Confirmed with Link: Jackets hire Dean Evason as head coach
- Thread starter CBJWerenski8
- Start date
-
ALL Pickem Pools are now open - NFL Survivor, NFL Pickem AND NHL Survivor Click here for info and to join a pool
Jovavic
Gaslight Object Project
I thought Pascal Vincent was generally a very thoughtful interview. He had a lot of interesting things to say that were not cliches. You strip out the cliches and he still had five minute answers! (which is fine for me).
His way of speaking is certainly not why he got fired. There may have been some tactical issues and the big problem obviously is that he didn't have the gravitas as a rookie head coach to deal with the massive dysfunction that is the Columbus Blue Jackets.
Evason for his part has some weight behind what he's saying, his passion and intensity is so clearly natural to him. But he's not a revealing interview. He has a depth to him that I'm confident we'll see in action but I've learned far more reading about him and what he does and how he treats people than I have learned listening to him talk.
His way of speaking is certainly not why he got fired. There may have been some tactical issues and the big problem obviously is that he didn't have the gravitas as a rookie head coach to deal with the massive dysfunction that is the Columbus Blue Jackets.
Evason for his part has some weight behind what he's saying, his passion and intensity is so clearly natural to him. But he's not a revealing interview. He has a depth to him that I'm confident we'll see in action but I've learned far more reading about him and what he does and how he treats people than I have learned listening to him talk.
Hes just an honest man. Listening to his interviews after being let go by Minnesota was refreshing and he'd say a lot of things most people are too scared to say
I watched that too and also read a piece about him going around town in Minny after he was fired, talking with all the regular people he'd normally see about town. What I was impressed by with that interview in Minny was not so much what he said but that he was willing to be open so soon after being fired. That tells you that he has a really good sense of himself, that he's not thrown into weeks of emotional tumult by being let go.
Very interesting stuff, thanks. We could talk about several aspects of the tactics presented in the article but for now I'd like to focus on the forecheck.A tactical preview of Dean Evason.
A Tactical Preview of Dean Evason
Up to this point, details on Dean Evason’s Blue Jackets haven’t been plentiful.pocketcbj.substack.com
If Evason is trying to apply similar aggressive forecheck style with Jackets forwards, I wonder which player combinations would work the best for a balanced lineup? (Yes, I know forward lines aren't assembled solely based on how players fit together in a certain forecheck structure but just for the sake of exercise, how would you put the lines together?)
I'd probably start with thinking who are the best straight line skaters and circle them as default F1 and F2. The default F3 could be a guy with solid shooting ability and defensive awareness, he doesn't have to be a relatively strong skater.
Gaudreau - Monahan - Fantilli
Chinakhov - Jenner - Marchenko
Johnson - Voronkov - Brindley
Olivier/Sillinger - Kuraly - Danforth
In this example, bolded names would be F3 and unbolded F1 & F2.
koteka
Registered User
I heard the Dean Machine (have we given him a nickname yet?) on the Inside Edge. He was talking about how he and his wife look forward to getting involved in Columbus. He seemed like they really want to be involved. Torts got involved with a few groups. I don’t know that the recent coaches did much, but COVID, short tenure, etc. He said his interests are golf and the theater.
A few notes on the tactics.
I'm wondering if Evason would want to do the defensive system they had in Minnesota, we might not have the horses for that. Loose man on man is a good system when the players are in sync with each other and read and react well. It's the opposite of the super conservative zone / box system we had last year. The biggest virtue of zone is that it is idiot proof. Players that can box out a big area like Gudbranson do well in it, they don't have to worry about getting lost in switching coverage. Do we have the guys to go for a loose man-on-man? And how similar would it be to the type of man on man we had under Larsen? I'm not sure.
On the D neutral zone play killing, that's obviously where we want to get to. I'll say though that our forwards have to get a lot better at backchecking, the D are not going to be confident enough to step up if the forwards aren't coming back fast enough. And this is what folks who think Monahan, Fantilli, and Sillinger should be our centers should think about. When you have centers that lack speed or lack defensive detail it keeps others from playing their position, in this case the D-men can't step up.
The Jackets haven't played a consistent forecheck in 4 years. We gave away those horses. I'm wondering if some of these guys might actually make good forecheckers, if we train them to do it. It's a team oriented thing where the F1 and F2 and F3 have to be in sync or the forecheck doesn't work, and you have to do it a lot to be good at it.
