Paul Maurice "State of the Union"

[Whileee]

I don't think anyone has to be thrown under the bus. There are many ways to address team issues without lying or a complete lack of logical consistency. If we assume they aren't lying well you know where that leads. It's ****ing hockey not national security. The weird media charade should have been left in the 80's.

Maurice lives with and works with his team intensely for most of the year. He has a unique relationship with them that matters in terms of how they function as a team. Maybe he could be more forthcoming if the media didn't blow up every hint at discord into a big case. You don't address team issues publicly. He's not different from most other good coaches.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the current fashion of everyone "telling it like it is". There is still a place for subtlety and decorum in public discourse. At least I hope there is. Most of my least favourite people pride themselves on "telling it like it is", and "not putting up with BS". They're kind of amusing for a while, but it wears thin pretty quickly.

In any case, I'm still not sure what you heard in that interview that you thought was "elaborate BS".

 

[surixon]

"I like the group," Cheveldayoff said.
"I like the core."
"We’re getting an opportunity now to try
to keep some guys together."

Chevy's post season press conference last year.

Well did you expect him to say:

We got our ### kicked in by the Ducks. We can't win with these guys so we have to get rid of them and bring in our youth. Fans we are going to suck this year.

Also what he said about liking the group and keeling sone of them was likely true seeing as most of the group is still on the team.

 

[cheswick]

Maurice lives with and works with his team intensely for most of the year. He has a unique relationship with them that matters in terms of how they function as a team. Maybe he could be more forthcoming if the media didn't blow up every hint at discord into a big case. You don't address team issues publicly. He's not different from most other good coaches.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the current fashion of everyone "telling it like it is". There is still a place for subtlety and decorum in public discourse. At least I hope there is. Most of my least favourite people pride themselves on "telling it like it is", and "not putting up with BS". They're kind of amusing for a while, but it wears thin pretty quickly.

In any case, I'm still not sure what you heard in that interview that you thought was "elaborate BS".

Maurice is a good coach? I think over the course of his career his shown to be an average coach.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the current fashion of everyone "telling it like it is". There is still a place for subtlety and decorum in public discourse.

That reminds me. I've been meaning to tell you I think your ass is getting fatter.

 

[CaptainChef]

just loading up the interview to listen to it in full, caught about half of it on the drive home.

The talk about the team and young guys and what not seemed ok, though i'm not as enamored with it as some.

My primary concern was wit how he framed his answers around ehlers and goaltending.

While the Ehlers answer was generally glowing/positive, the things that fired warning bells in my head was a number of statements that seemed to be pretty much at odds with what analytic numbers were telling us.

Essentially

A) seems oblivious to the "thorburn effect" and had a number of statements that felt like he didn't realize how positive Ehlers influence had been prior. He felt concerned with Ehlers play once the scoring stopped, but Ehlers was still generating a whallop of chances and opportunities and being a positive possession guy, he just wasn't getting lucky. That's a flag for me as it really seemed like interpreting some swings in sh% as a player "struggling".

B) The goal tending answer. Now i haven't heard the whole section yet, just caught the clips they replayed on the big show but i did not come away from that with any sort of confidence. We got the same old answers trotted out about Pavy having a career year a year ago, and about the team not being good enough in front of him defensively, and finally, what seems like an extreme hesitance to trust a young tender.

I guess my main issue here is there was 3 big statements in there that are diametrically opposed to what analytics tells us:

Nik Ehlers has been damn good at hockey since he came in and should never have been banished to the thorburn line

Defensive system play is absolute bullocks as for evaluating your 29 year-old goal tender.

NHL teams and GM's are actually TOO hesitant to try new younger goalies: research has been showing tenders to likely peak as young as 22-24, years/ages that are most frequently spent in the minors.

The interview wasn't all bad, and there was some good things that I caught, and I'm ok with their picked direction to rebuild around the young guys.

I liked his takes on Scheif, Petan, Ehlers (for the most part) lots of this seemed real good.

There's just a couple things he keeps saying that drive me up the wall as they run very counter to modern information, which is made all the more confounding as Maurice does reference analytic's quite a bit and SEEMS on the up and up.

