I like your optimism, but I think that works only if we have someone else behind the bench or there is a very strict mandate in place to play the youth.
<snipped lots of good stuff>
So yeah, trust, and maybe next year. But if we wait until then, there's not only Heinola and Gus and Cole P bit also maybe Samberg and Kovacevic and even Chisholm knocking at the door, and maybe others, and if you think Maurice is going to add 3, 4 or 5 rookies to any team he coaches, you're dreaming. if you want to keep a team going you're always replenishing the cupboards and then opening those cupboards up to restock the team, always with the cap in mind. There should never be a generation gap on a well-managed team, just a smooth progression of talent. I honestly think that this transition has been frustrated in recent years for the Jets.
I've said a dozen times here, as have others, that just "ripening" prospects in the A is not always the best dev plan, just as ripening any fruit or veg indefinitely isn't -- at time point, rot is going to set in, and you're no longer developing, you're just wasting everyone's time.
The trust problem on the Jets isn't a young player problem, it's a Maurice problem. And the only way it isn't a big problem is if you trust Maurice as an evaluator and developer of talent -- not only blue-chip but regular useful talent too, and you trust his roster and lineup choices.
I guess at this point I don't. Bring on the Gus Bus and Heinola Motorola, say I.
Great post. I agree completely. We won't necessarily have grade A prospects joining every single year (due to variations at the draft/different speeds of development), so there are some real judgment calls to make.
For those not interested in cognitive function analysis, don't bother reading ahead, but my career involves personality profiling/analysis (with several hundred hours of advanced training), and this is what I see for Maurice:
Maurice's strength (like many former players) is being present and observational in the moment (and using adrenaline to perform). I think that's pretty obvious from how he coaches, and the multitude of interviews he's given over the years.
Because of this, there is an opportunity cost in regards to his ability to project long-term (beyond a few days), because he's better at improvising in the moment. You can bet he doesn't do much prep for 95% of his interviews because he can wing it, and if he sticks his foot in his mouth he knows how to recover better than people who are strong at the opposite cognitive function (the ones who are constantly looking ahead, simulating out scenarios days to years in advance). It will be rare to see him not improvise at least a little - that's what makes him so engaging, and I bet that live he's even cooler to listen to because he's responding to what his audience is giving him.
This genius part of him also means he's very poor at the opposite - simulating the future long-term, and narrowing down possible emergents to their most likely outcome. That includes evaluating when to add a rookie, or how to add them so that they're ready before the playoffs, and so he evaluates the NOW only (and there's also an element of doubling down at thinking he's right because he struggles to shift to others' perspectives - but he does have a compassionate side - different parts of the brain - that helps him reflect and get beyond the present and pursue his values, but that part still isn't about projection/simulation). He also struggles to know when vets are done, because he's seeing all the good things they do, and he doesn't have to worry about what they *might* do (future-pacing again, his weak spot) - he knows what they'll do wrong but he can expect it so it feels safer. He's great at picking up on how everyone contributes to mood and culture, but struggles to see how that will end up contributing to final results. Because to him (and others of his type) it will feel like "just guessing". Meanwhile, there are other personalities who are excellent at projecting likely outcomes and are very accurate and reliable at seeing trajectories.
All of this isn't a death knell for Maurice as a coach: if he stuck to being behind the bench and behind the mic as an inspirational leader and culture setter, and didn't have the final say on any strategic decisions, he'd make a great coach.
But he needs someone to cover for his weak spots (and those people typically are terrible at relating to people, being inspiring, or noticing things in the moment). Together they'd be a great team - they make strategic decisions, he can just communicate it and be the Face.
That's his pathway to success but he's got it in his head that he needs to micromanage/make the call, be the Man, and then we see him get lost it the moment and constantly run imbalanced lines. He's never intending to only give Svech 4 minutes or Schief 25+, it honestly gets away from him. And then when he gets away with a win despite it (because he oversimplified cause & effect, not seeing that there's a complex system running that has thousands of variables, some uncontrollable), he thinks that maybe that might have contributed to the odds of winning. And maybe it did for that one game, but he doesn't see that if you do it over and over guys like Schief & Wheels start running out of gas or they modify their game to avoid running out of gas.
Anyway, sorry for the long explanation. There is a lot of extrapolation in there, but it's always surprising how accurate my extrapolations are with my clients.
I like Mau, I think he is elite at certain important aspects of coaching, but right now we have no one covering his weak spots effectively, and from what I see that's on Maurice's ego to have to make final calls. Just like one of my former bosses (same personality type) he needs to not allow himself to make certain decisions at all, and give full responsibility to another coach who is elite at futurepacing and analyzing long term implications.
Edit: dang, I did it again - this is not the coaching thread. In regards to Heinola, he was ready last year, but Maurice couldn't see beyond the 'current game'. He'd have been far better than Beaulieu/Poolman and Stanley by year's end. And Stanley would would also been better than the other two with a full year behind him. We might have lost a couple more games during the early part of the season due to their rookie mistakes, but short term pain for long term gain...