Post-Game Talk: Slip slippin' away Jets get clobbered

[Jet]

Why Wheeler & Scheifele & Connor ended up playing 18:14 & 18:38 & 18:59 mins of ice-time, respectively, in a 7-1 game that was over well before the final horn... I have no idea. I feel like that’s inexcusable coaching.

Once the game is over in a blowout like that, it seems to me that we should limit the minutes of some of the key players who typically play lots of minutes to preserve energy late in the season and prevent injuries to key players (and keep their legs as “fresh” as possible for Vegas Friday).

They had 2 games off

Typically, you want to give your stars and drivers of success more ice time to find their game when they are slumping.

I am making no excuses for this group - that was a putrid effort but anyone who has played hockey will tell you generally that first game back after a couple days away from the ice you don't really have your legs or skill where you want it. The better game is the game after you come back from a break.

 

[Heldig]

Talk is cheap. This team has been off more than on all season. Maurice and the leadership seem to say all the right things but nothing changes. Then the few parts that were saving their bacon goes cold and the team looks like this cluster****.

What the heck happened to the fast team that overwhelmed the opposition in the other teams zone? Dominating the play with speed and physicality and hustle? Instead of playing like that for the majority of play it happens maybe a shift or two every other game.

 

[JohnStaymoose]

I turned the game off midway through the 3rd I just couldn't watch any longer, probably the worst effort I've seen from the Jets.

 

[Maukkis]

and what does the bag skate accomplish?
part of the problem is the appearance of wary legs. so you bag skate guys as a punishment and that does what? freshens their legs for the next game?
no thanks.
better things to do than that. playing time's the answer. maybe we saw it with Appleton on the PK? dunno.

I don't necessarily advocate bag skating people, but you kind of have to have a response to a showing like this as a coach.

Somehow I'm not convinced it will come in the form of a line change.

 

[Jet]

I have a feeling Vegas is going to have a rough night at the hands of the 3rd line tomorrow night.

 

[bustamente]

This can go 2 ways for the Jets they can either rebound and come out with a great effort and maybe even a couple of wins this weekend or it could get even worse and they get it handed to them again and again, personally I think you see the former.

 

[ffh]

This can go 2 ways for the Jets they can either rebound and come out with a great effort and maybe even a couple of wins this weekend or it could get even worse and they get it handed to them again and again, personally I think you see the former.

I pick the latter.

 

[ffh]

This can go 2 ways for the Jets they can either rebound and come out with a great effort and maybe even a couple of wins this weekend or it could get even worse and they get it handed to them again and again, personally I think you see the former.

Delete.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

They had 2 games off

Typically, you want to give your stars and drivers of success more ice time to find their game when they are slumping.

I am making no excuses for this group - that was a putrid effort but anyone who has played hockey will tell you generally that first game back after a couple days away from the ice you don't really have your legs or skill where you want it. The better game is the game after you come back from a break.

Clearly the coach didn't think that, or he would have had the team at practice.

 

[bustamente]

In the future one thing Maurice will not be able to complain about is practice time or lack off

 

[Jet]

Clearly the coach didn't think that, or he would have had the team at practice.

It's funny because it's damned if you do or damned if you don't when you are coaching a slumping team.

The team has played a ton, Maurice gave them 2 days off. It didn't work. If he would have made them practice and they lost 7-1 people would be crucifying him for not giving them a rest.

It's up to Maurice to get the team out of this slump but he doesn't play the games. I'm very disheartened right now but I am going to see how it plays out because what choice do we have.

I still like Paul Maurice as a coach - he has some work to do with this group between now and the post season - let's see how he does

 

[Flair Hay]

It would be naive to say that everything will just sort itself out with how long some of these problems have been showing themselves.

I also think it would be naive to think juggling around line combos would do anything past a game or two.

Maurice is a pretty good system coach. The team isnt paying attention to detail as much. And we are also missing our two best possession players to make life easier for our support players.

What Maurice cant do is take it out on only the young guys and give the vets a pass. If we start panicking and overreacting, that will make things worse.

Helle is being hung out to dry more often than normal and he is getting sick of it. Time to tighten up defensively and get back to the fundamentals.

This could make us stronger in the end if we can pull through it. I hope so anyway. Easy to see playing like we have the past month equals a first round upset.

 

[HannuJ]

here's a voice of reason.
in the past 20something years, how often have Stanley Cup champions looked like Stanley Cup champions during the regular season?
since 1985-86 (33 years?) only 8 of the trophy winners won the cup. i.e. 24% chance. Odds of reaching the Cup finals and winning the trophy? not much better. 33%. so having the best record increases your odds of winning the Cup, but it assures nothing.
in the past 10 seasons:

2008–09	San Jose Sharks	117	Lost Conference Quarterfinals (ANA)
2009–10	Washington Capitals	121	Lost Conference Quarterfinals (MTL)
2010–11	Vancouver Canucks	117	Lost Stanley Cup Finals (BOS)
2011–12	Vancouver Canucks	111	Lost Conference Quarterfinals (LAK)
2012–13	Chicago Blackhawks	77[nb 3]	Won Stanley Cup (BOS)
2013–14	Boston Bruins	117	Lost Second Round (MTL)
2014–15	New York Rangers	113	Lost Conference Finals (TBL)
2015–16	Washington Capitals	120	Lost Second Round (PIT)
2016–17	Washington Capitals	118	Lost Second Round (PIT)
2017–18	Nashville Predators	117	Lost Second Round (WPG)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[tntkid]

I turned the game off midway through the 3rd I just couldn't watch any longer, probably the worst effort I've seen from the Jets.

I should have done that to.
It was like a car accident that you could not look away from.

