Predators Hockey Discussion 22-23

[herzausstein]

Is forsberg close and playing tomorrow? Cant find any information here

Wouldnt need to waive Jankowski to make way for forsberg or carrier. Both are still on active roster.

Either calling up someone else, boro coming off ir, trading for someone, or novak threatened to stop scoring if they did another paper transaction on him

 

[Nhlpowerweek]

Wouldnt need to waive Jankowski to make way for forsberg or carrier. Both are still on active roster.

Either calling up someone else, boro coming off ir, trading for someone, or novak threatened to stop scoring if they did another paper transaction on him

Interesting. And kind of weird that no news nore nothing on forsberg today...

 

[AintLifeGrand]

It's way past time to start this conversation.

its way best time to start the convo of trading Josi while he is at his peak

 

[herzausstein]

I've been in the same boat. I've let most of my frustrations be heard via Twitter.

I commented to a friend the other day, rip all the Captain's patches off everyone and say, earn it. Best 3 players from the previous game get to wear the C and A's. Rotate it. Make them earn their ice time. I'd say, best 9 forwards are playing tonight. Show me you want your ice time.

At this point, Hynes is on the verge or has lost the room. It's not like he can lose it anymore. Tired of the vets crying and then not producing.

I saw a tweet the other day saying, name a player who could have their number retired who wasn't a big name/salaried/point producing player but represented what the Preds are. First name I responded with was Yachmenev, as a joke obviously. Then the more I thought about it, it's easily Tootoo. While he wasn't an offensive juggernaut, he could get the team and crowd into the game with bone crushing hits. And here comes the Smith comparison. Tootoo was a better offensive contributor and while he didn't play the PK, he brought value as a true 4th line grinder/energy guy. The arena came alive when he hit the ice. Jeannot is the only one that brings this level of physicality today and even then, he's been reserved most of this year, not sure why.

All this to say, you play if you produce. The way to produce is through hustle.


Perceived trade value is my guess. You're not going to get a lot for Joey at this point, you put him in the press box, you're sending a 1st or 2nd along with him to move his salary.

I mean.... you are going to have to send a 1st anyways to get rid of an 8M contract when the player has been a 40 point player 3 of the last 4 seasons (counting this one because unless Joey goes on one heck of a heater he will be in the 35-45 point range)

 

[AintLifeGrand]

I mean.... you are going to have to send a 1st anyways to get rid of an 8M contract when the player has been a 40 point player 3 of the last 4 seasons (counting this one because unless Joey goes on one heck of a heater he will be in the 35-45 point range)

Tommy Novak is playing at a 57 pt pace- which is basically within 10% of Johansens best season with us and Hynes only plays him 12 min a night

Johansen is dead weight… i would be in favor of a buy out

 

[LeighDx59]

I mean, where does Poile really think were at right now?

If im not mistaken, this is year two of that "competitive retool" he was talking about, so im not losing my mind over the fact that were not contenders and are about where we expected to be. However, I am hoping Poile is seeing whats not working. Hynes has gotta go, his system doesnt work and he's losing the room, so Hynes has to be gone before next season. You could also shake things up. I think Johansen s movable if you retain a few millon to make it happen. Its only for two seasons, and you'd actually get picks back for him. Granlund is movable, I'd see how Trenin is feeling given how bad contract negotiations have been, and if it doesnt sound good, ship him off too. Ship some players off and let the younger players finish out the season and go from there.

But again, the main thing is Hynes cannot be here next season. Right now? doesnt matter, because its late enough in the season that bringing in a new coach could hurt any play on a higher pick. But next season should be a clean slate. Its frustrating because on paper, this maybe one of the best teams talent wise that we've had, especially offensively. The fact that weve as bad as we have this season is on Hynes.

 

[predwings]

Tommy Novak is playing at a 57 pt pace- which is basically within 10% of Johansens best season with us and Hynes only plays him 12 min a night

Johansen is dead weight… i would be in favor of a buy out

Definitely a no to a buyout. We should've learned from the Turris buyout that it would be better to just ride out the rest of the contract or retain and dump him for nothing. More cap hurt for 2 years but not a cap hit for 6-8 years.

