Player Discussion: Heinola Thread

[Jet]

I didn't mean it in a way that was meant to demonize him.

I just think that because it's put up or shut up time based on the roster and based on his contract not being renewed as of yet that he is being allowed to do it his way this season and his way based on his history is to go all in with his guys and vets.

I think that it's fair, the org has given him the tools and letting him succeed or failure in a manner that he wants to.

Maybe I worded it bad but that is my take on how he's being allowed to coach and the reasons for it. As always I'm more then happy to see him prove me wrong.

Edit:

After reading my post again, you are correct that came out as not very good on my part. Thanks for brining it to my attention.

No worries. I over reacted a bit due to my sensitivity around the negativity on this forum.

As I said, I thoroughly enjoy having you as a poster and am glad I get to read your posts.

 

[tbcwpg]

After almost 8 seasons of Maurice I'm curious if those who seem to think he's immune to criticism wants to win

Window? It's barely open with Maurice still.

I see this stuff all the time and I've never seen 1 person on here say he's immune to criticism.

Anyway, that's not on topic so I won't expand but people create these strawman arguments that nobody has made. Happens with every topic.

 

[LowLefty]

Yeah he's ready and so are Ville and arguably Cole.

We can use a lot of what each player brings on our team.

Maurice is looking for 200ft hockey from his rookie forwards, and solid defense from his defenders.
Looking at the better teams in the NHL right now, you see that in their games.

I don't think it comes down to rookie versus vet as much as we try to frame it that way.

Using Dmen as an example, I saw JoMo spend the early part of his career learning to be a better defender after playing a more offensive game in the minors
Pionk was almost the opposite - he tried to play more of an offensive game in his earlier NHL years and then worked hard (recently) on his defensive, physical game.
I both cases, it made them much better Dmen and the type of player coaches trust.

 

[surixon]

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...

Excellent post and aligns with what I see. Your point about needing someone to cover for his weaknesses is exactly why I continue to stand by the notion that his best coaching was when he was forced to integrate to youth. Chevy mandated a certain direction that Moe had to follow and the team advanced quickly due to it. But since we entered win now stage he's now calling all the shots on the on ice roster and has gone back to what he's comfortable with.

I think the team would be much better off with Heionla and Gus taking their lumps now. Cole should be ready soon as well.

 

[snowkiddin]

Maurice is looking for 200ft hockey from his rookie forwards, and solid defense from his defenders.
Looking at the better teams in the NHL right now, you see that in their games.

I don't think it comes down to rookie versus vet as much as we try to frame it that way.

Using Dmen as an example, I saw JoMo spend the early part of his career learning to be a better defender after playing a more offensive game in the minors
Pionk was almost the opposite - he tried to play more of an offensive game in his earlier NHL years and then worked hard (recently) on his defensive, physical game.
I both cases, it made them much better Dmen and the type of player coaches trust.

Gustafsson checks the boxes of physicality and strong two-way play, and he’s clearly too good for the AHL right now. I don’t know what else he can accomplish there. There’s really no reason he shouldn’t be in the lineup right now IMO. The Nash signing was the last barrier and that just fell.

 

[BoneDocUK]

Ville may be too good for the A, but he sure didn't look good enough for the NHL in his preseason games.

And I'm a big Ville fan. I think he will do big things.

That's why you play preseason games. Most here remember Stanley's travails in TC and preseason and preseason was a long time ago. I'm not disagreeing with you; I just think we tend to overestimate what "NHL readiness" is and what a learning curve looks like for a rookie. Stanley last year was a good example of what sheltering can do in terms of bringing a player along and preparing him for a useful role alongside a veteran player in DeMelo.

And Heinola looked NHL ready in his first four games ever in the league -- until he didn't. Development isn't linear and it isn't based on precedent. JMo was no world-beater when he started out on the Jets but he was allowed to play with the Jets and lean on the job. The A may teach that to some players but not all of them. Heinola is dominating the A. I don't see how he can worse than Beaulieu at 5v5, and a properly-staffed and run PK doesn't need Beaulieu, I'd argue.

We can leave him in the A for another season -- heck, we can leave him there for 2-3 years. But he won't get better there and the backlog ain't getting smaller. So you bring him up and let him make some mistakes that hopefully aren't costing you the game, and pretty soon he won't be making those mistakes and he's helping the team win.

IMO.

 

[LowLefty]

Gustafsson checks the boxes of physicality and strong two-way play, and he’s clearly too good for the AHL right now. I don’t know what else he can accomplish there. There’s really no reason he shouldn’t be in the lineup right now IMO. The Nash signing was the last barrier and that just fell.

I agree - he'd be my choice to come in now.

 

[surixon]

Maurice is looking for 200ft hockey from his rookie forwards, and solid defense from his defenders.
Looking at the better teams in the NHL right now, you see that in their games.