I can't think of a reason why Kirill Marchenko wouldn't be a good forechecker with added experience and team structure. Monahan, I get it, he's slow. KJ can do it if he gets faster, his puck thievery more than makes up for the lack of strength. Gaudreau is not going to be a good forechecker, that's why his line will likely carry it in more and rely on Gaudreau's great zone entry ability. Fantilli should be a great forechecker in short order. We'll see if Voronkov's endurance has improved, he's quicker than he looks but you probably don't want him F1 or F2 just because of the amount of ice he'd have to cover, if you're also asking him to be the defensive conscience on his line.
If I was using the lines that you have here, tunnelvision, I'd consider having the centers default to F3, if they happen to break out in a compatible way. Less ice for them to cover.
I'm wondering if Evason would want to do the defensive system they had in Minnesota, we might not have the horses for that. Loose man on man is a good system when the players are in sync with each other and read and react well. It's the opposite of the super conservative zone / box system we had last year. The biggest virtue of zone is that it is idiot proof. Players that can box out a big area like Gudbranson do well in it, they don't have to worry about getting lost in switching coverage. Do we have the guys to go for a loose man-on-man? And how similar would it be to the type of man on man we had under Larsen? I'm not sure.
On the D neutral zone play killing, that's obviously where we want to get to. I'll say though that our forwards have to get a lot better at backchecking, the D are not going to be confident enough to step up if the forwards aren't coming back fast enough. And this is what folks who think Monahan, Fantilli, and Sillinger should be our centers should think about. When you have centers that lack speed or lack defensive detail it keeps others from playing their position, in this case the D-men can't step up.
The Jackets haven't played a consistent forecheck in 4 years. We gave away those horses. I'm wondering if some of these guys might actually make good forecheckers, if we train them to do it. It's a team oriented thing where the F1 and F2 and F3 have to be in sync or the forecheck doesn't work, and you have to do it a lot to be good at it.
I can't think of a reason why Kirill Marchenko wouldn't be a good forechecker with added experience and team structure. Monahan, I get it, he's slow. KJ can do it if he gets faster, his puck thievery more than makes up for the lack of strength. Gaudreau is not going to be a good forechecker, that's why his line will likely carry it in more and rely on Gaudreau's great zone entry ability. Fantilli should be a great forechecker in short order. We'll see if Voronkov's endurance has improved, he's quicker than he looks but you probably don't want him F1 or F2 just because of the amount of ice he'd have to cover, if you're also asking him to be the defensive conscience on his line.
If I was using the lines that you have here, tunnelvision, I'd consider having the centers default to F3, if they happen to break out in a compatible way. Less ice for them to cover.
A box and one is not idiot proof at all. If people get out of sync or you dont get aggressive enough it can be dissected just like any other defense. I mean we saw it plenty last year, they would do ok at keeping shots to the outside and then eventually give up dangerous chances in bunches. You can also make the arguement that in a zone there are many questionable areas of thats your area or guys dont back you up when you expect it.
I never liked playing zones in sports and I dont like watching them. The funny thing about defense is hard work can get you a long way, will be on the staff to get guys working hard.
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,435
- 26,354
A defense being idiot proof doesn't mean it's impenetrable though, far from it actually. It just means that when they get shred to pieces, it's not because they were confused about their responsibilities
I don't know. It's been 25 years and Columbus still hasn't figured out how to run a successful NHL franchise.
JacketFanInFL
Brick by Brick
His resume wouldn't even get him an interview for an NHL assistant coaching position on any other team.
Except for the fact guys with far worse NHL careers than Jared Boll are coaches and GMs across the league.
One of the leagues best coaches, didn't even play professional hockey anywhere.
I don't mean to make the case that Boll is some amazing assistant or coach, just that unless you have some inside information that none of us do, we have zero insight or knowledge on how good or bad of a coach he is.
I guess you have to ask the question what are the variables coaches are being measured?
Obviously first and foremost - wins and losses, next would it be Goals Against (analytics) or the quality of players they are deploying, circumstances like injury, player relatability or all of the above?