Yep, with you all the way. Sure he can't be throwing guys under the bus, but man his use of players like Throbs & Stu (when there are better alternatives already here & on the Moose) suggests that there is definitely a disconnect there. Ehlers, for sure, got kicked in the teeth by the Thorburn effects as did Petan. We'll see how he deals with Thorbs & Stu next year, but I don't think Mo has it yet.

Point 2 that I wanted to object with was a need to go basically all in because we did so poorly in the playoffs. We did not do crappy in the POs. We were the walking wounded - terribly beat up. We had the sieve in goal doing just enough to keep his save % below .900 & letting in backbreakers in the third with regularity.

I've said it before & I'll maintain -- we had a dang good team. There was no need for a complete refocus. Yes, we needed a better goalie, we needed to rejig a few players (mostly the ones we keep talking about - Stu, Thorbs, etc), & we needed to hang onto enough players so we didn't beat up our top 6 & 9 with ridiculous minutes.

To say the core was never going to get us there -- who the heck did we need to really get rid of beyond the big 3 (Pavs, Stu, Thorbs). Ladd, OK good move because he wanted too much for too long. But the move to go young that fast & dump players that we had paid a premium to get for the PO run - MISTAKE. They can paint it however they want, it was too much, too soon & the wrong players were let go.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

Joining this discussion late, but the Wheeler comments REALLY make me wonder about Wheels being the C choice of the future. I've always thought he was a little too forthrite for the job & that's sort of what Maurice says there.

I interpreted it the same way. For me, this is the first real bit of doubt cast on Wheels being given the C.

 

[pucka lucka]

Maurice lives with and works with his team intensely for most of the year. He has a unique relationship with them that matters in terms of how they function as a team. Maybe he could be more forthcoming if the media didn't blow up every hint at discord into a big case. You don't address team issues publicly. He's not different from most other good coaches.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the current fashion of everyone "telling it like it is". There is still a place for subtlety and decorum in public discourse. At least I hope there is. Most of my least favourite people pride themselves on "telling it like it is", and "not putting up with BS". They're kind of amusing for a while, but it wears thin pretty quickly.

In any case, I'm still not sure what you heard in that interview that you thought was "elaborate BS".

I am not sure why you keep trying to misrepresenting what I said, please stop it. Creating false dichotomies is not cool either. I said you don't have to lie or mislead. I didn't say anything about your oddly quoted phrases e.g telling is like it is. Are you quoting someone?

These guys are dinosaurs in dealing with the media. When we have access to advanced analytics, in some cases more easily do, it makes it pretty easy to verify what they say, so why bother trying to hoodwink anyone?

 

[tbcwpg]

Yep, with you all the way. Sure he can't be throwing guys under the bus, but man his use of players like Throbs & Stu (when there are better alternatives already here & on the Moose) suggests that there is definitely a disconnect there. Ehlers, for sure, got kicked in the teeth by the Thorburn effects as did Petan. We'll see how he deals with Thorbs & Stu next year, but I don't think Mo has it yet.

To say the core was never going to get us there -- who the heck did we need to really get rid of beyond the big 3 (Pavs, Stu, Thorbs). Ladd, OK good move because he wanted too much for too long. But the move to go young that fast & dump players that we had paid a premium to get for the PO run - MISTAKE. They can paint it however they want, it was too much, too soon & the wrong players were let go.

I think the team was not as good as they seemed last year.

A) 13 loser points - the next closest in the West was 10 (Nashville), and even that 10 is an outlier. This was a record season for the Jets, and even despite that, if it wasn't for borderline comic ineptitude from the Kings in the shootout (15 loser points, I think they only won once in the shootout/OT), they'd be out. Not to mention the Jets doing fairly well in OT games (36 ROWs was the lowest of all 16 playoff teams and a few teams that didn't make it).

B) The goaltending obviously was very good down the stretch and pulled the team in. 3 straight shut-outs in games where the team was not good - I think there was a 1-0 win in there, and a shootout loss.

C) They played a style that they couldn't maintain - numerous injuries during the season, and a lot of injuries revealed after losing Game 4.

