duclair, Martinook and Murphy came along last year, so I'm willing to wait more than 6 games to see how this year's batch is doing.

Anyway, that's the conversation we should be having: how the young guys are being deployed and how they are progressing. Not whether Luke Schenn blew coverage in transition or whether Ryan White should tone things down a bit. What I find most frustrating is that the conversation around the rebuild is usually "Tippett is too focused on winning to be helpful in developing these players," and then he gets **** on for not winning. The talent the Coyotes currently have in their prospect pool is unprecedented in this organization, and Tippett (for better or worse) has clearly changed his approach in light of this. To what extent and and the effectiveness of this approach is up for debate, but it's plainly obvious to me that a) the organization's goals have changed quite a bit from a few years ago, and b) Tippett has changed, too.

 

[kihekah19*]

I'm not really looking to defend or attack Tippett, but I also feel like the current record and even the execution of the system are somewhere between secondary and entirely beside the point at the moment.

We're looking long term. Tippett's main task this year is to put Domi, Duclair, Strome, Dvorak, Chychrun, Crouse, Martinook and even OEL, Murphy, et al in the best position to succeed for the next decade or so. Development is not the only goal here, but when it comes into conflict with game-to-game preparation, it should win out. We don't know what goes on at practice and in the locker room, but if there's an increased focus on equipping these players with what they need to be effective players long term at the expense of some short term frustration, so be it.

Rational minds can disagree on whether Tippett and company are developing these guys properly. If it were up to me, Strome and Crouse would have started the year in the OHL and Chychrun will be sent back after his 9th game (in spite of his strong performance thus far), and the remaining players would see a lot more powerplay time. But while I had criticisms, I was mostly happy overall with how Domi, Duclair, Martinook and Murphy came along last year, so I'm willing to wait more than 6 games to see how this year's batch is doing.

Anyway, that's the conversation we should be having: how the young guys are being deployed and how they are progressing. Not whether Luke Schenn blew coverage in transition or whether Ryan White should tone things down a bit. What I find most frustrating is that the conversation around the rebuild is usually "Tippett is too focused on winning to be helpful in developing these players," and then he gets **** on for not winning. The talent the Coyotes currently have in their prospect pool is unprecedented in this organization, and Tippett (for better or worse) has clearly changed his approach in light of this. To what extent and and the effectiveness of this approach is up for debate, but it's plainly obvious to me that a) the organization's goals have changed quite a bit from a few years ago, and b) Tippett has changed, too.

Very wise words, excellent observations and a great approach attempting to end the malaise of this season's start.

Well done Pho

 

[kihekah19*]

No, they definitely aren't cycling the puck enough, because they can't - they're stuck in a perimeter game that weighs heavily on board battles on the initial forecheck. I will grant that in the rare instance when they can successfully establish the forecheck, their puck movement and net presence is improved over previous years - but they are crippling themselves on almost every zone entry because the rule seems to be dump it and battle the boards.

We have youth and speed and that should alter our philosophy about puck-carrying. Instead of these elaborate cross-ice passes in the neutral zone, we need to use that speed to pressure the defense and force them to scramble. Speed destabilizes a defense and discombobulates them.



I think you and I are saying the same thing about what has happened; we did spend a lot of time in our own zone before. The difference was that our system could absorb and weather those attacks far better than our current one can.

It's one thing to play an aggressive "offensive defense" if that offensive defense actually produces goals. But going for an aggressive stance on defense in the opposing zone is futile when you're limiting your guys to long-distance point shots. If you're going to let your defense be mobile and aggressive like we all know OEL can be, take off the handcuffs and let him drive into the zone with it (like Chychrun has done several times this year). Yandle's ability in this area was also squandered on many nights.



We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Systems should provide structure for creative play, not dictate the play entirely. I believe that our coaching staff is erring in the latter direction.

1) Poor execution of forecheck and lack of speed, which is a prerequisite to a strong forecheck. Also lazy, given the personnel. Therefore, I agree with your second paragraph on subject matter one. We just need to utilize all options, establish the forecheck and the rest comes easier.



2) Better defenders absorbed and we were also more conservative in our own end.

3) I guess we will, because I've observed much more freedom and believe the difference is with individual players ability to read and react, which suffers the whole. In fact, I see the freedom as exaggerating the situation, as it opens up the options and thus chances at greater failure. A tight system would rein in creativity and lesson the amount of decisions.

 

[XX]

Anyway, that's the conversation we should be having: how the young guys are being deployed and how they are progressing. Not whether Luke Schenn blew coverage in transition or whether Ryan White should tone things down a bit. What I find most frustrating is that the conversation around the rebuild is usually "Tippett is too focused on winning to be helpful in developing these players," and then he gets **** on for not winning. The talent the Coyotes currently have in their prospect pool is unprecedented in this organization, and Tippett (for better or worse) has clearly changed his approach in light of this. To what extent and and the effectiveness of this approach is up for debate, but it's plainly obvious to me that a) the organization's goals have changed quite a bit from a few years ago, and b) Tippett has changed, too.

The team is losing while also not playing the youth. It's not hard to see why he's getting **** on and it's fully merited.

