Tippett's Performance as Head Coach

[PhoPhan]

There is always room for improvement. I would have given Duclair more time last year for sure, and as I noted earlier, I'd have left Strome in Erie to start the year. Mainly what I'm arguing is just that there's an awful lot of space between "every single player is being handled imperfectly" and "Tippett is incompetent at developing young talent and should be canned immediately."

I think they botched Turris. I think that botching has roots in the Gretzky days, and I think his entitled attitude (which goes back to demanding an ELC after his first season at Wisconsin) made it an impossible situation for Tippett.

That said, I also think Tippett learned from it. Tippett's first year in Arizona was 09-10, which Turris rightfully spent in the AHL. The following year, Tippett gave him 65 games and 11:16 per game. His holdout began the following summer. By contrast, Domi, Duclair and Martinook each played 81 games last year, averaging 16:22, 15:11 and 14:22 per game respectively. That's a jump.

And while it's still early, here's this season's averages so far:

Domi: 18:51
Dvorak: 15:57
Martinook: 14:20
Duclair: 13:59
Strome: 12:45
Dauphin: 10:31
Crouse: 8:17

The only one I see being dramatically underplayed so far is Crouse, but I suspect he lasts fewer than 10 games anyway, so I'm not too worried about it. Dauphin is getting fourth line minutes, but I've been saying since the summer that the reason he's worth keeping around is because he's fine taking shorter minutes to shuffle other guys into larger roles.

 

[Heldig]

If Tippett got halfway decent results I would shut up and accept his decisions. Tge coyotes are the worst team in the league. Meanwhile Marner has 2 assists tonight. So the unquestionably better coach (Babcock k) plays his rookies a ton and is using this season as a developement one. Hmm

 

[_Del_]

I just see the walk never matching the talk. We staple guys to the bench for mistakes, unless that mistake was made by a veteran player. We talk about needing speed and skill, and we demote, bench, or bury the speed and skill. We say the best players play, and then rapidly demote the kids who flat outplayed the veterans head to head in camp. It all just seems too familiar to me so far.
For the record, I'd send Chychrun back (he's been so much better than I expected) along with Crouse. Would have sent Fischer back. But I would not leave Strome on the bench or anchor Dvorak to the fourth line.
Once Tippett gets behind the bench, he just falls back to the same thing where he is comfortable. I don't see a big change. Not very encouraging after a relatively positive off season. It's early, but there's five years of a downward slide and a history concerning young players and Tippett that precedes him to AZ and has only been reinforced by his time here. Call me extremely skeptical.

 

[XX]

Pho's argument largely relies on the assumption that the 'growth' seen in Domi and Duclair is the maximum amount attainable, or even a good amount of growth. I don't think that's a safe assumption. If anything, there has been a regression on the offensive side of the puck for them due all the scrambling.

 

[_Del_]

Well, that basically is the reasoning of my questions. Is the growth because of, or in spite of, the Tippett treatment. Especially when viewed from a window longer than one season. It requires the assumption that Tippett has fundamentally changed his views on coaching and development, and while possible, I'm not sure the facts bear that out.

 

[PhoPhan]

A couple more thoughts re: limiting young players' minutes and moving them around the lineup:

1) Conditioning. Playing in the NHL requires more strength and stamina than playing in the OHL, and with the exception of guys like Chychrun, most rookies are less than physically mature. Duclair looked real scrawny last year. Strome could definitely stand to be stronger. Not every minute is created equally, so when guys have their ice time limited toward the end of a game or even rationed over the course of the game, part of the reason could just be that they're gassed.

2) Assessment. To know what these players will be, we have to know what they are. Using players in a wide variety of situations with different lineups allows the coaching staff to assess the breadth of a given player's skill set.

 

[_Del_]

Reasonable. Reasonable people can disagree, Pho. If you were the most vocal of the apologists, we wouldn't have to listen to me because I'd have little to mock.

I hope you're right -- I'd rather be successful than right! I just don't really see this path led by these people as the best path. Certainly not the only path.

