Post-Game Talk: 1st place once again, Jets win 5-2

[Inanna]

Ya the media has given him so many opportunities to say something nice and he has not even come close to doing so. Very interesting and not what I would have expected.

Many of my friends - or at least the few that are hockey fans - hold the opinion that Mark is not a deep thinker and has a very thin skin over his ego.

We can all formulate what might have caused that but I'd assume Mo was unable to get Scheif moving and Scheif was tired of being told to pick up his pace and play some defense.

That does not bode well for the team when Scheif gets tired of Bones telling him to pick up the pace, play some defence, and stop gliding to the bench on a line change.

 

[SCP Guy]

Many of my friends - or at least the few that are hockey fans - hold the opinion that Mark is not a deep thinker and has a very thin skin over his ego.

Many hockey insiders have always said he is a hockey geek...So who is right your buddies or the hockey "insiders" ?

 

[WaveRaven]

No we don't all agree. Paul was not the best choice right from day 1 of that off season there were better coaches available that summer (cough Trotz) Everyone was sucked in by 10 great games and his gift of the gab after Noel was fired only to drop to .500 the rest of the way.

Now imagine if we had hired someone that would have made them accountable and playing a more rounded game all this time. How about during our best season ?

Pomo was never the right choice.

 

[Inanna]

Many hockey insiders have always said he is a hockey geek...So who is right your buddies or the hockey "insiders" ?

Most of my friends know very little about hockey, myself included, so given a choice I'd always go with the insider's opinion.

I'm curious though why you think there's a dichotomy. You can be a total geek, a complete master of the game, know everything there is to know about hockey, yet still have a thin skin, fragile ego, and be a bear of little brain. I don't know why the two have to be incompatible.

No more incompatible than a "hockey geek" thinking he can tune out a coach, I suppose.....

 

[Inanna]

No we don't all agree. Paul was not the best choice right from day 1 ... Pomo was never the right choice.

Far be it for me to question yet another opinion from a real hockey fan, but...

Paul Maurice guided this team once to 114 point finish, second in the entire league, and then took them to the semi-final.

If he was never the right choice, who would have been?

 

[Stumbledore]

Far be it for me to question yet another opinion from a real hockey fan, but...

Paul Maurice guided this team once to 114 point finish, second in the entire league, and then took them to the semi-final.

If he was never the right choice, who would have been?

As one of my granddaughters likes to say, "Sick burn!"

 

[SCP Guy]

Most of my friends know very little about hockey, myself included, so given a choice I'd always go with the insider's opinion.

I'm curious thought why you think there's a dichotomy. You can be a total geek, a complete master of the game, know everything there is to know about hockey, yet still have a thin skin, fragile ego, and be a bear of little brain. I don't know why the two have to be incompatible.

No more incompatible than a "hockey geek" thinking he can tune out a coach, I suppose.....

I was replying to the "Mark is not a deep thinker" part of your comment.... I take it to mean that he is not able to think the game on the ice at a high level according to your friends ....

 

[surixon]

Who knows what was really going on but this take makes sense -
I honestly believe there was a huge gap between these two and I'd guess it that it had something to do with Maurice losing Scheif's respect.

We can all formulate what might have caused that but I'd assume Mo was unable to get Scheif moving and Scheif was tired of being told to pick up his pace and play some defense.
That's a spark that can light a fire and from there, I can see the rest of the team tuning out what would likely be an obvious problem between the coach and the top center - in other words, a major disruption in the room.

Scheif's response or method in dealing with the issue is to stop playing - Maurice's response is to stop coaching.
Both are not saying much on the topic - which is a good thing.
Regardless, it's great that it is now behind us

Yeah I'm not sure what happened between those two but there was a clear falling out. They should have moved on when that became apparent though and that is on management/ownership.

I wonder who else was tired of Moe in the room, can't imagine Ehlers was thrilled with his usage under Paul.

 

[WaveRaven]

Far be it for me to question yet another opinion from a real hockey fan, but...

Paul Maurice guided this team once to 114 point finish, second in the entire league, and then took them to the semi-final.

If he was never the right choice, who would have been?

There were other coaches available. I wanted Trotz because of the style of game he coaches. He makes people play a responsible game. This franchise needs that were never going to be free agent heaven. Our best seasons could have been better with better defensive play.

Paul had proven himself mediocre, could not get an NHL job, had been in the KHL.

My real concern was not trying to get the best coach available. Which thank god we tried to do this summer.

 

[surixon]

In a word, Chipman. It's all here:

"We have been blessed by the coaching of Paul Maurice,” True North Sports & Entertainment chairman Mark Chipman said at the Jets’ Hall of Fame Luncheon, where he announced the extension.

Also, Chipman: Longevity, trust and humanity.

What do Jets value most about Paul Maurice? Mark Chipman on longevity, trust and behind-the-scenes humanity

The Jets' history with Maurice highlights an emphasis on culture: "You can't just add water and have trust."

theathletic.com

Anyway, all that has been litigated here plenty. I think we can agree that Mo was an excellent hire in 2015, bringing a much more rigorous and professional mindset to the team along with enhanced training, fitness and game prep routines.

