Player Discussion: Heinola Thread

[LowLefty]

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.

defensively, yes he does - IMO

 

[Adam da bomb]

defensively, yes he does - IMO

I have not watched many moose games but based on the moose thread he is exactly what the team needed. He’s been sent down, so I’m guessing pionk will be back soon so all good.

 

[BoneDocUK]

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.

Not a chance that he does once he settles in, IMO. On any assignment.

But I don't think we see Ville in a game this year without further significant injuries. Given the choice between him and Beaulieu, there's zero chance Maurice goes for the unproven rookie with upside. That's why some were advocating that he not have that choice -- but here we are.

Anyway, ‘tis the season for optimism, so here's hoping that Heinola finds work to do in the A for another 4-5 months and manages to convince the Jets powers that be that he's ready in 2021-22, and that Beaulieu rewards the faith the org has shown in him as the Jets make their playoff push.

 

[JetsFan815]

Heinola sent down.

Hopefully this means Pionk is looking healthy. I can't watch much more Beaulieu in top 6 and Stanley in the top-4.

 

[Adam da bomb]

Hopefully this means Pionk is looking healthy. I can't watch much more Beaulieu in top 6 and Stanley in the top-4.

We need to bring back chariot

 

[10Ducky10]

Stanimal is not ready for a 2nd pairing role. I'm not sure if he ever will be but I'm more than happy having him on the 3rd pairing.

The mistake Maurice made was not moving DD up to play with Dillon and letting Boolow and Stanimal play some somewhat sheltered minutes and PK.

 

[DRW204]

Bank account is fatter, tried some nhl popcorn. All is well!

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

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...

I don't like that you can know people so well simply by identifying a few key traits and then binning them by type. Not saying it isn't useful to be able to do so. Just that I don't like it.

Good post.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

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.

In fairness, there seems to be quite a few who believe he is coach for life - so immune to criticism.

Indirectly on topic. Heinola has been sent back to the Moose without getting into a game. Criticism of Moe based on that should be fair game. No?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

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.

If the bolded is correct then why has Kovacevic not been played ahead of Beaulieu and Gus ahead of Nash, etc? It may work to explain why Heinola doesn't get an opportunity, but he is not the only one. For that matter Cole P is supposed to be pretty good in all zones and might really help our PP.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

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.

I think it is all about trust. Its a bit of a mystery how he decides who to trust and who not to. It isn't all about vetiness, or physicality, 200 ft game, etc. It almost seems as though it is some small bit of play. Some big event that he either likes or dislikes and a player gets type cast. Then it takes a very large body of work to turn that around, either way.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

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.

If he is doing things wrong in the A .... and succeeding in spite of it, it is like practicing doing it wrong and embedding the flaws deeply into 'his' game.

 

[FonRiesen]

I don't like that you can know people so well simply by identifying a few key traits and then binning them by type. Not saying it isn't useful to be able to do so. Just that I don't like it.

Good post.

Well, people using the same cognitive functions can show up VERY differently, do different things, and live unique lives. But the patterns lie in the way they gather data (what they notice and what they value), and their criteria for decisions. Two identical types may make different decisions because their context is different, but they will often understand each other and respect each others' decisions since it will 'make sense' to each other. Opposite types... That's where we get most of the arguments in this forum from...


For Maurice, I've been studying him for years. There are some people that are pretty good at knowing people instinctively, but I tend to have to work hard to process data and extrapolate. But I've found that once I understand someone's type, I have a lot more grace in conflicts with them! Because most of us aren't trying to just be annoying to each other (most of the time)!

 

[tbcwpg]

In fairness, there seems to be quite a few who believe he is coach for life - so immune to criticism.

Indirectly on topic. Heinola has been sent back to the Moose without getting into a game. Criticism of Moe based on that should be fair game. No?

There's a difference between feeling he'll be coach for life so he's immune to criticism from management and ownership, and implying that the fans, especially ones on this board, feel he's immune to criticism. It was clearly a "how do Maurice lovers feel about this?" type of thing.

As to your point about Heinola, again, I've seen no one suggest the contrary so my original point applies.

 

[BoneDocUK]

PLD Papa talks specifically about Villes recent play here, cued to the spot:

 

[Mud Turtle]

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...