I just got tired of anytime anyone raised a skeptical eye they had a barrage of "You don't know the game", "ignorant", "how dare you question a NHL coach" nonsense with an infinite supply of excuses. So I fell into blue text.

 

[CC96]

Agreed _Del_, Pho makes rational level headed arguments to show illustrate his POV, as opposed to resorting to the Tippett is Jesus Christ argument.

 

[RemoAZ]

I just see the walk never matching the talk. We staple guys to the bench for mistakes, unless that mistake was made by a veteran player. We talk about needing speed and skill, and we demote, bench, or bury the speed and skill. We say the best players play, and then rapidly demote the kids who flat outplayed the veterans head to head in camp. It all just seems too familiar to me so far.
For the record, I'd send Chychrun back (he's been so much better than I expected) along with Crouse. Would have sent Fischer back. But I would not leave Strome on the bench or anchor Dvorak to the fourth line.
Once Tippett gets behind the bench, he just falls back to the same thing where he is comfortable. I don't see a big change. Not very encouraging after a relatively positive off season. It's early, but there's five years of a downward slide and a history concerning young players and Tippett that precedes him to AZ and has only been reinforced by his time here. Call me extremely skeptical.

This is about where I'm at. I just think there's so much more potential in the organization if we'd embrace the talent we have and coach to their strengths along with accepting the fact that there will be development needed.

Pho's argument largely relies on the assumption that the 'growth' seen in Domi and Duclair is the maximum amount attainable, or even a good amount of growth. I don't think that's a safe assumption. If anything, there has been a regression on the offensive side of the puck for them due all the scrambling.

Didn't read the argument you're referring to but I feel Domi, Duclair and some of our other top offensive talents are being somewhat neutered by the scrambling as you call it. There is certainly more ability and talent to grow in many of our players especially Domi and Duclair.

 

[XX]

2) Assessment. To know what these players will be, we have to know what they are. Using players in a wide variety of situations with different lineups allows the coaching staff to assess the breadth of a given player's skill set.

I'm not a fan of the "stick the cheapest donuts you can find onto the Ferrari and tell em to go race" approach to coaching. There was no reason for that approach early last season because Domi and Duclair provided none. They had instant chemistry and impact. Skill should play with skill. Skill never learned to be more skillful by playing with 4th liners, as Dvorak is now. It's much, much easier to teach someone to play defense at the NHL level versus teaching them how to crack open an opposing team's defense. It's not like there aren't enough trusted vets for Tip to crutch on in the event the rookies don't earn their icetime.

It's easier to teach defense when a forward has confidence in their offensive game
It's easier to teach them to play away from certain players when they have established their offensive game
It's easier for them to establish their offensive game if they have consistent, well matched linemates

Strome should be centering two defensively responsible wingers while he figures out his cerebral center thing. That's why you drafted him 3rd overall. If any other skill arises at the expense of his ability to be a #1C, you've completely ****ed up his development. Turris correctly deduced that he'd never reach his potential under Tippett. Fault the kid for being a weenie all you want, but he made the correct career choice. It shouldn't ever come to that with Strome. I sincerely hope it doesn't.

There is a reason players like Rieder and Martinook excel under Tippett while players like Duclair are all over the place. He heavily favors defense (not even offensive possession-as-defense) over everything else. I'm just not a fan. I'm especially not a fan when it's pretty clear that approach isn't working and you're one of the worst defensive teams in the league.

 

[_Del_]

The story was "tight team defensively, hard work, not enough talent", and that was honest as far as it goes.

But we're no longer tight defensively or consistently hard working, and we're not substantially less talented these last four or five years than previously. And we're really not any younger than the WCF team which had several players, including key players 25 or younger. This year we're younger, but they are being fringed and the problems didn't suddenly start this year. So the age and talent excuses don't hold much water for me.
I just think he's lost the room. And I definitely don't see him as a developer of young talent. Above average coach past his expiration date.

