Management Claude Julien II Mod Note post 754

Status
Not open for further replies.

PlayMakers

Registered User
Aug 9, 2004
25,851
27,684
Medfield, MA
Being a good coach doesn't make someone the right coach. I was quite happy when the New York Giants parted ways with Tom Coughlin, not because I disliked him, but because it was time for a new voice from the sidelines. That's how I feel about the Bruins and CJ too.

In all of American pro sports only Bill Bellichick has earned coach for life.

Literally any coach has the potential to be great. As long as he gets the players to buy into what he is preaching and players execute.

Problem is I think the players eventually figure out the coach and can get into a comfortable spot. I think the core of this team knows that no matter how bad they play Julien is going right back to them with the same lines and same playing time. So I think the comfort level is too cozy. Only players that are playing harder are the rookies as they are still fighting to remain in the line up. The rest? Not sure. Right now Rask has to play superhuman for them to have a chance at winning. If he loses focus and goes through a tough spell this team is done. Can't rely on one guy to continually to post sub 2 goal against numbers because you can't produce at the other end.

Fair points about them maybe being too comfortable. I think that's a real thing that happens. But are the signs of that happening outshooting the best team in the league 40-22?

I think when that happens you see the team get outplayed a lot. You see a team roll over in games. Not a team that's consistently scrappy and in every game. IMHO, they're competitive, they're playing with teams and I feel like they have a chance to win every game late in the 3rd... They're just coming up short. That's a failing but I don't know that it's a symptom of being too comfortable or tired of the same voice.
 

PlayMakers

Registered User
Aug 9, 2004
25,851
27,684
Medfield, MA
Like the post exept for the last part on centers. I think part of the problem is they have to many centers and players playing out of position. Too many centers. Backes is playing wing but he is better at center. I would make him the 3rd line center.

Krejci
Bergeron
Backes
You can pick the 4th ( I know who I would put there)

I hear you but I don't know that I put much stock in the "he's a center" argument. Team Canada is almost exclusively centers and they do all right.

That said, I don't dislike Backes at C. I think he's just as good there as on the wing, but if you do that and trade for a winger, then you have all RH centers on FO's and no LH, net front presence on the PP. Sometimes deadline deals are more about what you can get rather than what you'd prefer, but if I had my druthers it would be a Hanzal type.
 

PlayMakers

Registered User
Aug 9, 2004
25,851
27,684
Medfield, MA
Maybe Julien's system just doesn't fit in with the current group of players anymore? From the cup teams, there are really only 3 forwards who have carried over in Bergeron, Marchand, and Krejci.

I don't share that opinion because the systems he used during the Cup team are long gone...

This team used to hold all the forwards back so they could breakout as a 5 man unit. They didn't have the D to make stretch passes so they used a lot of small area support plays and schemes to create delays. This is where the (double) D to D pass was born. We also saw a lot of turn backs (deeper into our zone) to create that same time and space. They relied heavily on support and puck possession. Their offense was the same. Lots of cycling and corner play.

Now, the forwards fly the zone. When a D has the puck for more than 2 seconds there isn't a forward left in the defensive zone. They all sprint to the Nzone. They use area passes (that sometimes look like dumps off the walls/glass) that get skated onto by their quicker forwards in the Nzone. They still go D to D, but now it's to buy time for the forwards to stretch and because the forwards are quicker, they need less time and can move it up quicker.

In the offensive zone, they hardly ever cycle anymore. Someone made a comment in last version of this thread about how all this team does is dump it in, cycle and use the D, so I watched the FLA game with a pen and paper...

In the ENTIRE game, they cycled the puck a grand total of 3 times. Literally, didn’t see a cycle until 7 minutes left in the second period, didn’t see another until 7 seconds left in the 2nd. Both 2nd period cycles were by Krejci. The 3rd cycle of the game came at 17:15 of the 3rd and it was by the 4th line.

