Player Discussion: Ehlers

[Mortimer Snerd]

I'll give you an example

Last season, every other post was about how Ehlers should be playing with Scief because of the stats

It seemed obvious to me that there was some locker room dynamics going on there... Schief signed his extension with Chevy after long talks about the direction of the team and his role on it

Someone who's never been in a hockey team can't understand the dynamics there. Guys were saying stuff like "if he doesnt want to play with ehlers, trade his ass". That's not how today's NHL works

Those of us who have been through that kind of thing on teams before just sort of shrug our shoulders and say "that's just the way it is". If you want to keep your 1C, you give him some sway on his linemates

That should have been the end of the discussion... but instead we got 4 months of spreadsheets. Those people have no idea what it's like to coach a team, let alone an NHL team full of at least somewhat entitled millionaires

I tried adding the context (plus some inside stuff I know though close friends being close to Chipman and TNSE). But people just went back to their xGF

Just because you are aware of the team dynamic from your hockey team days does not mean that is the only way to acquire that awareness. Just about everyone has been part of some team at one time or another. They all have somewhat similar "room" dynamics. It is taught in business schools and in Sociology classes. Workplace politics have similar dynamics. Regardless of our experience playing hockey, I think most of us here realize that a team's top players are given a lot of input on things like linemates. It is pretty obvious that they are paid that kind of respect.

A lot of what you are arguing against, railing against, is fans talking about how they wish things were. They know that is just not how it works, but they wish it did work that way. This is a discussion board so they come here to express their ideas knowing full well it is wishful thinking.

Until this year, Scheif and Connor absolutely should have been broken up, whether Scheif was given Ehlers as a linemate or not. Somehow, after all these years, Arniel found a better way. Credit to him. He managed to get them playing a much better 2 way game, eliminating the need to break them up. None of us know how he did it. Maybe it was as simple as telling them that they would be broken up if they didn't get their act together.

I don't recall anyone saying trade Scheifele if he didn't want to play with Ehlers. Some said that he should not have been given that choice. That is not "trade his ass".

And it wasn't just xGF. That is a stat I never pay any attention to whatsoever. It was every stat you can think of.

I appreciate your insights, and those of other posters here who have that kind of experience. But that experience does not give you any kind of authority. Through it you are able to better support your opinions, but your arguments still stand or fall on their merits, not on the fact of your experience.

 

[Buffdog]

Just because you are aware of the team dynamic from your hockey team days does not mean that is the only way to acquire that awareness. Just about everyone has been part of some team at one time or another. They all have somewhat similar "room" dynamics. It is taught in business schools and in Sociology classes. Workplace politics have similar dynamics. Regardless of our experience playing hockey, I think most of us here realize that a team's top players are given a lot of input on things like linemates. It is pretty obvious that they are paid that kind of respect.

A lot of what you are arguing against, railing against, is fans talking about how they wish things were. They know that is just not how it works, but they wish it did work that way. This is a discussion board so they come here to express their ideas knowing full well it is wishful thinking.

Until this year, Scheif and Connor absolutely should have been broken up, whether Scheif was given Ehlers as a linemate or not. Somehow, after all these years, Arniel found a better way. Credit to him. He managed to get them playing a much better 2 way game, eliminating the need to break them up. None of us know how he did it. Maybe it was as simple as telling them that they would be broken up if they didn't get their act together.

I don't recall anyone saying trade Scheifele if he didn't want to play with Ehlers. Some said that he should not have been given that choice. That is not "trade his ass".

And it wasn't just xGF. That is a stat I never pay any attention to whatsoever. It was every stat you can think of.

I appreciate your insights, and those of other posters here who have that kind of experience. But that experience does not give you any kind of authority. Through it you are able to better support your opinions, but your arguments still stand or fall on their merits, not on the fact of your experience.

There 100% was a poster who suggested trading anyone (including schief) if they didn't happily play with who they told him to. I'm paraphrasing, but it was along the lines of "I'd rather have a team full of guys who buy in...". Same guy who had Connor on the 4th line as a PP specialist

As for breaking up Connor and Schief based on stats... that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about, and tried to explain to people. Decisions at the NHL level aren't made based on stats alone. Whether or not they should be is a different convo altogether. But I said all along last year that based on what I can gather (years experience and having some inside information from the org), Schief gets some say. Half of a coach's job in today's NHL is managing relationships with his players. Multiple coaches have said something along those lines recently

If I had to guess (just a hunch, no info here), there's an element of this going on with Stanley being in the line up too

At the end of the day, casual fans only worry about assembling the best line up possible but I think the org puts more emphasis on having a happy and healthy locker room and team culture due to the rocky years. That probably involves a little leeway on who gets to play with whom, and who is in the line up. Fans don't really have to deal with the day to day fallout of a shitty room/culture but the coach and GM do.

Now you can take what I just wrote here and do a couple of things with it. You could dismiss it (like the posters I'm referring to have in the past) or you could use it to broaden your understanding of why the team makes choices you disagree with

 

[Keystone]

For the record, I have advanced training and experience in all of those

And hockey lol

Say no more. Your secret is safe with us humility lacking fanboys!!