 

[_Del_]

I was looking for where I turned on Tippett and found this as proof that some things really do never change

Obviously you can't blame him for not having a talented team, but we had great seasons back to back to back with a ****** roster.

What we can blame Tip for is the lack of intensity, lack of balls, lack of effort, and the fact that nothing ever changes.

This was back midseason in 2013-2014, the season right after the lockout shortened year that we all explained away by blaming the lockout.
I was actually still pretty temperate, despite the team looking like garbage:

This room needs a wake up call, and if that's trading someone we don't want to trade, then that's what we should do. If I'm GMDM I'm shipping out or waiving Schlemko and Halpern and thinking about moving core players.
Play Rundblad and at least see what we've got. We have bottom six guys in the system. See where they are at Brown, Lessio, Rieder, even Miele who I don't particular care for (and where the hell is Brandon McMillan if we need a pk'er). Make DT play them. Tell him this season is a lost cause and we want to look at next year. He gets a mulligan, just see where the kids are at. Maybe the kids will actually listen to the coach. Tipp looks as pissed as I am disgusted. And that's a lot.
It looks like we're not making the playoffs this year. Especially if this is what we're getting on the ice. Trade off guys that aren't in the long term plans and some of the fillers and start the auditions. I'd look at major changes in the lineup in the offseason. If we're still brain-dead with no heartbeat, then I think about saving Tippett from an aneurysm by canning him.

Not much has changed in my on-ice evaluation. I just prefer a simpler solution now.

 

[Howler Scores]

He smiled tonight, that was a change

 

[_Del_]

A horrifying one. It's unnatural! Haha

 

[kihekah19*]

There is always room for improvement. I would have given Duclair more time last year for sure, and as I noted earlier, I'd have left Strome in Erie to start the year. Mainly what I'm arguing is just that there's an awful lot of space between "every single player is being handled imperfectly" and "Tippett is incompetent at developing young talent and should be canned immediately."

I think they botched Turris. I think that botching has roots in the Gretzky days, and I think his entitled attitude (which goes back to demanding an ELC after his first season at Wisconsin) made it an impossible situation for Tippett.

That said, I also think Tippett learned from it. Tippett's first year in Arizona was 09-10, which Turris rightfully spent in the AHL. The following year, Tippett gave him 65 games and 11:16 per game. His holdout began the following summer. By contrast, Domi, Duclair and Martinook each played 81 games last year, averaging 16:22, 15:11 and 14:22 per game respectively. That's a jump.

And while it's still early, here's this season's averages so far:

Domi: 18:51
Dvorak: 15:57
Martinook: 14:20
Duclair: 13:59
Strome: 12:45
Dauphin: 10:31
Crouse: 8:17

The only one I see being dramatically underplayed so far is Crouse, but I suspect he lasts fewer than 10 games anyway, so I'm not too worried about it. Dauphin is getting fourth line minutes, but I've been saying since the summer that the reason he's worth keeping around is because he's fine taking shorter minutes to shuffle other guys into larger roles.

As I recall, he gave Turris a quality role in the playoffs prior to the summer of Turris' demands as well.

 

[kihekah19*]

Reasonable. Reasonable people can disagree, Pho. If you were the most vocal of the apologists, we wouldn't have to listen to me because I'd have little to mock.

I hope you're right -- I'd rather be successful than right! I just don't really see this path led by these people as the best path. Certainly not the only path.

I just got tired of anytime anyone raised a skeptical eye they had a barrage of "You don't know the game", "ignorant", "how dare you question a NHL coach" nonsense with an infinite supply of excuses. So I fell into blue text.

There's the skeptical eye and then there's the lynch mob.

 

[Guest]

I listened to an interesting podcast last week talking about how Russians entered the league. It was very similar to a documentary I saw a year or two ago about Russia and how it developed it's hockey program, so it's a good listen for those interested.