 

[_Del_]

The team is losing while also not playing the youth. It's not hard to see why he's getting **** on and it's fully merited.

If the rationalization is we're focused on winning so we don't play the youth and instead load Doan and Vrbata with minutes, then why are we 83 and 147 over the last 220 or 1-5 this season?

If the rationalization is we're playing new players and that's why we're losing, then why are we healthy scratching our young players or Turris/Dvorak/Duclairing them with ice time?

If we're trying to do both at the same time, which one is more important? Because right now I feel we're pretty pisspoor at both.

 

[PhoPhan]

If the rationalization is we're focused on winning so we don't play the youth and instead load Doan and Vrbata with minutes, then why are we 83 and 147 over the last 220 or 1-5 this season?

If the rationalization is we're playing new players and that's why we're losing, then why are we healthy scratching our young players or Turris/Dvorak/Duclairing them with ice time?

If we're trying to do both at the same time, which one is more important? Because right now I feel we're pretty pisspoor at both.

It's the second one. It's been seven games, and seven of the 21 skaters on this team are 21 or younger. Martinook, Murphy, Rieder and probably OEL too are still being "developed." That's half the roster. There's not enough ice time to throw them all to the wolves at once, and doing so would not be wise if it were even possible. I'd like to at least see who sticks around past their respective 10 game marks before condemning the entire operation.

It's a lot of different players to balance at once, and I have no doubt that not everyone will get the coddling they need. Last year, Domi was 6th on the team in average ice time among forwards, Martinook was 8th and Duclair was 10th (9th if you omit Tanguay). So basically Domi was getting 2nd line ice time and Duclair and Martinook were getting 3rd line minutes. Is that really so off? I'm guessing this year's crop will shake out around there, too.

 

[XX]

So basically Domi was getting 2nd line ice time and Duclair and Martinook were getting 3rd line minutes. Is that really so off? I'm guessing this year's crop will shake out around there, too.

Problem was that their play merited more than that. Basically from the first game, too.

 

[Guest]

The ownership will never admit the mistake, Tippett is "Here to Stay!". It's too bad that Maloney wasn't aggressive enough to make the change sooner with the coaching, because I've been saying since the year after the Conference Finals that Tippett lost the room. There was a lot of loyalty towards Tippett from Maloney that was certainly not returned this past offseason. However, I don't think Chayka is a bad choice and could end up having a unique perspective in the position.

Best case scenario is that Tippett fails upward and moves to the front office. If that happens, what is our best case scenario for a replacement, Brown?

 

[_Del_]

It's a lot of different players to balance at once, and I have no doubt that not everyone will get the coddling they need. Last year, Domi was 6th on the team in average ice time among forwards, Martinook was 8th and Duclair was 10th (9th if you omit Tanguay). So basically Domi was getting 2nd line ice time and Duclair and Martinook were getting 3rd line minutes. Is that really so off? I'm guessing this year's crop will shake out around there, too.

Was Domi the 6th worst forward last year? Was he worse than Boedker (#1avg ice time) or Vermette (everyone now hates and was bought out)?

Were Brad Richardson, Alex Tanguay, Antoine Vermette, and Boedker so integral to our success that they merited more time than Duclair?

 

[PhoPhan]

Was Domi the 6th worst forward last year? Was he worse than Boedker (#1avg ice time) or Vermette (everyone now hates and was bought out)?

Were Brad Richardson, Alex Tanguay, Antoine Vermette, and Boedker so integral to our success that they merited more time than Duclair?

You're moving the goalposts. Are we talking about development, or are we talking about winning again? If it's the former (and I'm trying to argue that it is), your argument is beside the point.

Boedker was being overplayed to juice his numbers and pump up his trade value. Full stop. Vermette and Richardson are centers and were not competing with Domi or Duclair for ice time. Tanguay played 18 games and only after Boedker was gone, so he occupies the same roster spot in my mind.

With regard to young players, though, if your focus is on development, you're not limiting their ice time to increase your odds of winning or even necessarily to make them "earn" their time. You do it to put them in the best position to succeed and grow their game. All three of those players grew over the course of the year in my view, and all three are better this year than they were at the beginning of last year. That's what matters to me.

 

[_Del_]

I appreciate you, Pho, even when we don't agree, and I appreciate the cogent rebuttal.

Is it possible that Duclair might still be a better player if he hadn't have been benched and buried as often? Is it possible that Strome's development isn't best served by sitting multiple games in a row and playing in fewer than half of them? Or Dvorak who looked good with top six minutes not needing to be on the fourth line to "develop"?

Does it worry you that the same development path burnt an asset in Turris who appeared remarkably NHL ready in Ottawa immediately after his trade? Maloney was pretty vocal about how he and Tippett saw him as a bottom six player and not ready for more responsibility. He immediately put up 12-17-29 in 49GP for Ottawa while being praised for his two-way play.
Daymond Lankgow was our second highest scoring center that same season with 11-19-30 in 73GP. Is it concerning that the same evaluator also said flat out that development is not his job, and is now responsible for developing our promising youh?