Why Vegas won

[Jets4Life]

Yeah. But we still need to be able to solve Vegas in the coming years, IIRC we split wins with Nashville but lost 6 and won 2 vs Vegas. That scares me. We won't be able to make the finals before that happens.

1. One of those losses, Vegas cheated by breaking his stick on Helle's face. If that had not happened Winnipeg would have been 2-1 in the season series.

2. Fleury will come back to Earth, just like he is now that Washington is the team that figured him out. Now the Knights are done, and Ovi will hoist the cup. On paper, the Jets led Vegas in every single category except goals. That will change once Fleury reverts back to his 0.914 career average. It's hard to win a series when one goalie has a 0.956% and the other goalie has a 0.903%

 

[Jets4Life]

Maurice coached teams we're out of the playoff's more than they were in , 20 years as an NHL head coach and his teams have had 6 playoff appearances, Maurice ain't exactly the gold standard of getting teams into the playoffs!

Paul Maurice six playoff appearances:

1998-99: Carolina loses to Boston 4-2
2000-01: Carolina loses to New Jersey 4-2
2001-02: Carolina defeats New Jersey 4-2
Carolina defeats Montreal 4-2
Carolina defeats Toronto 4-2
Carolina loses to Detroit 4-1
2008-09: Carolina defeats New Jersey 4-3
Carolina defeats Boston 4-3
Carolina loses to Pittsburgh 4-0
2014-15: Winnipeg loses to Anaheim 4-0
2017-18: Winnipeg defeats Minnesota 4-1
Winnipeg defeats Nashville 4-3
Winnipeg loses to Vegas 4-1

* bolded denote home-ice advantage

Maurice is 7-6 in playoff series, and 34-40 playoff record. Not bad for a coach that was on the bench for some terrible Carolina and Toronto teams. I know you are perhaps the biggest Maurice hater on the forum, but like it or not, he is a good coach. IMO, not a great coach, but good enough that he has helped the Jets far more than he has hindered them.

This season marks the first time Maurice has coached a legitimate contender. Before coming to Winnipeg, his best club he coached was the 2008-09 Hurricanes (45-30-7). Look at how "great" the Leafs and Canes have performed since Maurice was fired. Unless you want us to fire Maurice, and hire Claude Noel again, deal with it

If Blake Wheeler says Maurice is a great coach, that is good enough for me.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

I would even debate this statement. The 74-78 Jets would have likely been barely in the top 6, behind Montreal, Boston, NY Islanders, Philadelphia, and Buffalo. The WHA was an inferior league, with 75% of the league players being either 4th liners in the NHL or career minor leaguers. The Jets simply did not have the depth to compete for the Stanley Cup in the 70s

Many would argue otherwise. The NHL was equally watered down & didn't have the European stars the WHA did.

The leagues did meet in exhibition games over several seasons. The WHA won the combined series, with a 34-22-7 record during the four seasons this occurred.

WHAhockey.com - WHA vs NHL

 

[Jets4Life]

Many would argue otherwise. The NHL was equally watered down & didn't have the European stars the WHA did.

The leagues did meet in exhibition games over several seasons. The WHA won the combined series, with a 34-22-7 record during the four seasons this occurred.

WHAhockey.com - WHA vs NHL

The Canadiens, Islanders, Flyers, and Bruins would likely have won the Avco Cup easily if they switched leagues.

It's widely known that the NHL went out of their way to not compete with their best teams in those games. How many games were played against Montreal, Boston, Buffalo, NY Islanders and Philadelphia? If the NHL really wanted to prove they were the superior league, they would ahve had their top 5 teams competing in at least half the games against the WHA.

WHA vs top 5 NHL teams: 1-2-0

Try not to disrespect the 78' Jets but it is what it is. The 2018 Jets are better and far more talented than the WHA Jets. I understand the nostalgia, but the Jets today would make mincemeat out of any team in the 70s

 

[Tommigun]

1. One of those losses, Vegas cheated by breaking his stick on Helle's face. If that had not happened Winnipeg would have been 2-1 in the season series.