There were more scissor plays, give and go’s, D-dives, high rotations, D pinches and high/low plays than any other scheme. Fwiw, the high/low plays (aka playing it back to the D) is very common in the league right now because modern defenses try to outnumber you in the corners. So the guys who are open tend to be the D and specifically the backside D. Moving the puck from low (corner) to high (D) helps spread out the team you're playing against so that you can work the puck back into the house. Marchand is really good at this. Krejci too.

In terms of dump-ins, I focused specifically on the power play...

Their first 7 PP zone entries were carry-ins. That spans 2 PP’s. They didn’t attempt a dump in until their 3rd PP when Carlo went cross corner to Czarnik who retained possession. Next zone entry was a Bergeron dump in, a hard rim around that went to Marchand for possession. Their last zone entry on that PP was a pass from Czarnik at the blue line back to Miller in the middle of the red line and then up to Pasta at the other blue line who carried it in and shot it off the post. Overall, they had lots of variations on their ZE's, lots of movement and even their “dump ins†are really area passes that are intended to create possession based on timing and retrievals by speedy wingers.


So... long story short. To my eyes, this team doesn't play the way the Cup team played. Most of the offensive systems have changed. Some of the older players from that team still fall back on some of those old moves (you still see Chara do a lot of DtoD, and Krejci still looks to cycle once in awhile) but for the most part, they are trying to play a more dynamic game.
 

chizzler

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 11, 2006
13,735
6,977
I don't share that opinion because the systems he used during the Cup team are long gone...

This team used to hold all the forwards back so they could breakout as a 5 man unit. They didn't have the D to make stretch passes so they used a lot of small area support plays and schemes to create delays. This is where the (double) D to D pass was born. We also saw a lot of turn backs (deeper into our zone) to create that same time and space. They relied heavily on support and puck possession. Their offense was the same. Lots of cycling and corner play.

Now, the forwards fly the zone. When a D has the puck for more than 2 seconds there isn't a forward left in the defensive zone. They all sprint to the Nzone. They use area passes (that sometimes look like dumps off the walls/glass) that get skated onto by their quicker forwards in the Nzone. They still go D to D, but now it's to buy time for the forwards to stretch and because the forwards are quicker, they need less time and can move it up quicker.

In the offensive zone, they hardly ever cycle anymore. Someone made a comment in last version of this thread about how all this team does is dump it in, cycle and use the D, so I watched the FLA game with a pen and paper...

In the ENTIRE game, they cycled the puck a grand total of 3 times. Literally, didn’t see a cycle until 7 minutes left in the second period, didn’t see another until 7 seconds left in the 2nd. Both 2nd period cycles were by Krejci. The 3rd cycle of the game came at 17:15 of the 3rd and it was by the 4th line.

There were more scissor plays, give and go’s, D-dives, high rotations, D pinches and high/low plays than any other scheme. Fwiw, the high/low plays (aka playing it back to the D) is very common in the league right now because modern defenses try to outnumber you in the corners. So the guys who are open tend to be the D and specifically the backside D. Moving the puck from low (corner) to high (D) helps spread out the team you're playing against so that you can work the puck back into the house. Marchand is really good at this. Krejci too.

In terms of dump-ins, I focused specifically on the power play...

Their first 7 PP zone entries were carry-ins. That spans 2 PP’s. They didn’t attempt a dump in until their 3rd PP when Carlo went cross corner to Czarnik who retained possession. Next zone entry was a Bergeron dump in, a hard rim around that went to Marchand for possession. Their last zone entry on that PP was a pass from Czarnik at the blue line back to Miller in the middle of the red line and then up to Pasta at the other blue line who carried it in and shot it off the post. Overall, they had lots of variations on their ZE's, lots of movement and even their “dump ins†are really area passes that are intended to create possession based on timing and retrievals by speedy wingers.


So... long story short. To my eyes, this team doesn't play the way the Cup team played. Most of the offensive systems have changed. Some of the older players from that team still fall back on some of those old moves (you still see Chara do a lot of DtoD, and Krejci still looks to cycle once in awhile) but for the most part, they are trying to play a more dynamic game.

What have you noticed regarding the forecheck?
 