I don't think it comes down to rookie versus vet as much as we try to frame it that way.

Using Dmen as an example, I saw JoMo spend the early part of his career learning to be a better defender after playing a more offensive game in the minors
Pionk was almost the opposite - he tried to play more of an offensive game in his earlier NHL years and then worked hard (recently) on his defensive, physical game.
I both cases, it made them much better Dmen and the type of player coaches trust.

All three of those players are solid defensively. This isn't the case where any is a liability.

Gus is elite defensively and plays an error free game that Moe should love. He also brings PK, grit and intensity. All things Moe loves in a player.

Perfetti is actually quite good in his end. He is exceptional at getting the puck out of his end cleanly and with control. He is among the best shot metric players in the AHL and is well ahead of most of our offensive players at the same age in those respects.

Heionla may not be as elite at defense as some but he moves the puck out of his end at a high level.

If Moe is actually judging based on a players all around game then I greatly question his ability to evaluate each ones independent skill set.

We can point to numerous roster players with two way deficiencies that get massive minutes like Wheeler, Mark etc that really puts a wrench in the idea that Moe is looking for two way players. Or if he is he's maybe not very good at evaluating it.

 

[BoneDocUK]

Gustafsson checks the boxes of physicality and strong two-way play, and he’s clearly too good for the AHL right now. I don’t know what else he can accomplish there. There’s really no reason he shouldn’t be in the lineup right now IMO. The Nash signing was the last barrier and that just fell.

Also, if Maurice is looking for 200-foot play from his forwards, he isn't getting it from at least two of his stars. Maybe Gus helps with that, as well as resting others by taking on a PK role.

 

[LowLefty]

All three of those players are solid defensively. This isn't the case where any is a liability.

Gus is elite defensively and plays an error free game that Moe should love. He also brings PK, grit and intensity. All things Moe loves in a player.

Perfetti is actually quite good in his end. He is exceptional at getting the puck out of his end cleanly and with control. He is among the best shot metric players in the AHL and is well ahead of most of our offensive players at the same age in those respects.

Heionla may not be as elite at defense as some but he moves the puck out of his end at a high level.

If Moe is actually judging based on a players all around game then I greatly question his ability to evaluate each independently games.

We can point to numerous roster players with two way deficiencies that get massive minutes like Wheeler, Mark etc that really puts a wrench in the idea that Moe is looking for two way players. Or if he is he's maybe not very good at evaluating it.

No issues with giving Perfetti a shot - I posted on this recently. But he's likely destined for the WJ's

No issue with Gus - he'd be my callup now.

No, Ville is not elite defensively - in fact he is the opposite and that is likely what is holding him up.

Yes, we can point to guys like Wheeler and Mark but do we really want to get into a discussion about those two blocking opportunity for rookies? Should all players be held to the same level of expectations - sure, I'd buy into that.

Maurice is looking for "rookies" to play a 200ft game - he also should be pushing the skilled vets to do the same but that doesn't diminish the need to get the young players off on the right foot.
Are we saying that since these two are not defensive stalwarts, that we shouldn't expect it from anyone?

I hear your argument - I get it - and I don't have an answer for why Maurice lets some off the hook.
But that doesn't change my mind on what we should expect from rookies -

Trying to avoid a coaching debate - my comments are more in line with what we need / expect from the young players coming in

 

[Orrrules]

Heinola doesn't exactly seem to be lighting it up with Moose.

 

[surixon]

No issues with giving Perfetti a shot - I posted on this recently. But he's likely destined for the WJ's

No issue with Gus - he'd be my callup now.

No, Ville is not elite defensively - in fact he is the opposite and that is likely what is holding him up.

Yes, we can point to guys like Wheeler and Mark but do we really want to get into a discussion about those two blocking opportunity for rookies? Should all players be held to the same level of expectations - sure, I'd buy into that.

Maurice is looking for "rookies" to play a 200ft game - he also should be pushing the skilled vets to do the same but that doesn't diminish the need to get the young players off on the right foot.
Are we saying that since these two are not defensive stalwarts, that we shouldn't expect it from anyone?

I hear your argument - I get it - and I don't have an answer for why Maurice lets some off the hook.
But that doesn't change my mind on what we should expect from rookies -

Trying to avoid a coaching debate - my comments are more in line with what we need / expect from the young players coming in

I've never argued against having our players play responsible all around games. I've argued for it many times. I just question if the coach really understands what that means.

I do think that if the goal is to have an all around team that it sends mixed messaging to have your leaders go out there and play one dimensional hockey and receive big minutes. I'd imagine top down roster buy in would be made easier if he could point to his team leaders as good role models. Luckily he has JoMo as an A that does this but the other two not so much.

My point about rookies is that he seemingly has higher standards for their all around play then he does for his vets when it should be the opposite.