2. Fleury will come back to Earth, just like he is now that Washington is the team that figured him out. Now the Knights are done, and Ovi will hoist the cup. On paper, the Jets led Vegas in every single category except goals. That will change once Fleury reverts back to his 0.914 career average. It's hard to win a series when one goalie has a 0.956% and the other goalie has a 0.903%

How can you say Washington figured him out after two games? We were also 1-1 after two games and were looking pretty good. Someone could have said the same about us, that we figured him out, after game 1. Didn’t happen. But I do agree he will come back to earth. Eventually.

 

[raideralex99]

It's a popular narrative that the Jets were robbed of their talent entering the NHL. It's not true.

Further two of the players the Jets "lost" of worth, namely Ruskowski & Preston were only on the team as the Houston Aeros folded. They weren't Jets. The NHL teams owning their rights had a far more legitimate case than Winnipeg had for keeping them.

It wasn't the NHL's fault the Jets left Kent Nillson unprotected or didn't know their top defender Scott Campbell was incapable of breathing let alone playing hockey. Asthma forced him into retirement by 25.

Winnipeg can take pride in knowing the WHA Jets from 74-78 were one of the best teams in hockey history.

As for the Jets being dismantled by the NHL upon entering the league, it's a utter falsehood perpetuated by the same media who thought the whiteout began in 1985.

Ruskowski & Preston were Winnipeg Jets property ... it does not matter how long they were there. They could not protect Nilsson ... that's 3 good players they lost and of course they ended up in last place.
Take 3 top players from any team today and see how the fans will feel ... pretty sure they would not said it's no big deal.

 

[raideralex99]

I would even debate this statement. The 74-78 Jets would have likely been barely in the top 6, behind Montreal, Boston, NY Islanders, Philadelphia, and Buffalo. The WHA was an inferior league, with 75% of the league players being either 4th liners in the NHL or career minor leaguers. The Jets simply did not have the depth to compete for the Stanley Cup in the 70s

True but they said that about Vegas too ... 3 wins away from the Stanley Cup.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Ruskowski & Preston were Winnipeg Jets property ... it does not matter how long they were there. They could not protect Nilsson ... that's 3 good players they lost and of course they ended up in last place.
Take 3 top players from any team today and see how the fans will feel ... pretty sure they would not said it's no big deal.

Well they weren't there long. Their actual team the Houston Aeros folded in the summer of 1978 . They were Jets for 6 months.

They could have protected Kent Nilsson by making him a priority selection. The Jets chose Morris Lukowich instead.

The 78-79 WHA Jets had 8 NHL caliber players on the roster. They managed to hold onto 5 of them. The rest of the roster that year went on to play around 100 pro hockey games in total, mostly in the minors & B leagues.

My point was that last team was the furthest thing from the powerhouse it's made out to be by many. It's the rosters from '75-'78 that had that distinction.

 

[sipowicz]

Paul Maurice six playoff appearances:

1998-99: Carolina loses to Boston 4-2
2000-01: Carolina loses to New Jersey 4-2
2001-02: Carolina defeats New Jersey 4-2
Carolina defeats Montreal 4-2
Carolina defeats Toronto 4-2
Carolina loses to Detroit 4-1
2008-09: Carolina defeats New Jersey 4-3
Carolina defeats Boston 4-3
Carolina loses to Pittsburgh 4-0
2014-15: Winnipeg loses to Anaheim 4-0
2017-18: Winnipeg defeats Minnesota 4-1
Winnipeg defeats Nashville 4-3
Winnipeg loses to Vegas 4-1

* bolded denote home-ice advantage

Maurice is 7-6 in playoff series, and 34-40 playoff record. Not bad for a coach that was on the bench for some terrible Carolina and Toronto teams. I know you are perhaps the biggest Maurice hater on the forum, but like it or not, he is a good coach. IMO, not a great coach, but good enough that he has helped the Jets far more than he has hindered them.

This season marks the first time Maurice has coached a legitimate contender. Before coming to Winnipeg, his best club he coached was the 2008-09 Hurricanes (45-30-7). Look at how "great" the Leafs and Canes have performed since Maurice was fired. Unless you want us to fire Maurice, and hire Claude Noel again, deal with it

If Blake Wheeler says Maurice is a great coach, that is good enough for me.

So he took teams past the first round twice in a 20 year NHL coaching career big deal, I don't exactly look at that as success! Team in Winnipeg this past season should be playing in the Stanley Cup right now, too many poor decisions by Mo and they're NOT!