 

[nine_inch_fang]

I really hate to get stuck on this and sound like I'm defending Hynes because I'm truly not, but, there is nothing "wrong" with the "system". It's actually a widely used concept on both sides of the puck (variations on a theme of courses, since no two coaches are exactly the same) not to mention the forecheck is one of the most aggressive in the league.

What we're seeing is a failure of executing a plan on the ice. How you divide blame for that failure is up to you.

Edit:

How do you explain the difference in results from the "big guns" on PP1 to PP1 without them or PP2? It's the same damn coach with drastically different results. Even last year when PP1 had great overall results they still went through periods when they would fall into the bad habits of standing still, not moving the puck fast enough, and being down right bad.

 

[AintLifeGrand]

I really hate to get stuck on this and sound like I'm defending Hynes because I'm truly not, but, there is nothing "wrong" with the "system". It's actually a widely used concept on both sides of the puck (variations on a theme of courses, since no two coaches are exactly the same) not to mention the forecheck is one of the most aggressive in the league.

What we're seeing is a failure of executing a plan on the ice. How you divide blame for that failure is up to you.

Edit:

How do you explain the difference in results from the "big guns" on PP1 to PP1 without them or PP2? It's the same damn coach with drastically different results. Even last year when PP1 had great overall results they still went through periods when they would fall into the bad habits of standing still, not moving the puck fast enough, and being down right bad.

hynes’ biggest issue is nepotism and personnel decisions

 

[sparkle twin]

Interesting. And kind of weird that no news nore nothing on forsberg today...

We haven't seen any reports that he's even been back at practice yet (and they were off today) , so don't count on seeing him playing any time soon.

 

[Nhlpowerweek]

We haven't seen any reports that he's even been back at practice yet (and they were off today) , so don't count on seeing him playing any time soon.

Oh f*** sire. That is just wrong. Yall need him, hard. Lets see and follow life now

 

[Scoresberg]

I really hate to get stuck on this and sound like I'm defending Hynes because I'm truly not, but, there is nothing "wrong" with the "system". It's actually a widely used concept on both sides of the puck (variations on a theme of courses, since no two coaches are exactly the same) not to mention the forecheck is one of the most aggressive in the league.

What we're seeing is a failure of executing a plan on the ice. How you divide blame for that failure is up to you.

Edit:

How do you explain the difference in results from the "big guns" on PP1 to PP1 without them or PP2? It's the same damn coach with drastically different results. Even last year when PP1 had great overall results they still went through periods when they would fall into the bad habits of standing still, not moving the puck fast enough, and being down right bad.

I disagree. The Preds do deploy an aggressive forecheck, but sometimes it feels like they deploy only for the sake of it. They like to finish all checks especially in the offensive zone but often that's not the smart play to do. You're getting left behind the play when it starts to move to the other end of the ice, and yes you're taking out one defender from their side as well but it's the team on the offense that benefits from having 4-on-4 rush rather than a 5-on-5.

Take a look at Carolina. They have the most aggressive forecheck in the league and they have their "forward defense" system in place. They have the 3rd least hits in the league where as we have the most. It's not always about the hits but what you can gain from them, and to me it feels like we have a bunch of "unnecessary" hitting that just ends up costing us.

Also, the system in the defensive zone. What we're seeing in today's NHL is a lot more actice, man-to-man defense where you can with one turnover create your own odd-man rush. Our zone defense is way too stagnant, and that's why we have the 3rd highest xGA per 60 in the league.

But this all boils down to Hynes' biggest problem and that is finding proper roles for players and deploying them by their strengths. Especially this year, even for the players who say it out loud it's difficult to know and understand your role on the team. Hynes wants every player to play physical and every line to have physicality but that's just not how every player operates and frankly, you are diminishing their strengths as a player doing that.

Take a look at Joey this year. What role is he supposed to play in? One night, you see him on a line with Duchene and Granlund and the next he's with Smith and Jankowski. There's just no consistent, logical approach to the way he handles the players and their roles. That's what drove Tolvanen out of town, and I'm afraid that's what's happening to Tomasino, Pärssinen and Novak as well.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Definitely a no to a buyout. We should've learned from the Turris buyout that it would be better to just ride out the rest of the contract or retain and dump him for nothing. More cap hurt for 2 years but not a cap hit for 6-8 years.