ReggieMoto

Registered User
Nov 24, 2003
5,644
11
Manchester, NH
What have you noticed regarding the forecheck?

I don't see much difference in the forecheck. It is what it is.

The break-in to the O-Zone is dependent on the numbers of attacking forwards. If there is a line of forwards then it's likely to be a forecheck. If there is a leading forward then it's more likely to be a carry in, a stop at the mid-wall, and a pass back to the blueline and/or over to a trailing forward.

How and what they do is really dependent on the numbers of attacking forwards at the time of the break-in and where they are. It's what I see, anyway.
 

Spanky185

Registered User
Dec 1, 2014
1,167
378
Between BOS and NYC
Often times when talking about replacing a coach the question is asked if the team is over or under performing. After thinking about it, I think this team is doing both.

Compared to how the majority of the team has played, and the horrific PP, the team is certainly in a higher spot than they probably should be.

Compared to the overall talent this team has, especially with the surprisingly good D, I think they've underperformed to this point.

Point 2, imo, outweighs point 1.
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
25,298
24,197
Excellent post, without Rask its all for not. Its an old boys club and has been for awhile. When Kevan came back they took out a superior player in Morrow and the transition game crumbled. I am still waiting for the new core to establish themselves and get the growth the present aging core was given. I do not see it, we keep adding guys from outside to bigger roles. Internal guys will look to move out if they are smart. That will leave us a experience gap that can only be answered by trades and so far that has not been good. I see a lot of potential in the picks we got but I do not know how they will fit in to this sytem. Maybe the future in Providence is not just the players. Look at the AHL lineup the Leafs have and they are 3 pts behind us with 3 games in hand. They loaded up on top picks the last few years and we treaded water and got older.

It's almost comical how many here warned of this outcome during Kevan Miller's absence and impending return and it's exactly what has transpired.
 

CharasLazyWrister

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
24,896
22,091
Lunenburg, MA
The idea I've been getting from discussing Claude on this board the past few weeks is that the hardcore supporters seem to think "he won a Cup playing the system he is currently adhering to, so he is therefore a great coach".

Claude was the right coach at the time for that team. It was a heavy body, defense focused team which, at the time, was not actively drafting skill/speed-centric players. With the new direction the team is apparently moving in (given Sweeney's drafting...though apparently not his FA signings), I am just not sure Claude is the right guy. I understand as well as anyone else what he has accomplished, but the idea that his past accomplishments wipe out the possibility of skepticism today is one I'm seeing a lot of and flies in the the face of reality regarding professional sports.
 

Glove Malfunction

Ference is my binky
Jan 1, 2009
15,875
8,922
Pleasantly warm, AZ
The idea I've been getting from discussing Claude on this board the past few weeks is that the hardcore supporters seem to think "he won a Cup playing the system he is currently adhering to, so he is therefore a great coach".

Claude was the right coach at the time for that team. It was a heavy body, defense focused team which, at the time, was not actively drafting skill/speed-centric players. With the new direction the team is apparently moving in (given Sweeney's drafting...though apparently not his FA signings), I am just not sure Claude is the right guy. I understand as well as anyone else what he has accomplished, but the idea that his past accomplishments wipe out the possibility of skepticism today is one I'm seeing a lot of and flies in the the face of reality regarding professional sports.

It seems like you're saying that because he won a Cup 6 years ago, and hasn't since, he's no longer a good coach. Claude Julien IS a great coach. He just may not be the RIGHT coach for the Bruins right now. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
 

WhalerTurnedBruin55

Fading out, thanks for the times.
Oct 31, 2008
11,347
6,720
It's almost comical how many here warned of this outcome during Kevan Miller's absence and impending return and it's exactly what has transpired.

Many of us know this is the outcome when we ice Adam McQuaid and Kevan Miller at the same time.
 

CharasLazyWrister

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
24,896
22,091
Lunenburg, MA
It seems like you're saying that because he won a Cup 6 years ago, and hasn't since, he's no longer a good coach. Claude Julien IS a great coach. He just may not be the RIGHT coach for the Bruins right now. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

...