After 2019, he was no longer the right coach for the job, but Chipman is, IMO, a guy who falls in love with people, and he fell hard for Maurice.

Now it looks we also have the right coach for the job this time around, and I have no doubt that he's looking to coach like hell for 2 years and then move into the semi-retirement he's clearly been aiming for.

I'm just really happy to be able watch a team that almost always looks like it has a shot in a game (I see you, CBJ!) and is looking to win it, and I can't wait to see how they look once Nik's back in the fold, even if it takes him a while to bed in.

Yes, we are blessed. Again.

Yup, there are some unsubstantiated rumblings that Chevy had wanted to move on from Moe well before last year. It's why as an owner you let your hockey guy make the calls. It likely cost Chipman some goodwill from fans given the sad product that was put on the ice for s couple of years.

 

[Stumbledore]

I was replying to the "Mark is not a deep thinker" part of your comment.... I take it to mean that he is not able to think the game on the ice at a high level according to your friends ....

You really think hockey players think deep thoughts on the ice?

When you start by interpreting someone else's post ("I take it to mean that") and then replying to your own interpretation, you're pretty much already in the ditch.

 

[surixon]

Far be it for me to question yet another opinion from a real hockey fan, but...

Paul Maurice guided this team once to 114 point finish, second in the entire league, and then took them to the semi-final.

If he was never the right choice, who would have been?

He was very good for this team up until 2019. After that things went sideways and he should have been let go. Where there better coaches available, probably, would they have had the same or more success prior to 2019 maybe but ita not a given.

 

[DRW204]

Far be it for me to question yet another opinion from a real hockey fan, but...

Paul Maurice guided this team once to 114 point finish, second in the entire league, and then took them to the semi-final.

If he was never the right choice, who would have been?

1 good year out of 9. plan the parade!

 

[Gm0ney]

Anyone have a link to this?

I haven't been able to find it.

"I’m not going to lie, that was a good win in my books. I’m pretty happy with that one. At the end of the day, we’ve moved on. We’re a different team this year than we were last year...

"It’s been exciting for a lot of us. You see the rejuvenated faces in this room. Bones has been on us each and every day, whether it’s a good game or a bad game, he’s always looking to help us...

"I think it’s been awesome for me, it’s been awesome for a lot of us, we’re being pushed and we’re being challenged to reach our full potential. That does a lot for our team."

 

[GNP]

So, any thoughts on whether Maurice lasts the full season with the panthers?

The guy that owns the Panthers is a large hedge fund manager,(financial services) that he owns,and apparently worth something like $ 20 billion dollars, so I have read, and doesn't like to lose. He had a great finish last year, but because they got knocked out of the playoffs early, he fired the Coach. So, if Maurice has a bad year like this year, he'll be gone in short order, as the owner doesn't seem like a patient man.

 

[Stumbledore]

1 good year out of 9. plan the parade!

Your sarcasm is noted. Along with the fact that you couldn't answer the question she posed.

 

[GNP]

I really like Rick Bowness, and think he's the perfect guy to Coach this hockey club. I think he may even be better than Trotz, as Trotz looks a bit militant, and very strict, although this is just a gut feel. Trotz would have been good as well, but I like the way Bowness handles personalties, as he's very diplomatic, and he also doesn't put up with BS, or lazy play. As he says -- "he's not a babysitter."

 

[Gm0ney]

Far be it for me to question yet another opinion from a real hockey fan, but...

Paul Maurice guided this team once to 114 point finish, second in the entire league, and then took them to the semi-final.

If he was never the right choice, who would have been?

I think an average coach got one elite year out of at least 3 years with an elite lineup. Claude Noel could've got that team to the conference finals in 2017-18. A good coach would've had them win the Cup instead of waving the white flag after running up against some actual adversity in the Vegas series. He had 3 years with basically the same lineup: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 and managed to miss the playoffs once, get bounced in the first round once (in an embarrassing surrender game to St. Louis) and had one deep run where he got outcoached by Gallant behind the bench of an expansion team playing way over their heads. Who was a better choice? Take your pick...

 

[DRW204]

Your sarcasm is noted. Along with the fact that you couldn't answer the question she posed.

i dont know who the right coach was but we for sure know who it wasn't. someone brought up trotz during that time-frame, that's one i could've gotten behind. sutter was hired around that time-frame too, as well as Sullivan. funny you single my post out when another poster quoted the OP, and didn't respond to a question.

anyway, maurice had a one great, albeit outlier season here props for that. i bet many individuals wish they could rest on a 1-year wonder over a ~9-year employment tenure.