So you look at all that as a management group, and you say "Well, we probably overperformed last season". Do you slowly decline over 2 years and tank eventually, or do you just say "Screw it, we're going as young as we can"?

Also, Maurice's use of Stuart this year has declined lately. Before his injury, he was really leaning on the top 4, and the bottom pair sat a lot on the bench. Stuart was also removed from the PK. I don't have a reasonable explanation for Thorburn.

 

[Whileee]

"I like the group," Cheveldayoff said.
"I like the core."
"We’re getting an opportunity now to try
to keep some guys together."

Chevy's post season press conference last year.

You've really misrepresented the context and the nature of Chevy's answer.

Folks can go back and listen for themselves.... http://illegalcurve.com/2015/04/24/winnipeg-jets-gm-kevin-cheveldayoff-end-of-season-press-conference-3/

Chevy was asked directly whether with free agency he was going to keep the group together.

His answer was quite guarded. He said that he needed to meet with the players and discuss with management. He did say "you know I like this group".

He said he'd like to "keep as much of the group together as he can", but "obviously there's going to be some change given the amount of players and transitions that we've made plus we have some guys in the organization that could be knocking on the door. But to put a number on who or what yet, there's still a lot of work that goes in, but you know I like the group and if we can keep a good portion together, that's important".

Later in answering a specific question about Ladd and Buff, he actually started by saying that they needed to analyze things, including the future salary cap, but then did say that he would like to try to keep those guys and the group together. But in retrospect, I think it's obvious that he was already contemplating the possibility of not signing both of them, while keeping open a positive atmosphere for negotiations.

 

[CaptainChef]

I think he expects sophisticated fans to figure out which is BS, and which isn't.

I don't think it's very difficult, actually. It doesn't "insult" me at all, and I think I'm a pretty "educated listener" (well, very "educated", but maybe not everyone would agree with the "listener" part).

[mod]

But his actions don't meet his goals. Playing Stu in the top 4 & neutering Trouba until we were basically out of contention. Playing Thorbs like he did and essentially neutering our best skill prospects (once he had finished Petan off he switched to Ehlers). Those are counterproductive moves that he does not need to do, but he keeps going back to those guys & making those same mistakes.

Sure, I don't believe all I hear from Mo, but he sounds like a smart man ... until you see the personnel decisions he makes. If he can pull back the reigns on the Pavs, Thorbs & Stu next season and do it right from the start (not after the season is half over), then I'll be willing to give Mo his due, but not until he shows me with his actions.

 

[Ducky10]

Telling it like it is can get old if it has no purpose and isn't constructive. Doublespeak and rhetoric are always useless and repetitive.

 

[Ducky10]

I think he expects sophisticated fans to figure out which is BS, and which isn't.

I don't think it's very difficult, actually. It doesn't "insult" me at all, and I think I'm a pretty "educated listener" (well, very "educated", but maybe not everyone would agree with the "listener" part).

[mod]

I don't think there is as much nuance in Maurice's talks as you seem to think

 

[pegjets]

I don't see much surprise in his goal-tending comments - nothing new was said. He doesn't want to rush Helle (that's been said). He also said on another occasion that if Helle is called up, it's to play as a starter not as a backup (for development), as such why he was sent back to the Moose.

The two things that jumped out for me were:

1. He downplayed the PP issues and didn't provide much clarity on route cause. He cited the NJ example (poor PP, winning the cup), but that's not very representative from the average team.

2. He alluded that the two main reasons for the bad PK was weaker goaltending (inferred that goaltending on the PK was great last year) and the loss of Frolik. He seems to be putting his stock in Lowry to become the PKer to rely on.

3. He criticized Wheeler for talking to the media right after the game all wired up. He said to the effect it was great for the media but not what he prefers. I'm guessing he values a more reserved approach to players talking to the media.

4. He seemed a little defensive when questions were asked about Ehlers pairings (i.e. playing him with Thorburn/Lowry).

For me, PoMo's area if biggest criticism in terms of roster selection/placement is not goaltending (we have who we have, and I don't disagree with his approach with Helle so far) but his use of the lower six and Stuart on D. I've yet to see the media actually ask him a frank question on his use of Thorburn/Stuart (not that I think we'll get much more than a cliche).