Sure Heinola isn't JoMo in his end but I'd wager if given some time to adapt he'd be similar to what we are getting from Schmidt. Competent in his end but elite at moving the puck upnthe ice.

 

[Adam da bomb]

I've never argued against having our players play responsible all around games. I've argued for it many times. I just question if the coach really understands what that means.

I do think that if the goal is to have an all around team that it sends mixed messaging to have your leaders go out there and play one dimensional hockey and receive big minutes. I'd imagine top down roster buy in would be made easier if he could point to his team leaders as good role models. Luckily he has JoMo as an A that does this but the other two not so much.

My point about rookies is that he seemingly has higher standards for their all around play then he does for his vets when it should be the opposite.

Sure Heinola isn't JoMo in his end but I'd wager if given some time to adapt he'd be similar to what we are getting from Schmidt. Competent in his end but elite at moving the puck upnthe ice.

Kyle Connor will never be great defensively he’s also playing unbelievable hockey. Tough to reward bad defensive players.
Really should be playing Heinola right now that Dillion Stanley combo is like nails on a chalkboard.

 

[LowLefty]

I've never argued against having our players play responsible all around games. I've argued for it many times. I just question if the coach really understands what that means.

I do think that if the goal is to have an all around team that it sends mixed messaging to have your leaders go out there and play one dimensional hockey and receive big minutes. I'd imagine top down roster buy in would be made easier if he could point to his team leaders as good role models. Luckily he has JoMo as an A that does this but the other two not so much.

My point about rookies is that he seemingly has higher standards for their all around play then he does for his vets when it should be the opposite.

Sure Heinola isn't JoMo in his end but I'd wager if given some time to adapt he'd be similar to what we are getting from Schmidt. Competent in his end but elite at moving the puck upnthe ice.

Yes he does - but it shouldn't be the opposite. The young players need that aspect etched into their game from the start

The question about Ville is whether he is spending time on the Moose learning to play better defensive hockey or he learning to be a better offensive Dman.
During his last time up (as short as it was), I didn't see any evidence of him working on his D game -

I agree that Mo has differing standards for rookies and vets - especially established, core vets. I agree it shouldn't be that way.
But he still needs to drive the rookies to a more all around game -

There are coaching issues at play here (player standards, etc) - again, I'm not defending Mo - in fact, I'd rather not turn every thread into a coaching debate with the blame (of course) falling on Mo.

I don't think coaching is the reason Ville isn't getting his opportunities - yet.

 

[bumblebeeman]

As much as I want to see Heinola, Gustafsson and Perfetti up with the Jets, I'm glad they are taking it slow with their prospects. Letting them play big minutes in the AHL before they get called up seems like the way to do it. These guys are all still so young, their time will come.

 

[surixon]

Yes he does - but it shouldn't be the opposite. The young players need that aspect etched into their game from the start

The question about Ville is whether he is spending time on the Moose learning to play better defensive hockey or he learning to be a better offensive Dman.
During his last time up (as short as it was), I didn't see any evidence of him working on his D game -

I agree that Mo has differing standards for rookies and vets - especially established, core vets. I agree it shouldn't be that way.
But he still needs to drive the rookies to a more all around game -

There are coaching issues at play here (player standards, etc) - again, I'm not defending Mo - in fact, I'd rather not turn every thread into a coaching debate with the blame (of course) falling on Mo.

I don't think coaching is the reason Ville isn't getting his opportunities - yet.

I think Ville has been solid defensively from viewings and he doesn't spend much time in his end due to his retrieval and puck moving. Hard to judge or to really improve his one on one defensive play if you aren't defending much in your end.

He really will be at the point soon where he needs to be stretched by playing in the NHL to develop those aspects of his game.

If the standard is JoMo defense then imo that likely isn't in the cards for him but that doesn't mean that he can't be a very important contributor on the team. Moe uses offensive first dmen with ok defending in Schmidt and to a less extent Pionk so no reason he can't use Ville.

 

[Adam da bomb]

Yes he does - but it shouldn't be the opposite. The young players need that aspect etched into their game from the start

The question about Ville is whether he is spending time on the Moose learning to play better defensive hockey or he learning to be a better offensive Dman.
During his last time up (as short as it was), I didn't see any evidence of him working on his D game -

I agree that Mo has differing standards for rookies and vets - especially established, core vets. I agree it shouldn't be that way.
But he still needs to drive the rookies to a more all around game -

There are coaching issues at play here (player standards, etc) - again, I'm not defending Mo - in fact, I'd rather not turn every thread into a coaching debate with the blame (of course) falling on Mo.

I don't think coaching is the reason Ville isn't getting his opportunities - yet.

I disagree with the notion every player has to be great in both ends. He has to be good enough, which, is tough to measure but there are lots of great one dimensional players. Kfc completely elite, no one confuses him as good defensively. There are lots of great one dimensional d. No one considers pelech as good offensively.