I think an average coach got one elite year out of at least 3 years with an elite lineup. Claude Noel could've got that team to the conference finals in 2017-18. A good coach would've had them win the Cup instead of waving the white flag after running up against some actual adversity in the Vegas series. He had 3 years with basically the same lineup: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 and managed to miss the playoffs once, get bounced in the first round once (in an embarrassing surrender game to St. Louis) and had one deep run where he got outcoached by Gallant behind the bench of an expansion team playing way over their heads. Who was a better choice? Take your pick...

didn't you have something like claude noel got more out of the Jets roster than maurice? difference was noel was saddled with pavelec who chevy gave 20m dollars to.

 

[Jet]

I think an average coach got one elite year out of at least 3 years with an elite lineup. Claude Noel could've got that team to the conference finals in 2017-18. A good coach would've had them win the Cup instead of waving the white flag after running up against some actual adversity in the Vegas series. He had 3 years with basically the same lineup: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 and managed to miss the playoffs once, get bounced in the first round once (in an embarrassing surrender game to St. Louis) and had one deep run where he got outcoached by Gallant behind the bench of an expansion team playing way over their heads. Who was a better choice? Take your pick...

This is very hyperbolic.

You can argue a lot about Maurices coaching chops but saying a different coach would have gotten us farther in 18 is a reach.

We lost because Hellebuyck hit a wall and Fleury was otherworldly.

We simply got out goalied and a coach ain't gonna do shit about that

 

[Gm0ney]

This is very hyperbolic.

You can argue a lot about Maurices coaching chops but saying a different coach would have gotten us farther in 18 is a reach.

We lost because Hellebuyck hit a wall and Fleury was otherworldly.

We simply got out goalied and a coach ain't gonna do shit about that

Perhaps everyone's forgotten how Maurice almost blew the Nashville series that year by insisting on playing Matt Hendricks...Then he benches Copp and Enstrom for the elimination game against Vegas? Anyway, virtually the same lineup for 3 seasons, had one good run. This doesn't even qualify under Meatloaf's standards!

 

[SCP Guy]

You really think hockey players think deep thoughts on the ice?

When you start by interpreting someone else's post ("I take it to mean that") and then replying to your own interpretation, you're pretty much already in the ditch.

If that is not what he meant I hoped he would clarify his statement is that okay? If you think that some players can't process plays faster on the ice then others from being more prepared or gifted in that sense then we will agree to disagree I guess.

 

[KingBogo]

Who knows what was really going on but this take makes sense -
I honestly believe there was a huge gap between these two and I'd guess it that it had something to do with Maurice losing Scheif's respect.

We can all formulate what might have caused that but I'd assume Mo was unable to get Scheif moving and Scheif was tired of being told to pick up his pace and play some defense.
That's a spark that can light a fire and from there, I can see the rest of the team tuning out what would likely be an obvious problem between the coach and the top center - in other words, a major disruption in the room.

Scheif's response or method in dealing with the issue is to stop playing - Maurice's response is to stop coaching.
Both are not saying much on the topic - which is a good thing.
Regardless, it's great that it is now behind us

Man is this ever speculative. This is your assumption, it is easy enough to come up many baseless assumptions?

 

[LowLefty]

I saw in another thread a comment alluding to the D corps that Maurice had with the Jets was bad.
Going into last night's game: Maurice managed 13 wins and 16 losses (Ws & Ls) in his last 29 games with the Jets last year with this same D corps. Then he quit. Going into last night, 15 wins already this year after only 23 games under new coach, with new systems (that's the coaches job) that have led to significant reduction in high danger chances against, and hence a significant reduction in goals against. And huge improvement in special teams PK. Same D corps. Fully expect that Maurice admirers will somehow come up with "that's different".

In the end in professional sports, results are what matters. The coach matters.

It's not just the D corps -
This year we are seeing team D and that's the biggest difference IMO - because when the forwards don't show up, the D looks really bad.
That's still a coaching issue but I think the major change has been the work the team is willing to put out vs LY - you can see it when we win / lose - lots of speed and hard work or a major lack of effort. Not dismissing systems - that's is absolutely part of it, but the game Bones wants these guys to play, depends a lot on effort.

Completely agree that the coach drives a lot of this - but I would be surprised if there is a coach out there that doesn't attempt to do this. The team leaders need to be in sync with the plan - looks like we are in sync (most nights) vs LY. Maurice likely lost a key player or two (as in lost the room), that made it pretty much impossible for him to drive any sort of game plan that involved increased effort.

It's been said a thousand times - most coaches have a shelf life - eventually they will piss off a key player or two and that's the end.

 

[LowLefty]

Man is this ever speculative. This is your assumption, it is easy enough to come up many baseless assumptions?

It's no more baseless than assuming it's all on Maurice when Scheif was a shell of himself last season.
I'm not stating Schief is a bad player or that Mo is a good coach - I'm only suggesting the relationship between the two may have been toxic. I have trouble understanding why a player would give up on the hard work side of hockey under one coach but is willing to give it under anther -
Assuming there was a coach / player problem is not that far a reach IMO.

We're all speculating around here King - I'm a bit surprised that this surprises you to the point where you are calling out one opinion as being baseless when there are a ton of examples out there - was is the subject matter?