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

There 100% was a poster who suggested trading anyone (including schief) if they didn't happily play with who they told him to. I'm paraphrasing, but it was along the lines of "I'd rather have a team full of guys who buy in...". Same guy who had Connor on the 4th line as a PP specialist

As for breaking up Connor and Schief based on stats... that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about, and tried to explain to people. Decisions at the NHL level aren't made based on stats alone. Whether or not they should be is a different convo altogether. But I said all along last year that based on what I can gather (years experience and having some inside information from the org), Schief gets some say. Half of a coach's job in today's NHL is managing relationships with his players. Multiple coaches have said something along those lines recently

If I had to guess (just a hunch, no info here), there's an element of this going on with Stanley being in the line up too

At the end of the day, casual fans only worry about assembling the best line up possible but I think the org puts more emphasis on having a happy and healthy locker room and team culture due to the rocky years. That probably involves a little leeway on who gets to play with whom, and who is in the line up. Fans don't really have to deal with the day to day fallout of a shitty room/culture but the coach and GM do.

Now you can take what I just wrote here and do a couple of things with it. You could dismiss it (like the posters I'm referring to have in the past) or you could use it to broaden your understanding of why the team makes choices you disagree with

Look at what else that one guy said - KFC on the 4th line? - and just consider the source.

Players, especially core players, do and should get a say in things like linemates. But having a say is not the same as making the decision. There has to be a limit. IMO, Scheif and Connor passed the limit quite some time ago because their net contribution was bad, not just sub-optimal.

That said, I couldn't be happier that we finally got a coach who has been able to get them both to buy in to playing better hockey. Way better solution than breaking them up because there was never a lack of offensive chemistry between them. That was not the problem.

I don't know whether Scotty was able to convince them that they could score more by playing defense, or he gave them an ultimatum, or maybe he convinced them that the team would win more even though they might score less. The increased scoring was a bonus. Maybe it was none of those. The important thing is that he got them to buy in to playing a winning style.

This is just a personal request, from me to you. Stop complaining about a large part of the group here. Tear apart their ideas, respectfully. Don't complain about people who think along the lines you tore apart. Just keep tearing them apart with your superior wisdom, gathered from years of experience. If you are right often enough you will get respect around here, Even though we may not know about your experience. As I said before, I agree with you a lot, I like your insights. I'm not wild about your throwing stones at other posters. I'm never sure whether I belong to the group you are attacking or not. There is no group, just a bunch of individuals.

I will end this discussion here. I've had my say and I don't want to keep banging this drum. Cheers. GJG

 

[ps241]

Look at what else that one guy said - KFC on the 4th line? - and just consider the source.

Players, especially core players, do and should get a say in things like linemates. But having a say is not the same as making the decision. There has to be a limit. IMO, Scheif and Connor passed the limit quite some time ago because their net contribution was bad, not just sub-optimal.

That said, I couldn't be happier that we finally got a coach who has been able to get them both to buy in to playing better hockey. Way better solution than breaking them up because there was never a lack of offensive chemistry between them. That was not the problem.

I don't know whether Scotty was able to convince them that they could score more by playing defense, or he gave them an ultimatum, or maybe he convinced them that the team would win more even though they might score less. The increased scoring was a bonus. Maybe it was none of those. The important thing is that he got them to buy in to playing a winning style.

This is just a personal request, from me to you. Stop complaining about a large part of the group here. Tear apart their ideas, respectfully. Don't complain about people who think along the lines you tore apart. Just keep tearing them apart with your superior wisdom, gathered from years of experience. If you are right often enough you will get respect around here, Even though we may not know about your experience. As I said before, I agree with you a lot, I like your insights. I'm not wild about your throwing stones at other posters. I'm never sure whether I belong to the group you are attacking or not. There is no group, just a bunch of individuals.

I will end this discussion here. I've had my say and I don't want to keep banging this drum. Cheers. GJG

It’s an interesting topic. I think player influence on coaches is nuanced (Captain obvious)

The two major variables are coaching style and players power base.

I listened to an interesting interview with Bruce Boudreau a few years ago and he was discussing this exact topic. He said as a head coach you need buy in from your top leaders and once you lose it you are dead. So obviously a guy like Maurice knew Mark and Blake would need to have lots of influence on the plan. If Mark wanted to play with Kyle he’s most likely going to get that. Take it away and their might be an unhappy key asset or two, bench them and their might be hell to pay. Thus is the modern NHL.

Now if you are an old school coach and don’t mind shorter tenure (Torts) then you can be a bit more Alpha and flex to your captain in a power struggle and still survive for now. I still think there is a really good side to Torts that is less public facing. Most past players seem to have liked him as a coach.

I believe most of the reason Maurice fired himself here is he was caught between some vet leaders/power brokers who had tuned him out and owners that would absolutely not fire him. He was a rutterless ship and he knew his time should have been up.

Another example is a friend of mine was having lunch with a friend of his who played for the Lightning. He was saying Cooper is an egomaniac and most of the players hate him but they also think he gives them the best chance to win so they suck it up and that allows him to survive.

Right now Arnie seems to have buy in from the most key swing vote on our team. Scheifele (and Connor) are actually playing more balanced hockey on a more consistent basis than they have in their careers and they are thriving. I feel like what Bones did for Josh, Scott is doing for KC.

Coaches do have a shelf life though and once they lose the room management and Ownership need to identify that and take action. Love how Arnie is doing so far but I have always felt the challenge is going to come one day because no matter how bad it gets I can’t see Mark C ever signing off on firing his old friend.

It’s clearly not an issue today and the hire has ended up working perfectly so for now we dance!