 

[Ducky10]

So he took teams past the first round twice in a 20 year NHL coaching career big deal, I don't exactly look at that as success! Team in Winnipeg this past season should be playing in the Stanley Cup right now, too many poor decisions by Mo and they're NOT!

Fan bases in Nashville, Tampa, Boston, Pittsburgh, etc, all saying the same thing.

Second guessing the coach does not equal fact.

Teams lose for many reasons, poor coaching usually pretty low on the list..

 

[Koonta]

Is it dangerous to have one's eyes roll so much because some of the drivel that's posted here is causing me to do that constantly.

 

[Hockeyholic]

They won because of god like goaltending vs sieve goaltending. But now that the Knights got to the Finals..obviously MAF would turn into a pumpkin.

 

[raideralex99]

Well they weren't there long. Their actual team the Houston Aeros folded in the summer of 1978 . They were Jets for 6 months.

They could have protected Kent Nilsson by making him a priority selection. The Jets chose Morris Lukowich instead.

The 78-79 WHA Jets had 8 NHL caliber players on the roster. They managed to hold onto 5 of them. The rest of the roster that year went on to play around 100 pro hockey games in total, mostly in the minors & B leagues.

My point was that last team was the furthest thing from the powerhouse it's made out to be by many. It's the rosters from '75-'78 that had that distinction.

I agree the Jets were not a power house ... my point was all NHL expansion teams got to pick unprotected players. The WHA teams had to give up their players to join the NHL.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

We lost to a team we should have beat and we didnt make adjustments other than throw in some guys that hadn't played in a long time in an elimination game - but our coach is great. Sorry - that doesn't hold water.

A lot of action In and around MAF and his crease (some subtle, some not so subtle - Smith-Pelly) turns him into a good goalie as opposed to Superman. That and getting him to move more laterally. Lots of really heavy hitting has thrown Vegas skaters off their game. But our guy didn't even think to try? It's not like MAF is new to the league.

Maurice is a mediocre coach with lots of experience. Unfortunately his answer to everything seems to be 'simple game' and 'be quicker'. Played straight into Vegas' strengths.

I am not saying Maurice is 100% responsible - the guys need to execute. But from a strategy/game plan perspective he was pretty one dimensional which was the weak link in terms of maximizing our probability of success.

 

[voyageur]

We lost to a team we should have beat and we didnt make adjustments other than throw in some guys that hadn't played in a long time in an elimination game - but our coach is great. Sorry - that doesn't hold water.

A lot of action In and around MAF and his crease (some subtle, some not so subtle - Smith-Pelly) turns him into a good goalie as opposed to Superman. That and getting him to move more laterally. Lots of really heavy hitting has thrown Vegas skaters off their game. But our guy didn't even think to try? It's not like MAF is new to the league.

Maurice is a mediocre coach with lots of experience. Unfortunately his answer to everything seems to be 'simple game' and 'be quicker'. Played straight into Vegas' strengths.

I am not saying Maurice is 100% responsible - the guys need to execute. But from a strategy/game plan perspective he was pretty one dimensional which was the weak link in terms of maximizing our probability of success.

I think Vegas was simply more physical. Especially their defense. And Winnipeg could not get through. Brendan Lemieux should have been in the lineup. Get a few licks in on Mc Nabb who is no great threat, but really tenderized Scheifele and Wheeler. Get in front of Fleury. On the 2nd PP as well. The other adjustment would have been to switch Laine and Scheifele in where they were on the PP. Laine can shoot but he must have 10 clears go through his side because he would not use his body on the boards to protect the puck. Scheifele would have been more dangerous isolated moved the box a little.

Enstrom should have been relegated to a 3rd pairing or the pressbox. The difference in play and zone time between him and Myers playing with Buff was noticeable to anyone watching. You are playing to win, play your top 4 as much as they can play. We beat Minnesota with Poolman playing one game where Buff took every 2nd period shift of his to avoid the kid getting caught on the long change. I would have gone with Morrow and Chiarot as a 3rd pairing in fact because the skating and shot of Morrow add a different element both offensively and defensively.

The one mistake I think we made as a team was not to give Roslovic any PK reps during the regular season. He was good at it as a junior. Has the speed. Forced players into the lineup, like Armia, where Lemieux I am convinced would have made a difference.