 

[Adam da bomb]

I think Ville has been solid defensively from viewings and he doesn't spend much time in his end due to his retrieval and puck moving. Hard to judge or to really improve his one on one defensive play if you aren't defending much in your end.

He really will be at the point soon where he needs to be stretched by playing in the NHL to develop those aspects of his game.

If the standard is JoMo defense then imo that likely isn't in the cards for him but that doesn't mean that he can't be a very important contributor on the team. Moe uses offensive first dmen with ok defending in Schmidt and to a less extent Pionk so no reason he can't use Ville.

Only question is how many d can you use who aren’t good in his end. Not having Pionk we should have used Heinola. But I’d say having too many 1 dimensional players is a bad thing. That said I don’t think Heinola is bad defensively. Just doesn’t play d like demelo. Has different strengths like fast puck retrieval.

 

[LowLefty]

I disagree with the notion every player has to be great in both ends. He has to be good enough, which, is tough to measure but there are lots of great one dimensional players. Kfc completely elite, no one confuses him as good defensively. There are lots of great one dimensional d. No one considers pelech as good offensively.

I didn't say great -
KC is Elite - and he isn't a defensemen. Not saying he shouldn't have a defensive aspect to his game but his primary game is offense.
I'd like our dmen to have a solid defensive aspect to their game - I don't see it in Ville - yet.

 

[surixon]

Only question is how many d can you use who aren’t good in his end. Not having Pionk we should have used Heinola. But I’d say having too many 1 dimensional players is a bad thing. That said I don’t think Heinola is bad defensively. Just doesn’t play d like demelo. Has different strengths like fast puck retrieval.

I'm of the opinion I'd like one retrieval puck mover on each pairing and one more defensive minded suppression guy on each.

JoMo does both and Schmidt is more puck mover.

Pionk more puck mover, Dillion/Stanley suppression

Hienola puck retrieval/puck mover DeMelo supression

 

[Adam da bomb]

I didn't say great -
KC is Elite - and he isn't a defensemen. Not saying he shouldn't have a defensive aspect to his game but his primary game is offense.
I'd like our dmen to have a solid defensive aspect to their game - I don't see it in Ville - yet.

I think Heinola will be rough defensively when he starts but with demelo good enough and is great at puck retrieval. I think it’s smarter than playing beau to let him work the quirks during pionk’s absence. If you are worried run 7 d and get Heinola some minutes the 4th line plays 4 minutes would rather prepare for future. Give schief Ehlers pld kfc extra minutes if you have to.

 

[LowLefty]

I think Ville has been solid defensively from viewings and he doesn't spend much time in his end due to his retrieval and puck moving. Hard to judge or to really improve his one on one defensive play if you aren't defending much in your end.

He really will be at the point soon where he needs to be stretched by playing in the NHL to develop those aspects of his game.

If the standard is JoMo defense then imo that likely isn't in the cards for him but that doesn't mean that he can't be a very important contributor on the team. Moe uses offensive first dmen with ok defending in Schmidt and to a less extent Pionk so no reason he can't use Ville.

Ville was unable to handle the heavier NHL game in his end - he was defending "much" but wasn't very good at it.

Didn't say JoMo was the standard - but he did put a lot of work into defending.
Yes, Mo uses some offense first dmen - but they are also able to defend (at some level).
The weakest end of Schmidt's game is defense - but he's smart enough and experienced enough to make up for it.
Pionk has obviously worked hard to add D to his game including a physical game - is Ville showing any signs of doing that?

Ville will get his opportunity but I'm in no hurry to rush him into the line - especially if the expectation is that he will help our D at this point.

 

[Adam da bomb]

Ville was unable to handle the heavier NHL game in his end - he was defending "much" but wasn't very good at it.

Didn't say JoMo was the standard - but he did put a lot of work into defending.
Yes, Mo uses some offense first dmen - but they are also able to defend (at some level).
The weakest end of Schmidt's game is defense - but he's smart enough and experienced enough to make up for it.
Pionk has obviously worked hard to add D to his game including a physical game - is Ville showing any signs of doing that?

Ville will get his opportunity but I'm in no hurry to rush him into the line - especially if the expectation is that he will help our D at this point.

Only question does he hurt our d more than beau. I don’t think so.
Would a few games help with his development. I think so.

 

[Atoyot]

Heinola sent down.

 

[LowLefty]

Only question is how many d can you use who aren’t good in his end. Not having Pionk we should have used Heinola. But I’d say having too many 1 dimensional players is a bad thing. That said I don’t think Heinola is bad defensively. Just doesn’t play d like demelo. Has different strengths like fast puck retrieval.

I don't see fast puck retrieval as being a strength of Ville's - where are you seeing this?
What I do see is good puck movement once he has possession - but he need to be able to win those battles for possession.