I really don't know how you came to that conclusion.

I am very much on board with your first thought process. I do not think he's a bad coach. Even on a team full of superstars, I don't see a "bad coach" winning a championship.
 

CharasLazyWrister

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
24,896
22,091
Lunenburg, MA
The other thing that I find ridiculous is that some people actually think the winningest coach in Bruins history, of 10+ years, doesn't have a hand in personnel decisions. As if Sweeney just sits atop his throne and Julien is the slave to him, bound to use players he never had an interest in.

Sweeney seems to go his own way on drafting. Some of the parallels between Chiarelli's weird moves, and Sweeney's, along with a heavy dose of common sense, suggest that Claude Julien has a pretty heavy influence on what goes on in the FO.

Regardless, while I respect the fans that say Julien isn't "the problem" (and agree with them, for the most part), I find it rather hilarious how there is literally an excuse for everything based on the fact that he has "proven he is a winning coach". Or the even more laughable "there are no coaches available".
 

HiyaGeorgii

Registered User
Apr 6, 2016
249
1
This team is ridiculously stale with Claude and it's time for a change. I love all the "be careful what you wish for" stuff. After this season it will be three straight "almost play-offs". Who cares if we finish 13th instead of 9th.

The veterans on this team are playing this year like they are beyond comfortable (other than Rask). Shake them up with someone who isn't afraid to hurt feelings.
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
25,298
24,197
This team is ridiculously stale with Claude and it's time for a change. I love all the "be careful what you wish for" stuff. After this season it will be three straight "almost play-offs". Who cares if we finish 13th instead of 9th.

The veterans on this team are playing this year like they are beyond comfortable (other than Rask). Shake them up with someone who isn't afraid to hurt feelings.

The way things are going lately, this year won't even be an "almost-playoffs".

This team has won 4 games in regulation out of it's last 19 games. Even if this team is somewhere in between the team we seen the 1st quarter and the team we've seen the last 19 games, it's still not close to a playoff team.
 

BNHL

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
20,023
1,466
Boston
A SC win,a SC Final,3 2nd round losses,2 first round losses and 2 DNQs. Is that great,very good,good,fair,or poor?

I'll give the SC win 5 points,the Finals loss 4 points,the 2nd round losses 2 points and first round losses 1 point. The DNQs get 0. That's 17 points in 9 seasons for an average of 1.9. On average the team has been a second round loser!
 
Last edited:

bp13

Registered User
Dec 30, 2003
16,933
3,331
Visit site
A SC win,a SC Final,3 2nd round losses,2 first round losses and 2 DNQs. Is that great,very good,good,fair,or poor?

I'll give the SC win 5 points,the Finals loss 4 points,the 2nd round losses 2 points and first round losses 1 point. The DNQs get 0. That's 17 points in 9 seasons for an average of 1.9. On average the team has been a second round loser!

So I can't comment on your little point system, but the missing ingredient from the analysis there is just how much blame the coach should have for those finishes.

Again, I have no problem if they want to move on to another guy and another message. But I don't see a roster that ought to be any higher in the standings, so firing the coach just seems like a stopgap, PR measure to kick the can down the road and distract the fans from the real issue. It's a page right out of the Harry Sinden playbook. So sure, go for it. Maybe you get a short term boost and a borderline playoff team actually makes it before losing quickly. But you'll never convince me their main issue at this point is coaching.
 

BNHL

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
20,023
1,466
Boston
So I can't comment on your little point system, but the missing ingredient from the analysis there is just how much blame the coach should have for those finishes.

Again, I have no problem if they want to move on to another guy and another message. But I don't see a roster that ought to be any higher in the standings, so firing the coach just seems like a stopgap, PR measure to kick the can down the road and distract the fans from the real issue. It's a page right out of the Harry Sinden playbook. So sure, go for it. Maybe you get a short term boost and a borderline playoff team actually makes it before losing quickly. But you'll never convince me their main issue at this point is coaching.