Anyway, one of the things I found interesting because this all pre-dated me being a fan (I started following in 1994) is that prior to the influx of Russian talent into the league the old style was dump and chase which was considered the Canadian or North American version of hockey. The Russians played a possession style game like we see so widely used in the NHL today.

I'm not a hockey coach or strategic expert, but dump and chase is what I see the Coyotes play 90% of the time and there is very little zone entry maintained by passing/possession. Heck, even when we are on the powerplay we are dumping the puck in. I understand the value of a dump in on the penalty kill and if there is no other play available. However, it seems to be our main strategy for zone entry.

I know with all of the references of "Dino Dave" this is hardly a new concept, but it made me lose a lot of respect for our head coach that he is that behind the times. He's coaching the way he played it, and the game has moved past him. It may have worked in his earlier years as coach, but the game is evolving and he is not.

 

[hbk]

I listened to an interesting podcast last week talking about how Russians entered the league. It was very similar to a documentary I saw a year or two ago about Russia and how it developed it's hockey program, so it's a good listen for those interested.

Anyway, one of the things I found interesting because this all pre-dated me being a fan (I started following in 1994) is that prior to the influx of Russian talent into the league the old style was dump and chase which was considered the Canadian or North American version of hockey. The Russians played a possession style game like we see so widely used in the NHL today.

I'm not a hockey coach or strategic expert, but dump and chase is what I see the Coyotes play 90% of the time and there is very little zone entry maintained by passing/possession. Heck, even when we are on the powerplay we are dumping the puck in. I understand the value of a dump in on the penalty kill and if there is no other play available. However, it seems to be our main strategy for zone entry.

I know with all of the references of "Dino Dave" this is hardly a new concept, but it made me lose a lot of respect for our head coach that he is that behind the times. He's coaching the way he played it, and the game has moved past him. It may have worked in his earlier years as coach, but the game is evolving and he is not.

We tend to mainly dump it in for a line change and we have times where we are defending for entire shifts so there is this belief we rely solely on this technique. When we aren't spending the previous 45 seconds defending we actually are pretty good at gaining zone. We need to play with more speed to catch opposing D out of position and to find better passing lanes. Too passive at times allows opposing D to set up and we aren't getting good shot lanes.

 

[Heldig]

The team is in LAST place. -9 goal differential.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

We tend to mainly dump it in for a line change and we have times where we are defending for entire shifts so there is this belief we rely solely on this technique. When we aren't spending the previous 45 seconds defending we actually are pretty good at gaining zone. We need to play with more speed to catch opposing D out of position and to find better passing lanes. Too passive at times allows opposing D to set up and we aren't getting good shot lanes.

Yea, I have noticed far less dump and chase this year. The problem that I see, apart from goaltending, is that it it far to easy to separate the Coyote skaters from the puck. I see this in all 3 zones. Coaches need to work on puck posession skills on the individual level.

 

[kihekah19*]

Yea, I have noticed far less dump and chase this year. The problem that I see, apart from goaltending, is that it it far to easy to separate the Coyote skaters from the puck. I see this in all 3 zones. Coaches need to work on puck posession skills on the individual level.

This is true, we are basically overwhelmed.

 

[MIGs Dog]

We tend to mainly dump it in for a line change and we have times where we are defending for entire shifts so there is this belief we rely solely on this technique. When we aren't spending the previous 45 seconds defending we actually are pretty good at gaining zone. We need to play with more speed to catch opposing D out of position and to find better passing lanes. Too passive at times allows opposing D to set up and we aren't getting good shot lanes.

Watching the World Cup highlighted the difference between the North American and European style. The NA teams dumped to change, while the European teams tended to have their d-men circle back and retain possession while the lines changed. Although Canada won the tournament, the European possession game seems like a logical strategy.

 

[kihekah19*]

I listened to an interesting podcast last week talking about how Russians entered the league. It was very similar to a documentary I saw a year or two ago about Russia and how it developed it's hockey program, so it's a good listen for those interested.