 

[Whileee]

I am not sure why you keep trying to misrepresenting what I said, please stop it. Creating false dichotomies is not cool either. I said you don't have to lie or mislead. I didn't say anything about your oddly quoted phrases e.g telling is like it is. Are you quoting someone?

These guys are dinosaurs in dealing with the media. When we have access to advanced analytics, in some cases more easily do, it makes it pretty easy to verify what they say, so why bother trying to hoodwink anyone?

My apologies if I've misrepresented what you've said. It would help if you point out how I've misrepresented your perspective. I thought you would like NHL coaches and GMs to be much more blunt, rather than couching their communications.

Personally, I like the entertainment value of a guy like Burke who "tells it like it is"*. But I don't particularly admire that trait more than someone who speaks more tactfully.

I don't like a lot of the decisions Maurice makes, but I have no problem with his interviews.

* I was using scare quotes, as in the previous post. I wasn't trying to quote you.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes)

 

[Puckatron 3000]

Guys...

This has been one of the best threads I've read here in a long time. Can we try, just once, to play nice?

Also I get that there are folks who don't like Maurice. And you won't get much argument from me over his play of Stu in the past. Still, we've had a couple years to argue over that stuff. It'd be cool if we could talk about the super interesting interview, even if you disagree with what he said. That's a lot more fun and fresh than the same old holy wars we've fought for ages.

 

[gbill2004*]

Before the interview, I thought it was about 90/10 Wheeler gets the C over Schiefele. After the interview I think its 50/50.

Also interesting the part about veterans wanting Ehlers playing on their line. He has arrived.

 

[Whileee]

[mod]

I don't think there is as much nuance in Maurice's talks as you seem to think

I don't think there's that much nuance in what Maurice says. I've been saying that I think it's pretty easy to figure out what he means, as long as you understand that you can't take everything literally.

I was responding to someone who made it clear that uneducated fans would "gobble up" what Maurice was saying. I used scare quotes around the term "educated" in referring to myself, implying that others might not agree.

 

[Whileee]

Guys...

This has been one of the best threads I've read here in a long time. Can we try, just once, to play nice?

Also I get that there are folks who don't like Maurice. And you won't get much argument from me over his play of Stu in the past. Still, we've had a couple years to argue over that stuff. It'd be cool if we could talk about the super interesting interview, even if you disagree with what he said. That's a lot more fun and fresh than the same old holy wars we've fought for ages.

Agreed. Pretty much everyone agrees about Stu and Thorbs.

 

[Whileee]

I don't see much surprise in his goal-tending comments - nothing new was said. He doesn't want to rush Helle (that's been said). He also said on another occasion that if Helle is called up, it's to play as a starter not as a backup (for development), as such why he was sent back to the Moose.

The two things that jumped out for me were:

1. He downplayed the PP issues and didn't provide much clarity on route cause. He cited the NJ example (poor PP, winning the cup), but that's not very representative from the average team.

2. He alluded that the two main reasons for the bad PK was weaker goaltending (inferred that goaltending on the PK was great last year) and the loss of Frolik. He seems to be putting his stock in Lowry to become the PKer to rely on.

3. He criticized Wheeler for talking to the media right after the game all wired up. He said to the effect it was great for the media but not what he prefers. I'm guessing he values a more reserved approach to players talking to the media.

4. He seemed a little defensive when questions were asked about Ehlers pairings (i.e. playing him with Thorburn/Lowry).

For me, PoMo's area if biggest criticism in terms of roster selection/placement is not goaltending (we have who we have, and I don't disagree with his approach with Helle so far) but his use of the lower six and Stuart on D. I've yet to see the media actually ask him a frank question on his use of Thorburn/Stuart (not that I think we'll get much more than a cliche).

Good summary. He's said that before about the importance of the PK. I'm not sure whether that pans out statistically, but it's an interesting perspective.

He mentioned that the Jets didn't have any "natural PKers". I would have been interested to know what he means by that. I think it has to do with instincts and reaction and understanding space. Interesting that he obviously doesn't think Little and Ladd are "natural" PKers. Maybe he used them because he didn't have other options.