 

[Duke749]

People actually think playing Myers and Chiarot more then Enstrom would make us better? Good lord people.

 

[Conflicted Habs fan]

Looking forward to next year's playoff. We or some other team will figure out how to deal with Vegas by that time.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

So he took teams past the first round twice in a 20 year NHL coaching career big deal, I don't exactly look at that as success! Team in Winnipeg this past season should be playing in the Stanley Cup right now, too many poor decisions by Mo and they're NOT!

You're right. And Maurice's head coach record pre NHL is full of losses in the big game as well - even when he had the team that should have won. Like us this year against Vegas. It's not like there is no documented record out there. Maurice even said it himself that this team had the most talent of any team he has ever coached, 'and it's not even close' were his words. The idea that some people flood theses pages with how great a coach Paul Maurice is when the guy has literally never won anything as a head coach is downright idiotic. Unless of course you believe that 'performance in pro sports' and 'winning' are completely unrelated in every way. Maurice is a mediocre coach with lots of experience. Unfortunately, too much of that experience shows up in the loss column.

I am not saying Maurice is 100% responsible - the guys need to execute. But from a strategy/game plan perspective he was pretty one dimensional which was a weak link in terms of maximizing our probability of success.

 

[voyageur]

People actually think playing Myers and Chiarot more then Enstrom would make us better? Good lord people.

Myers actually scored in the playoffs. Morrow too. Enstrom 0, gave up a big goal against Vegas on a bad change. Gave up a game winner as a pylon. I realize your love of Toby runs deep, with his long stick, but he is gone, and thankfully.

 

[Duke749]

Myers actually scored in the playoffs. Morrow too. Enstrom 0, gave up a big goal against Vegas on a bad change. Gave up a game winner as a pylon. I realize your love of Toby runs deep, with his long stick, but he is gone, and thankfully.

I think it’s clear you don’t understand what defense is so I won’t bother trying. It’s just sad at this point really.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Look at Trotz record to date, better teams than Maurice with several failed seasons and poor playoff results.

What does those records from 20 years ago mean today?

Nothing at all, just a number from a point in time that has absolutely zero reflection on today’s results. Trotz is 2 games away from accomplishing the ultimate goal.

The most recent season Maurice was responsiblefor the 2nd best record in the league, and being one of 4 teams left out of 31, going to a conference finals, knocking out the best team in the league.

Sighting Maurices playoff history from 20 years ago, seems so desperate of an attempt to deflect from the amazing season that he and his team just had.

There has not been a single media insider, expert or respected analyst that pinned that series anwhere near Maurice, most if not all cited goaltending and a lack of rest between series, as the main reasons Vegas won.

So when a couple of posters on here continually try to paint this fake narrative that we lost because, from their view, Maurice game planned us to play a step slower, and produce shots from weaker areas, i think is their logic, or lack of it, their view becomes completely void of sense, any logical sense.

 

[Eyeseeing]

We lost because we didn’t have enough left.
It isn’t on Maurice.
We had a phenomenal run and took a strong Nashville team to game 7
It would have been nice to beat Vegas but they were too strong for us.
Vegas took care of business quickly in their first two rounds and were well rested.
I doubt seriously that the Preds would have beat them either.
There is no blame it’s sports in a nutshell.
What a great season, was odd to see hockey in May wasn’t it?
I hope we can learn from this and build on it.
Get Helle a healthy back up and less games next season.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

There is a fake narrative that you have here a great coach in pro sports when you consistently lose the big game/series even when you should win. Unless you believe that 'performance in pro sports' and 'winning' are completely unrelated in every way there is simply no credibility in this statement.

Some arguments completely devoid of logic are used to try to back this up, like pointing to losses as a sign of great coaching even where he had a team that was a heavy favorite to win but didn't. Or talking about him always having inferior teams when he didn't. Or talking about puck luck or hot goaltenders that did him in rather that looking at what as a coach he did or didn't do. Or talking about consolation prizes as great sports victories when in pro sports people are memorialized for winning the championship. Or using diversion tactics like changing the subject to talk about people claiming other coaches to be great when no one said that, in order to generate comparison discussions between Maurice and other coaches. But the common theme is to always focus the discussion away from Maurice's professional record as a coach and say that every time when Maurice has lost (which is every time by the way), it is because of factor 'X' which of course is out of his control. Insert almost any argument in for 'X' and talk like crazy. If you have no facts to contradict, just insult the poster like crazy. It focuses away from the facts. Focus always onto a 'why' Maurice is a great coach and say so even when he loses with a team that should win. For some, it seams like Maurice is the greatest coach in the world with the most mediocre record and the least championships (zero) that you can have in pro sports.