Thank you for this excellent post. Fascinating and I agree with you 100%. Maurice cannot see past the current game and it continues to hurt this team immensely. Thank you for putting into words and explaining what’s so many people here have been trying to say for a long time now.

 

[FonRiesen]

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.

I wonder if it's even possible for Heinola to become "ready to handle the heavier NHL game" by playing in the A - he isn't really challenged much at the AHL level anymore from my viewings (though I haven't been able to watch many games live), and as you say, it's not as intense (though I'd suggest the bigger difference between leagues is the speed, which correlates in some ways to 'heavier', I guess).

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I wonder if it's even possible for Heinola to become "ready to handle the heavier NHL game" by playing in the A - he isn't really challenged much at the AHL level anymore from my viewings (though I haven't been able to watch many games live), and as you say, it's not as intense (though I'd suggest the bigger difference between leagues is the speed, which correlates in some ways to 'heavier', I guess).

He will need to adjust, just like he adjusted to the A. He can't do that without playing.

 

[LowLefty]

I wonder if it's even possible for Heinola to become "ready to handle the heavier NHL game" by playing in the A - he isn't really challenged much at the AHL level anymore from my viewings (though I haven't been able to watch many games live), and as you say, it's not as intense (though I'd suggest the bigger difference between leagues is the speed, which correlates in some ways to 'heavier', I guess).

PLD Papa talks specifically about Villes recent play here, cued to the spot:

Thanks for this -
Great to hear that he is working on the defensive side of his game
Even better that he realizes it is an area he needs to work on.
The fact that the coach discussed it at length is also a positive - they are obviously working with him on this area of his game.

Ville's comment that he doesn't necessarily understand why the coach is praising his game when he didn't add points, is tell tale - that's the learning curve that will help his game and more opportunity to move up.

 

[surixon]

If he is doing things wrong in the A .... and succeeding in spite of it, it is like practicing doing it wrong and embedding the flaws deeply into 'his' game.

He isn't doing anything wrong he just is playing to his strengths which I think is how you'd want every player to play.

Do you want him to stop doing the things he's good at so that he spends more time in his end and works on areas that he needs some work on.

 

[LowLefty]

He isn't doing anything wrong he just is playing to his strengths which I think is how you'd want every player to play.

Do you want him to stop doing the things he's good at so that he spends more time in his end and works on areas that he needs some work on.

No, you don't want him to stop being good offensively - why would he have to do that?
I don't think working on a weakness means you stop being good at the stuff you are already good at.
Maybe I'm missing a pce of the discussion -

 

[surixon]

No, you don't want him to stop being good offensively - why would he have to do that?
I don't think working on a weakness means you stop being good at the stuff you are already good at.
Maybe I'm missing a pce of the discussion -

The piece I think your missing is that it's hard for him to really work on boxing players out, breaking up cycles etc when he doesn't spend much time in his end so there is less chance for repetition on learning these skills. His strengths allow him to retrieve and move the puck out of his end quickly so he doesn't often have situations where the other team has a lot of zone time.

He also isn't playing super aggressive in the ozone. He's picking his spots and being fairly conservative when the situation calls for it so that he's not putting the team in a situation where there is an odd man break against.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

He isn't doing anything wrong he just is playing to his strengths which I think is how you'd want every player to play.

Do you want him to stop doing the things he's good at so that he spends more time in his end and works on areas that he needs some work on.

You are missing my point. It can be doing things wrong, or it can be the absence of doing things right. Either way it is a result of being left in the A too long. He needs to move up to tougher competition to get better.

He may be doing many little things less than optimally, he isn't perfect. But in the A he still succeeds.

Yes, I do want him to concentrate on his weaknesses. I don't care if the Moose win or lose. That doesn't mean abandoning doing the things he is good at. But mostly, I want him to play in the NHL ahead of Beaulieu.

 

[Howard Chuck]

I wonder if it's even possible for Heinola to become "ready to handle the heavier NHL game" by playing in the A - he isn't really challenged much at the AHL level anymore from my viewings (though I haven't been able to watch many games live), and as you say, it's not as intense (though I'd suggest the bigger difference between leagues is the speed, which correlates in some ways to 'heavier', I guess).

Reminds me of my mother telling me I couldn't go in the water until I learned how to swim.....

 

[Jet]

Reminds me of my mother telling me I couldn't go in the water until I learned how to swim.....

The NHL is not a swimming pool