But I agree some people are teachers and others are just great players. Very few have both, but being a great player in the NHL is not a prerequisite. However it is hard to imagine an assistant coach teaching skills but lacked some of these basic skills as a player.
Wins and losses and goals is what you're using if you have no idea what's going on.
A real evaluation of the coaching assistants would require in depth interviews with all of them and all of the players they've been working with. Ask the players what they've learned and who they learned it from.
JacketFanInFL
Brick by Brick
He was a Development coach, previously. The development hasn't been great. Then he was backdoor promoted or defaulted into an assistant role. Again, not seeing anything world breaking. This is the highest level of hockey on the planet and he's been on-the-job training the entire time.
The truth is a lot of folks are fans of him when he was a player because he fought a lot and they don't want to see him go.
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
The actual truth is that we're aware we have no way of evaluating what he's like as a coach and so are hesitant to blame him for everything on the basis of "well he wasn't a good hockey player so he's obviously not going to be a good coach either".
Iron Balls McGinty
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2005
- 9,059
- 7,119
While true, how many were given NHL coaching positions with no prior experience at any lower level? Boll jumped right out of playing into a development coach role and had never had a bench job at any professional level to gain any experience.
koteka
Registered User
I think the criticism of the assistant coaches is legitimate given the head coaching hires over the last few years were bad. Assistants seem to have been promoted based on proximity (Boll, Boumedienne) just like head coaches were promoted based on proximity (Larsen, Vincent).
I also feel like Vincent wasn’t secure enough in his roll (plus the whole timing thing) so he didn’t bring in a veteran Todd Richards type former coach who could have really helped him as a new head coach. So Boumedienne was an easy choice to promote after PV got the job because he was seen as a guy who wouldn’t be a threat to be a potential PV replacement.
I also feel like Vincent wasn’t secure enough in his roll (plus the whole timing thing) so he didn’t bring in a veteran Todd Richards type former coach who could have really helped him as a new head coach. So Boumedienne was an easy choice to promote after PV got the job because he was seen as a guy who wouldn’t be a threat to be a potential PV replacement.
that breakdown article said that kj and gaudreau would work really well together in this system, so i'd like to see something like:
johnson - monahan - gaudreau
jenner - fantilli - marchenko
voronkov - sillinger - chinakhov
danforth - kuraly - olivier
the third line sticks out as a relative weakness, but if they can pry mcgroarty out of winnipeg it'd look a lot better on paper with him as the 3LW and voronkov as the 3C.
the interesting thing about this is that the guy who least fits that description (recchi) is arguably the most glaring example of an assistant hire not working out.
he's a Respected Hockey Guy so i bet he sticks around this year, but he was ostensibly hired to do two things last year:
- fix the power play
- maximize output from stars + young skill guys
The no forecheck line. They can carry it in but I'd wonder about getting the puck back after shot attempts / loose pucks.
If you think it looks better with Voronkov at 3C, then why not do it now? There's nothing stopping you. Sillinger can play 3LW or 4C.
scoring lines can work while having relative deficiencies in other areas. and i'd still rather have monahan in that spot than jenner. there are also ways to keep possession after shot attempts/loose pucks without banging in the corners. all three guys on that line have great hockey sense and anticipation.
as it stands right now, i don't view sillinger as a super important roster piece moving forward. ideally he blossoms into a good 3C, but i tend to view him as a trade chip.
in either case, the org is best served by putting him in a position where he can succeed – either to help him become a contributor, or to increase his trade value. putting him on the wing or making him the 4C doesn't mesh with that imo, nor would he be any better in those roles than he would at 3C with two solid wingers.
Xoggz22
Registered User
I think that KJ line gets destroyed and could never start in the defensive zone. Without possession they have no chance of recovery. I could see them on the PP together when they can hold the puck and be creative but I'd really worry about 5v5. I think better balance (not perfect) is flipping Marchenko and KJ in this case. Someone on each line is going to need to do some grunt work. I don't see anyone on that line doing that. I also see Gaudreau and KJ as similar players (play makers, not shooters) so, again, for me, my preference would be to have a shooter on that line to let the creative ones make the plays to the shooter. Heck, I think you could put Voronkov on that line and that would provide some nice balance.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: Off-season/July 1st Free Agent frenzy thread-Is Joey Crabb still available?- Latest: FinlandPanther