I agree about the questions. Would have liked them to ask more specifically about Stuart and Thorbs, and what he sees as their value / role on the team. Opportunity lost. We can fill in all of the gaps on that one here.

 

[gbill2004*]

I don't see much surprise in his goal-tending comments - nothing new was said. He doesn't want to rush Helle (that's been said). He also said on another occasion that if Helle is called up, it's to play as a starter not as a backup (for development), as such why he was sent back to the Moose.

The two things that jumped out for me were:

1. He downplayed the PP issues and didn't provide much clarity on route cause. He cited the NJ example (poor PP, winning the cup), but that's not very representative from the average team.

2. He alluded that the two main reasons for the bad PK was weaker goaltending (inferred that goaltending on the PK was great last year) and the loss of Frolik. He seems to be putting his stock in Lowry to become the PKer to rely on.

3. He criticized Wheeler for talking to the media right after the game all wired up. He said to the effect it was great for the media but not what he prefers. I'm guessing he values a more reserved approach to players talking to the media.

4. He seemed a little defensive when questions were asked about Ehlers pairings (i.e. playing him with Thorburn/Lowry).

For me, PoMo's area if biggest criticism in terms of roster selection/placement is not goaltending (we have who we have, and I don't disagree with his approach with Helle so far) but his use of the lower six and Stuart on D. I've yet to see the media actually ask him a frank question on his use of Thorburn/Stuart (not that I think we'll get much more than a cliche).

He wasn't defensive at all. He was correcting Hustler for a factual error in the question on who Ehlers has been on lines with this season.

 

[Jimby]

Maurice left himself an opening to keep Thor. When asked about all the young skilled players perhaps upgrading the bottom 6 he made a comment about having a lesser skilled guy down there can often win games for you.

 

[pucka lucka]

My apologies if I've misrepresented what you've said. It would help if you point out how I've misrepresented your perspective. I thought you would like NHL coaches and GMs to be much more blunt, rather than couching their communications.

Personally, I like the entertainment value of a guy like Burke who "tells it like it is"*. But I don't particularly admire that trait more than someone who speaks more tactfully.

I don't like a lot of the decisions Maurice makes, but I have no problem with his interviews.

* I was using scare quotes, as in the previous post. I wasn't trying to quote you.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes)

Burke doesn't really tell it like it is though, he just talks loudly and authoritatively. I am not talking about style, I am talking about content. It is possible to talk about hockey without lying, contradicting, or patronizing.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

I wonder if the rationale for playing an elite rookie with a "plug" might be to force them to simplify their game. Which may be easier playing with a "simple" player on a bottom line. Break down all the bad habits first, then build the player back up with other better players once the proper NHL fundamentals are established.

We all tend to focus so much on success being defined by points for a rookie like Ehlers. But sometimes the path to sucess involves mastering the simplest things before moving on.

Like in karate kid where he had to wash decks and paint fences before learning how to block and punch. Kinda joking with that, but kinda not.

 

[pucka lucka]

Maurice left himself an opening to keep Thor. When asked about all the young skilled players perhaps upgrading the bottom 6 he made a comment about having a lesser skilled guy down there can often win games for you.

This is the nonsense I am talking about. How exactly does having worse players help you win games? WHy even say that? WHy not say, he's been a great pro for us since I've been here, I'm sure Chris will challenge these young guys and compete for ice time like every NHL player does. No bus death, no lies.

 

[pucka lucka]

I wonder if the rationale for playing an elite rookie with a "plug" might be to force them to simplify their game. Which may be easier playing with a "simple" player on a bottom line. Break down all the bad habits first, then build the player back up with other better players once the proper NHL fundamentals are established.

We all tend to focus so much on success being defined by points for a rookie like Ehlers. But sometimes the path to sucess involves mastering the simplest things before moving on.

Like in karate kid where he had to wash decks and paint fences before learning how to block and punch. Kinda joking with that, but kinda not.

That's what I do when I buy a high end electronics, how can I make this Marantz sound like my old RCA 8-Track. Do we make PhD's in Math take jobs counting widgets?