I would have said the Turris buyout worked very nicely. Got rid of him as a distraction, opened up $4M of Cap space, and Poile usually sits on at least a $2M cushion anyway.

A Joey buyout would be similarly effective IMO. Open $5.33M Cap space that is not even remotely close to being filled with our cheap young replacements, air out The Room a bit, and with the Cap being expected to go up significantly after next season, the dead Cap remainder is something Poile was probably just going to sit on during retooling years anyway.

Joey is not as washed as Turris was by any stretch, but if there’s no better trade option with retention available, then I’ll be in favor of a buyout.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Wouldnt need to waive Jankowski to make way for forsberg or carrier. Both are still on active roster.

Either calling up someone else, boro coming off ir, trading for someone, or novak threatened to stop scoring if they did another paper transaction on him

Considering both Jankowski and Tomasino were sent down, I suspect Jankowski is down to stay if he clears. I hope he does, Milwaukee has been doing alright, but giving up a lot of shots and maybe needs a little booster.

The Tomasino demotion is hopefully more the "paper" one, and ideally part of recognizing the team is out of the playoffs will include playing him (and other younger players) more and more down the stretch. Whatever Hynes thought he was going to accomplish in terms of getting some imaginary competitive edge using the AHL tweeners at the start of the season, that (shockingly!) never materialized. Now the team needs to focus on getting the young players ready for next season. They'll still get to go down en masse for Milwaukee's playoff run too, we can time some demotions for their roster deadline next month too, hopefully. But they should be playing as often and as much as possible here, meanwhile.

 

[glenngineer]

I really hate to get stuck on this and sound like I'm defending Hynes because I'm truly not, but, there is nothing "wrong" with the "system". It's actually a widely used concept on both sides of the puck (variations on a theme of courses, since no two coaches are exactly the same) not to mention the forecheck is one of the most aggressive in the league.

What we're seeing is a failure of executing a plan on the ice. How you divide blame for that failure is up to you.

Edit:

How do you explain the difference in results from the "big guns" on PP1 to PP1 without them or PP2? It's the same damn coach with drastically different results. Even last year when PP1 had great overall results they still went through periods when they would fall into the bad habits of standing still, not moving the puck fast enough, and being down right bad.

Can the coach get the players to buy in? I think it's how the plan is laid out and presented to the players and then the players responding to it.

I remember reading a story when Dallas made a coaching change a few years back and the new coach went to Jamie Benn and said, this is what I'd like to do with the system. It was more defensive based then what they had employed. He asked Benn to buy in because he knew if Benn was good with it, the others would fall in line.

I see the same thing with Boston. Leadership bought in to what Montgomery brought to the table and they've taken a really a good team and brought it to another level.

There was also something I read that when you transition from one good coach to another, teams will normally succeed and/or exceed expectations. We can see that with a few teams this year. On the flip side, go from a good coach to a bad one and you can have results that aren't what you expected. Florida is a great example. Maurice came in and while they had some personnel changes, they are a mid team. The team Maurice left, the Jets, have basically the same roster and swapped coaches and are doing great this year.

Hockey is a strange sport. You have to have the right culture, coach, players, system and chemistry to fall into place to have a shot at winning the Cup. This could be said for any sport really but there is so much to account for. Add or remove one player from a roster and the dynamic can change quickly, either direction.

 

[nine_inch_fang]

Can the coach get the players to buy in? I think it's how the plan is laid out and presented to the players and then the players responding to it.

I remember reading a story when Dallas made a coaching change a few years back and the new coach went to Jamie Benn and said, this is what I'd like to do with the system. It was more defensive based then what they had employed. He asked Benn to buy in because he knew if Benn was good with it, the others would fall in line.

I see the same thing with Boston. Leadership bought in to what Montgomery brought to the table and they've taken a really a good team and brought it to another level.

There was also something I read that when you transition from one good coach to another, teams will normally succeed and/or exceed expectations. We can see that with a few teams this year. On the flip side, go from a good coach to a bad one and you can have results that aren't what you expected. Florida is a great example. Maurice came in and while they had some personnel changes, they are a mid team. The team Maurice left, the Jets, have basically the same roster and swapped coaches and are doing great this year.

Hockey is a strange sport. You have to have the right culture, coach, players, system and chemistry to fall into place to have a shot at winning the Cup. This could be said for any sport really but there is so much to account for. Add or remove one player from a roster and the dynamic can change quickly, either direction.

That's where I was going with my comment. It's not the system, it's the execution. The reasons for the failure in execution are shared by everyone in that room and on the bench.

Changing the coach might be the magic pill for the team OR we might just see the same thing we've seen from the big guns under two different coaches. Time will tell.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Can the coach get the players to buy in? I think it's how the plan is laid out and presented to the players and then the players responding to it.

I remember reading a story when Dallas made a coaching change a few years back and the new coach went to Jamie Benn and said, this is what I'd like to do with the system. It was more defensive based then what they had employed. He asked Benn to buy in because he knew if Benn was good with it, the others would fall in line.

I see the same thing with Boston. Leadership bought in to what Montgomery brought to the table and they've taken a really a good team and brought it to another level.

There was also something I read that when you transition from one good coach to another, teams will normally succeed and/or exceed expectations. We can see that with a few teams this year. On the flip side, go from a good coach to a bad one and you can have results that aren't what you expected. Florida is a great example. Maurice came in and while they had some personnel changes, they are a mid team. The team Maurice left, the Jets, have basically the same roster and swapped coaches and are doing great this year.

Hockey is a strange sport. You have to have the right culture, coach, players, system and chemistry to fall into place to have a shot at winning the Cup. This could be said for any sport really but there is so much to account for. Add or remove one player from a roster and the dynamic can change quickly, either direction.

This is it exactly. The x's and o's of coaching are very simple and everybody at this level has absolute mastery of such things, and can pick and choose what to employ. Volunteer coaches in minor hockey know all the same stuff. But it's the choosing what ones to best fit the personnel, getting the buy-in, the carrots and the sticks employed along the way, the consistency, the adaptations and tweaks in game, all the rest of it that makes the difference. Hynes knows every x and o that was ever invented, I have no doubt of that. But he has lost the handle on knowing which ones to use for his team and how to get them to buy into it. And when that happens, you change coaches and try to find one who does.

 

[nine_inch_fang]

I disagree. The Preds do deploy an aggressive forecheck, but sometimes it feels like they deploy only for the sake of it. They like to finish all checks especially in the offensive zone but often that's not the smart play to do. You're getting left behind the play when it starts to move to the other end of the ice, and yes you're taking out one defender from their side as well but it's the team on the offense that benefits from having 4-on-4 rush rather than a 5-on-5.

Take a look at Carolina. They have the most aggressive forecheck in the league and they have their "forward defense" system in place. They have the 3rd least hits in the league where as we have the most. It's not always about the hits but what you can gain from them, and to me it feels like we have a bunch of "unnecessary" hitting that just ends up costing us.

Also, the system in the defensive zone. What we're seeing in today's NHL is a lot more actice, man-to-man defense where you can with one turnover create your own odd-man rush. Our zone defense is way too stagnant, and that's why we have the 3rd highest xGA per 60 in the league.

But this all boils down to Hynes' biggest problem and that is finding proper roles for players and deploying them by their strengths. Especially this year, even for the players who say it out loud it's difficult to know and understand your role on the team. Hynes wants every player to play physical and every line to have physicality but that's just not how every player operates and frankly, you are diminishing their strengths as a player doing that.

Take a look at Joey this year. What role is he supposed to play in? One night, you see him on a line with Duchene and Granlund and the next he's with Smith and Jankowski. There's just no consistent, logical approach to the way he handles the players and their roles. That's what drove Tolvanen out of town, and I'm afraid that's what's happening to Tomasino, Pärssinen and Novak as well.

This is a bit all over the place, full of hyperbole and conjecture, I'll try to narrow down my response.

Forechecking just for the sake of it...what does that mean? It's an aggressive forecheck that the whole team uses and not everyone hits. Do some of the forwards hit too much? Maybe, but it isnt the whole team.

I've pointed out before that many of the problems on the forecheck come from miscommunication or bad gaps/body positioning by the three players that aren't actively forechecking the puck carrier.

The defensive zone has morphed a bit during Hynes tenure. It started out as the most basic "zone" collapsing type defensive, this was seemingly an over correction to get the players out of the strictly man on man defense they had been running for years under Laviolette. Basically a keep it simple approach to transition into what is now a more typical man/zone hybrid.

Currently, the three down low players (2 Dmen and 1 center) play man on man while the wingers stay out higher to defend that zone and win puck battles to create breakouts but if the opposing Dman goes low into the offensive zone the winger is then man on man with him.

Kinda ridiculous using Johansen as a complaint about players getting yo-yoed up and down the line up. When the top guys were underperforming at the beginning of the season everyone complained that they were being force fed top 6 minutes and line mates then they get demoted and everyone complains because the replacements aren't getting results and want the money player back in the top 6. Now we're talking about demotions again around here, seems these boards would have the same yo-yo effect on players icetime and line mates that they complain the coaching staff creates.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

That's where I was going with my comment. It's not the system, it's the execution. The reasons for the failure in execution are shared by everyone in that room and on the bench.

Changing the coach might be the magic pill for the team OR we might just see the same thing we've seen from the big guns under two different coaches. Time will tell.

I suspect... and this is just going to be all one big heap of speculation, all grains of salt necessary... that it will be tough to find a coach who really fits our team ideally.

It sure seems to me like we still have our leadership core of highly-paid stars who want to have the freedom to play their own game, like maybe how they imagine it works on other teams. Just... aside from Josi, they aren't really THAT good like those other big stars around the league? But along comes Hynes with his "Identity" and wants everybody to buy in and take pride in that team approach, and really, for several months to start last season it almost seemed to be working. The Herd Line was more important many nights than our Big Guns lines. Kids were stepping up from Milwaukee and fitting in. Everything was rolling. But after the break in February last year, the Big Guns took over again, and their personal stats went up. The team went down.

So how has Hynes handled that split this year? Well, he took a bunch of loyal footsoldier AHL tweeners into the lineup, guys who should heed his every word just because they are happy to be in the NHL. And allowed the stars to have no accountability. And held back some of the young players who might have been getting a little uppity and threatening the veterans' roles. So it became a mish-mash of both schools. A compromise that has so far worked out as the worst of both worlds.

I don't really know who is going to come in and fix it all as a coach. Poile has to step up and take some authoritative action IMO. He has to tell his coach that we're retooling here, we're willing to live with some mistakes from young players, you WILL play the young players. He has to make sure the veteran players understand that there won't be any two-tiered accountability anymore. Any veteran can be sat and crying to the GM about it won't be tolerated. He can trade/buyout a few more guys... he's still going to have Josi and Forsberg forever, though, so there's only so far he can take that part of things. But he does still have to bring in a new coach, because once a guy has lost the handle like Hynes has, there isn't really any going back. The next guy may or may not do any better. But that change has to be part of it. And maybe that's part of why they are waiting until the off-season, maybe it's just easier to do all that with a fresh season reset, as opposed to in mid-season.

 

[nine_inch_fang]

I suspect... and this is just going to be all one big heap of speculation, all grains of salt necessary... that it will be tough to find a coach who really fits our team ideally.

It sure seems to me like we still have our leadership core of highly-paid stars who want to have the freedom to play their own game, like maybe how they imagine it works on other teams. Just... aside from Josi, they aren't really THAT good like those other big stars around the league? But along comes Hynes with his "Identity" and wants everybody to buy in and take pride in that team approach, and really, for several months to start last season it almost seemed to be working. The Herd Line was more important many nights than our Big Guns lines. Kids were stepping up from Milwaukee and fitting in. Everything was rolling. But after the break in February last year, the Big Guns took over again, and their personal stats went up. The team went down.

So how has Hynes handled that split this year? Well, he took a bunch of loyal footsoldier AHL tweeners into the lineup, guys who should heed his every word just because they are happy to be in the NHL. And allowed the stars to have no accountability. And held back some of the young players who might have been getting a little uppity and threatening the veterans' roles. So it became a mish-mash of both schools. A compromise that has so far worked out as the worst of both worlds.

I don't really know who is going to come in and fix it all as a coach. Poile has to step up and take some authoritative action IMO. He has to tell his coach that we're retooling here, we're willing to live with some mistakes from young players, you WILL play the young players. He has to make sure the veteran players understand that there won't be any two-tiered accountability anymore. Any veteran can be sat and crying to the GM about it won't be tolerated. He can trade/buyout a few more guys... he's still going to have Josi and Forsberg forever, though, so there's only so far he can take that part of things. But he does still have to bring in a new coach, because once a guy has lost the handle like Hynes has, there isn't really any going back. The next guy may or may not do any better. But that change has to be part of it. And maybe that's part of why they are waiting until the off-season, maybe it's just easier to do all that with a fresh season reset, as opposed to in mid-season.

From the outside looking in, or at least trying to look in, this seems accurate.

I get the feelings that Poile does still have confidence in Hynes and plans to make moves to take care of the big salary problem children, rather than fire the coach and still have the problem children. Of course, BOTH is an option...

 

[herzausstein]

Coaching systems are probably easier to buy into if they have some history of success. Hynes came over from New Jersey with a 150-159-45 record. Hes done better in nashville with 118-86-16 but thats a 94 point pace season which would typically put you in 8th seed territory. His entire nhl coaching record is an 85 point pace.

When you have near 9 seasons of coaching experience and thats your record, how do you get REAL buy in from players? Then you go into his playoff records and its abysmal. Its like saying if you buy in and work really hard, we may get into a wildcard spot then get decimated in the playoffs (based off his coaching history). I just dont see how you can keep a lockerroom with that. Wouldnt we be better off with a blank slate coach? That way players can atleast believe things can turn around if they buy in

 

[ShagDaddy]

I actually like Alex’s take in this article. The only thing I strongly disagree with is his opinion on the coach.

A five step plan for fixing the Preds

This might actually work.

atozsports.com

 

[Roman Yoshi]

I know Poile isn't going to go on the radio and say anything crazy, but the "day to day" comment is just so mid.

Have the balls to say "we have core guys locked up for a few more years and we believe we have the best goalie in the NHL right now so we are going to reevaluate in the summer how to compete and I ask the fans to buy into that vision" or say "something isn't working with this team, and we are going to be making changes soon"

Fans just want a vision. I honestly believe that. Right now it is just a "wait and see" approach.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I actually like Alex’s take in this article. The only thing I strongly disagree with is his opinion on the coach.

A five step plan for fixing the Preds

This might actually work.

atozsports.com

I strongly disagree with his idea of packaging sweeteners to move the big contracts too. Very strongly disagree. Luke Evangelista as a sweetener to move Ryan Johansen? Hells no!!!

Buying out Johansen is far better IMO. But even if the money is somehow an impediment to the organization financially (it shouldn't be, we have to pay him $16M anyway, and dropping that to 2/3rds of $16M isn't worse if we're replacing him with some combination of Novak/Parssinen ($10.67M + $0.800M + 2x$0.850833M + Novak next deal isn't $16M, *and* we're counting TWO players here instead of one). There's no way it makes sense to throw Evangelista on top just to move him. Better, if we aren't worried about competing and aren't worrying about replacing that Cap space per the article, to just ride out the contract.... in that scenario, who really cares whether Johansen is our 4th line center for $8M? You don't start throwing in "sweeteners" just to move these deals. There isn't enough term left on them to take it that far, and his recipe is just to rebuild anyway, so why bother?

 

[herzausstein]

I actually like Alex’s take in this article. The only thing I strongly disagree with is his opinion on the coach.

A five step plan for fixing the Preds

This might actually work.

atozsports.com

Step 2 and 3 kindof contradict a little with respect to granlund. Praises hynes for turning granlund back into a 60 point playmaking forward then immediately suggest we package him with incentives to get rid of his contract. If he was a 60 point playmaking forward at 5M caphit, he wouldnt need incentives packaged with him in a trade. Little bit of a nitpick but overall dont really disagree with the article (other than giving too much credit to hynes in some spots). Hynes didnt develop Carrier. The Milwaukee admirals coaching staff did.