Anyway, one of the things I found interesting because this all pre-dated me being a fan (I started following in 1994) is that prior to the influx of Russian talent into the league the old style was dump and chase which was considered the Canadian or North American version of hockey. The Russians played a possession style game like we see so widely used in the NHL today.

I'm not a hockey coach or strategic expert, but dump and chase is what I see the Coyotes play 90% of the time and there is very little zone entry maintained by passing/possession. Heck, even when we are on the powerplay we are dumping the puck in. I understand the value of a dump in on the penalty kill and if there is no other play available. However, it seems to be our main strategy for zone entry.

I know with all of the references of "Dino Dave" this is hardly a new concept, but it made me lose a lot of respect for our head coach that he is that behind the times. He's coaching the way he played it, and the game has moved past him. It may have worked in his earlier years as coach, but the game is evolving and he is not.

This is the crux of all frustration. I'm certain Dave Tippett himself is frustrated as he has stated they want to be more of a puck possession team and that's not coming to fruition.

The podcast was interesting and a nice trip down memory lane. It brought to mind some of my beliefs regarding the game and I'll explain:

I mentioned puck support in a post a few days ago and that it is part of execution as much as passing tape to tape and other factors. In the podcast it was said that the Russian style of play had the premise of one man dependent on four, whereas the N. American style was four men dependent on one. The Russian style favors greater puck support. Alternatively, Alex Zhamnov made the observation that the game here was faster and more physical, in no small part due to his other observation that the ice surface was smaller. This is why a hybrid of both styles is favored, as players read and react to given situations and the ability to execute either style (on the fly), as the opportunities on the ice present themselves.

Currently the Coyotes are so out of sort and basically overwhelmed that they can rarely execute either properly. As I said in a recent reply: It all starts on the back end (our zone). Our boys are too often guilty of not passing tape to tape, or not providing proper support for a structure that allows them to breakout as a cohesive unit, which will allow (given like execution through the neutral zone) to enter the offensive zone with either an effective dump and chase, or puck possession game.

 

[Jakey53]

We tend to mainly dump it in for a line change and we have times where we are defending for entire shifts so there is this belief we rely solely on this technique. When we aren't spending the previous 45 seconds defending we actually are pretty good at gaining zone. We need to play with more speed to catch opposing D out of position and to find better passing lanes. Too passive at times allows opposing D to set up and we aren't getting good shot lanes.

Yea, I have noticed far less dump and chase this year. The problem that I see, apart from goaltending, is that it it far to easy to separate the Coyote skaters from the puck. I see this in all 3 zones. Coaches need to work on puck posession skills on the individual level.

This is true, we are basically overwhelmed.

This. We still have trouble making more than one pass. We need better puck possession. It seems we are always chasing the puck.

 

[Jakey53]

This is the crux of all frustration. I'm certain Dave Tippett himself is frustrated as he has stated they want to be more of a puck possession team and that's not coming to fruition.

The podcast was interesting and a nice trip down memory lane. It brought to mind some of my beliefs regarding the game and I'll explain:

I mentioned puck support in a post a few days ago and that it is part of execution as much as passing tape to tape and other factors. In the podcast it was said that the Russian style of play had the premise of one man dependent on four, whereas the N. American style was four men dependent on one. The Russian style favors greater puck support. Alternatively, Alex Zhamnov made the observation that the game here was faster and more physical, in no small part due to his other observation that the ice surface was smaller. This is why a hybrid of both styles is favored, as players read and react to given situations and the ability to execute either style (on the fly), as the opportunities on the ice present themselves.

Currently the Coyotes are so out of sort and basically overwhelmed that they can rarely execute either properly. As I said in a recent reply: It all starts on the back end (our zone). Our boys are too often guilty of not passing tape to tape, or not providing proper support for a structure that allows them to breakout as a cohesive unit, which will allow (given like execution through the neutral zone) to enter the offensive zone with either an effective dump and chase, or puck possession game.

Exactly. Schenn and Murphy are terrible on the breakout. It's that first pass that starts everything in motion.