My "little" point system is worthless and without any value. I would say Claude's teams have achieved something more than playoff mediocrity when averaged out over his term. One SC was lost due to injuries,another 2nd round playoff lost due to injury.I firmly place the 2014-15 DNQ firmly on Claude.
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
25,298
24,197
After reading the Claude quotes about Colin Miller in the GDT, I'm even more convinced the best thing this team can do is remove some of his zero-zone binkies ASAP.

Seriously, he blamed the loss on the only Bruin (Colin Miller) to walk out of that game a +2. Every other skater was a +1, most were even or -1.
 

TMac21

Save us Sweeney
May 21, 2003
10,867
1
After reading the Claude quotes about Colin Miller in the GDT, I'm even more convinced the best thing this team can do is remove some of his zero-zone binkies ASAP.

Seriously, he blamed the loss on the only Bruin (Colin Miller) to walk out of that game a +2. Every other skater was a +1, most were even or -1.

Yeah I like Claude but that article was total crap. He thought the call against Miller was BS anyway and was giving it to the ref so which is it?
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
25,298
24,197
My "little" point system is worthless and without any value. I would say Claude's teams have achieved something more than playoff mediocrity when averaged out over his term. One SC was lost due to injuries,another 2nd round playoff lost due to injury.I firmly place the 2014-15 DNQ firmly on Claude.

Really?

Because even though I didn't like how he decided to put his lines in a blender for games 80-82, that year was submarined more by injuries to key guys, and a back-up goaltender Claude had absolutely zero trust in, which resulted in Rask getting severely over-worked down the stretch.

I blame Claude more for last year's DNQ than I do 2014-15. He had a good thing going, a healthy team, then was given some shiny veteran toys for the trade deadline, and his line-up decisions after that point hurt this team more than it helped.
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
25,298
24,197
Yeah I like Claude but that article was total crap. He thought the call against Miller was BS anyway and was giving it to the ref so which is it?

I don't want to see him fired either (although I wouldn't cry or defend him if he was), I thought the announcers said Julien gave it to the refs on that weak call. So like you said which is it?
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
31,349
20,849
Connecticut
Excellent post, without Rask its all for not. Its an old boys club and has been for awhile. When Kevan came back they took out a superior player in Morrow and the transition game slowed down. I am still waiting for the new core to establish themselves and get the growth the present aging core was given. I do not see it, we keep adding guys from outside to bigger roles. Internal guys will look to move out if they are smart. That will leave us a experience gap that can only be answered by trades and so far that has not been good. I see a lot of potential in the picks we got but I do not know how they will fit in to this sytem. Maybe the future in Providence is not just the players. Look at the AHL lineup the Leafs have and they are 3 pts behind us with 3 games in hand. They loaded up on top picks the last few years and we treaded water and got older.

Might be stretching it a bit there. Replacing a 3rd pair defenseman isn't going to slow down the teams transition game. Especially since the other 3rd pair guy (CMiller) is an even better puck mover.

I'd have no problem with Morrow in and KMiller out. But Morrow can hardly be considered a superior player. Not hard to have better numbers than KMiller since he has zero points and is -6 in 17 games. But one point and -3 in 13 isn't a whole lot better. And KMiller's corsi numbers are better also.
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
25,298
24,197
Might be stretching it a bit there. Replacing a 3rd pair defenseman isn't going to slow down the teams transition game. Especially since the other 3rd pair guy (CMiller) is an even better puck mover.

I'd have no problem with Morrow in and KMiller out. But Morrow can hardly be considered a superior player. Not hard to have better numbers than KMiller since he has zero points and is -6 in 17 games. But one point and -3 in 13 isn't a whole lot better. And KMiller's corsi numbers are better also.

So let me get this straight.

If it was a 2nd pair stay-at-home guy being removed for a 2nd pair puck-mover, either of which play say 21-22 mins a night, it would impact the transition game would be meaningful.

But because it's a 3rd pair stay-at-home guy being removed for a 3rd pair puck-mover, either of which play say 17-18 mins a night, the impact to the transition game would be minimal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad