Scoring Woes - Lack of Scoring Talent or Coaching?

[RABBIT]

Something I’m genuinely curious about. I think we have players who can generate offense, but we rarely put up more than 4 goals, and don’t often come to getting close to that. Keller seems like a prime example, a ton of skill, but can’t seem to put it together like we all know he can.

Then we see guys like Garland and Bunting come up from a different coach/different system and light the lamp. Is it just odd hockey luck that they’re performing well, and the Coyotes just lack scorers? Or is it the system these players are in that causes a significant disparity? Domi lit it up after leaving, so did Strome, but both have taken steps back. Kessel regressed massively, as did Galchenyuk. So tough to judge, but interesting nonetheless.

Click to read more...

 

[XX]

Team is trash 5v5. They give up more than they score.

Keep in mind, the entire point of Tocchet's 'system' is supposed to be reduced goals against at the cost of about 20-25% reduced offense compared to the top 10 teams in the league. It's not working.

He's just shit.

 

[RABBIT]

Team is trash 5v5. They give up more than they score.

Keep in mind, the entire point of Tocchet's 'system' is supposed to be reduced goals against at the cost of about 20-25% reduced offense compared to the top 10 teams in the league. It's not working.

He's just shit.

this is where I’m at, and the exact reason I’m worried to give up on Keller, Hayton, and Schmaltz until we see them under a different coach.

 

[Heldig]

Can't select both. Poor coaching and little talent.

 

[slv]

Poor coaching with no established offensive system in place.

 

[Summer Rose]

Can't select both. Poor coaching and little talent.

Same. If choosing between the two it’s more coaching than lack of talent, but both are definitely factors.

 

[Grimes]

If Kessel is on a 60p 30g pace with the Coyotes you know it can't be because of a complete lack of skill on this team. It's coaching.

Teams that have major swing in goal scoring and lack there of seem to be the outcome of developing younger play and fitting square pegs in a round hole coaching wise. Tocchet seems to just be jamming his gameplans on a roster that doesn't fit it.

 

[MIGs Dog]

Craig apparently hasn't voted yet.

 

[hbk]

4 players short of a top 6. Including a top line center.

 

[Name Nameless]

You need two more options: "Puck luck", and "All of the above.". And then I would like to vote for "All of the above", please.

But the one thing it's possible to test out, is if it is the coach. And as it obviously also is the coach, I hope for a new coach now.

 

[MIGs Dog]

You need two more options: "Puck luck", and "All of the above.". And then I would like to vote for "All of the above", please.

But the one thing it's possible to test out, is if it is the coach. And as it obviously also is the coach, I hope for a new coach now.

Puck luck is real in the micro, but over the course of a season goes both ways and is thus inconsequential. Unless you think the team is jinxed, cursed, or hexed, in which case we need a shaman, not a new coach.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Not voting, but looking at current results, while I'd say it's more coaching than lack of talent, it's not 95% coaching. It's substantially both.

 

[Jakey53]

4 players short of a top 6. Including a top line center.

We all know we need more talent, and that is why that Hall trade was the stupidest thing Chayka could have done. We are a bubble team as most thought at the beginning of the season, but I truly believe a good coach could get us into the playoffs which is all we can ask for at this time. This team is so inconsistent, has been since DT left, you have no idea what kind of game we are getting out of them. Also the wrong mix of players.

 

[rt]

Not voting, but looking at current results, while I'd say it's more coaching than lack of talent, it's not 95% coaching. It's substantially both.

If “both” were an option, it would have had 100% of the vote.

 

[Coyotedroppings]

Puck luck is real in the micro, but over the course of a season goes both ways and is thus inconsequential. Unless you think the team is jinxed, cursed, or hexed, in which case we need a shaman, not a new coach.

I think we need Charmin, to wipe RT away.

 

[Jakey53]

this is where I’m at, and the exact reason I’m worried to give up on Keller, Hayton, and Schmaltz until we see them under a different coach.

Like every GM BA is going to make this his team. Same old BS again. Expect many trades, and hopefully a better outcome than the last ten years. RT should have been fired last year so we could evaluate the players under a new coach but that didn't happen. BA has not impressed me so far, but he deserves more time before we become too critical of him. Losing those two first round picks and whiffing on Hayton has set this team back years.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

If “both” were an option, it would have had 100% of the vote.

They need a poll with a slider option: "from 0-100 how much is coaching, assuming the rest is lack of talent?"

 

[MIGs Dog]

Ted Lasso proves that coaching is the X-Factor.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Ted Lasso proves that coaching is the X-Factor.

We need more Keeley Joneses and fewer Jamie Tartts.

 

[GiveAFlyingPuck]

I went with coaching. There's no accountability. If you don't go to the net and just hang out on the perimeter, no big deal, you'll be in the lineup the next game.

 

[RABBIT]

Can't select both. Poor coaching and little talent.

Same. If choosing between the two it’s more coaching than lack of talent, but both are definitely factors.

You need two more options: "Puck luck", and "All of the above.". And then I would like to vote for "All of the above", please.

But the one thing it's possible to test out, is if it is the coach. And as it obviously also is the coach, I hope for a new coach now.

Not voting, but looking at current results, while I'd say it's more coaching than lack of talent, it's not 95% coaching. It's substantially both.

If “both” were an option, it would have had 100% of the vote.

I purposely did not add “both” as an option. No offense, but I think that that’s the path of least resistance and the easy option, we would all pick it. I wanted to make this more black-and-white. Which problem do you think is more prominent out of the two.

 

[Grimes]

Yeah it's clearly "both" but leans towards coaching. Another option is roster make-up. I don't believe Montreal is all that much more skilled than us. Nashville, the Blues and Wild aren't too far off either especially if the young players take another step next season. But the make-up of the roster feels off.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

The fact that at certain points of the season, this team is capable of winning (and even winning easily), but then is prone to prolonged losing streaks immediately thereafter, tips the needle pretty solidly to coaching.

 

[rt]

I purposely did not add “both” as an option. No offense, but I think that that’s the path of least resistance and the easy option, we would all pick it. I wanted to make this more black-and-white. Which problem do you think is more prominent out of the two.

That was my point. I agree with you.

 

[rt]

Yeah it's clearly "both" but leans towards coaching. Another option is roster make-up. I don't believe Montreal is all that much more skilled than us. Nashville, the Blues and Wild aren't too far off either especially if the young players take another step next season. But the make-up of the roster feels off.

I agree. Outside of Barzal, how impressive is that islanders roster on paper? Really. And look what’s happened to Nashville post-trotz. Coaching clearly matters.