To be clear - again - I don't think Maurice is the worst coach in the world. He is a mediocre coach with a lot of experience. He has never won a championship as a pro. That is a fact. I don't think he put the Jets in a position to maximize our probability of success against Vegas. I think that was a weak link and contributed to the loss even though we were favorites. I am not saying Maurice is 100% responsible - no one factor is - and the guys need to execute. But from a strategy/game plan perspective he seems pretty one dimensional which was a weak link in terms of maximizing our probability of success. It is such a superficial analysis to say we lost because of factors in the universe like 'puck luck' and MAF being a 'lights out' goaltender. MAF isn't.

In a similar way, I don't consider Barry Trotz to be a great coach either. But he has made some adjustments and outlined a strategy that Washington is using against Vegas and MAF which is working. It is taking away Vegas' strengths, taking MAF out of his comfort zone and increasing the probability of Washington winning. Doesn't mean they will win, but you can see that they are in it and the strategy is working. The thing is, you don't have to be a genius to try those things (they have already been discussed in these boards, being discussed all over the hockey world including on TV, not going to repeat it all here - go watch some coverage or read if you don't know what I am talking about or don't want to believe me). Neutralizing Vegas somewhat/taking away their strengths somewhat with on ice strategy doesn't make Trotz a genius. But it does make you wonder what the hell our guy was doing sticking to 'simple game' and 'be quicker' the whole time. Especially when the book on MAF was written a few years ago. That's all I am saying.

Don't put words in my mouth with trash personal attack posts. We can agree to disagree respectfully. My position on Maurice as a mediocre coach who has never won anything, but has a lot of experience is backed up by facts. I am sure the responses here will be wild and harry and probably very personal against me. But facts matter and facts don't lie.

 

[voyageur]

We lost because we didn’t have enough left.
It isn’t on Maurice.
We had a phenomenal run and took a strong Nashville team to game 7
It would have been nice to beat Vegas but they were too strong for us.
Vegas took care of business quickly in their first two rounds and were well rested.
I doubt seriously that the Preds would have beat them either.
There is no blame it’s sports in a nutshell.
What a great season, was odd to see hockey in May wasn’t it?
I hope we can learn from this and build on it.
Get Helle a healthy back up and less games next season.

I don't believe this narrative. When you have over 30 players on your roster you don't run out of gas.

Look who was the difference makers. Alex Tuch. Ryan Reaves. We didn't defend the Karlsson line as well as they defended our top line.

Maurice did not roll with the punches, he rolled his lines. Armia plays after a bad game, cost the game winner on the back check. Gets pulled after a good game. Same thing with Enstrom.

I think just by promoting Perreault with Statsny and Laine, speed and tenacity and reuniting Tanev-Lowry-Little that won us a big game in Nashville, we could have won. Buff-Myers too. I don't blame Maurice, but to win everyone has to learn from their mistakes, which cost them a chance at Lord Stanley's Cup.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

We lost because we didn’t have enough left.
It isn’t on Maurice.
We had a phenomenal run and took a strong Nashville team to game 7
It would have been nice to beat Vegas but they were too strong for us.
Vegas took care of business quickly in their first two rounds and were well rested.
I doubt seriously that the Preds would have beat them either.
There is no blame it’s sports in a nutshell.
What a great season, was odd to see hockey in May wasn’t it?
I hope we can learn from this and build on it.
Get Helle a healthy back up and less games next season.

100% accurate!

Guarantee you, had we gotten past the Knights but lost in the finals, the same three posters on here would be using that loss as their example of Maurice failing this team.

Same silly narrative through out the season, after any loss, has to be Maurices fault. Problem was the season was a massive success, so they waited patiently for us to lose to the Wild, then the Preds, thankfully they got the Knights series to fire up their silly false narrative.

Problem is the entire media mass, analytics and eye tests across the board state coaching had nothing to do with it, solid consensus it was goaltending and a lack of days rest.

Thats just fact.