Zero effort and the team just quit.

 

[Board Bard]

What the heck happened to the fast team that overwhelmed the opposition in the other teams zone? Dominating the play with speed and physicality and hustle? Instead of playing like that for the majority of play it happens maybe a shift or two every other game.

The only way the Jets are coming at anybody in waves this year is after a team trip to the hair salon.

 

[White Out 902]

here's a voice of reason.
in the past 20something years, how often have Stanley Cup champions looked like Stanley Cup champions during the regular season?
since 1985-86 (33 years?) only 8 of the trophy winners won the cup. i.e. 24% chance. Odds of reaching the Cup finals and winning the trophy? not much better. 33%. so having the best record increases your odds of winning the Cup, but it assures nothing.
in the past 10 seasons:

2008–09	San Jose Sharks	117	Lost Conference Quarterfinals (ANA)
2009–10	Washington Capitals	121	Lost Conference Quarterfinals (MTL)
2010–11	Vancouver Canucks	117	Lost Stanley Cup Finals (BOS)
2011–12	Vancouver Canucks	111	Lost Conference Quarterfinals (LAK)
2012–13	Chicago Blackhawks	77[nb 3]	Won Stanley Cup (BOS)
2013–14	Boston Bruins	117	Lost Second Round (MTL)
2014–15	New York Rangers	113	Lost Conference Finals (TBL)
2015–16	Washington Capitals	120	Lost Second Round (PIT)
2016–17	Washington Capitals	118	Lost Second Round (PIT)
2017–18	Nashville Predators	117	Lost Second Round (WPG)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'd love to see underlying metrics compared.

 

[pucka lucka]

Man i'm still pissed at what we watched last night , one more thing , can nobody on this team carry a puck into the opposing end ? Is Ehlers the only guy that can do this ? We dump the puck and aren't getting to the puck first or causing enough turnovers , we are just doing this all night This has to get better .

They just force everything forward as fast as they can. That's what PoMo coaches. Unless you are slick as Ehlers you have no choice but to dump it in. It's junior hockey level coaching. We have an elite NHL roster. Someone ain't doing it right.

 

[HannuJ]

I'd love to see underlying metrics compared.

if someone had the access and the time to show the underlying metrics of all playoff matchups from the last 5 years, i'd drool over it

 

[cbcwpg]

It's funny because it's damned if you do or damned if you don't when you are coaching a slumping team.

The team has played a ton, Maurice gave them 2 days off. It didn't work. If he would have made them practice and they lost 7-1 people would be crucifying him for not giving them a rest.

It's up to Maurice to get the team out of this slump but he doesn't play the games. I'm very disheartened right now but I am going to see how it plays out because what choice do we have.

I still like Paul Maurice as a coach - he has some work to do with this group between now and the post season - let's see how he does

You are right.. it's a no win for the coach. I don't think it mattered if MO had practised instead of resting them. They were going to play like crap yesterday because that's just where they are right now.

 

[Jack722]

here's a voice of reason.
in the past 20something years, how often have Stanley Cup champions looked like Stanley Cup champions during the regular season?
since 1985-86 (33 years?) only 8 of the trophy winners won the cup. i.e. 24% chance. Odds of reaching the Cup finals and winning the trophy? not much better. 33%. so having the best record increases your odds of winning the Cup, but it assures nothing.
in the past 10 seasons:

2008–09	San Jose Sharks	117	Lost Conference Quarterfinals (ANA)
2009–10	Washington Capitals	121	Lost Conference Quarterfinals (MTL)
2010–11	Vancouver Canucks	117	Lost Stanley Cup Finals (BOS)
2011–12	Vancouver Canucks	111	Lost Conference Quarterfinals (LAK)
2012–13	Chicago Blackhawks	77[nb 3]	Won Stanley Cup (BOS)
2013–14	Boston Bruins	117	Lost Second Round (MTL)
2014–15	New York Rangers	113	Lost Conference Finals (TBL)
2015–16	Washington Capitals	120	Lost Second Round (PIT)
2016–17	Washington Capitals	118	Lost Second Round (PIT)
2017–18	Nashville Predators	117	Lost Second Round (WPG)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

This doesn't mean what you think it means IMO. It just means there's lots of variance in hockey.

Playing good increases your chances. Playing bad decreases them. Sometimes teams playing bad figure it out for playoffs, and sometimes they get really lucky. That doesn't mean it's better to play bad than good...

 

[AlphaLackey]

I have a feeling Vegas is going to have a rough night at the hands of the 3rd line tomorrow night.

our gentle giant is going to be not-so-gentle. He's one of the players I trust intimately to respond the right way in Vegas.

here's a voice of reason.
in the past 20something years, how often have Stanley Cup champions looked like Stanley Cup champions during the regular season?
since 1985-86 (33 years?) only 8 of the trophy winners won the cup. i.e. 24% chance. Odds of reaching the Cup finals and winning the trophy? not much better. 33%. so having the best record increases your odds of winning the Cup, but it assures nothing.

You can see this every year as the Cup winning playoff odds are set. Even at this distant time in the year, you're only going to get 3:1 on the Bolts to win the Cup, and because such bets generally don't offer close to true odds, this tells us the Bolts, for as crazily dominant as they've been, don't even have a 25% chance to win the cup. Moneypuck has them and SJ as the favorites with a 12.5%(!) or 1-in-8 chance to win it all.

Being the best team in the league in the regular season, even being the objectively best team in the Cup tournament, doesn't change the fact that you have a very large chance of not winning it all. Such is life in a single elimination tournament.

 

[Mbraunm]

You are right.. it's a no win for the coach. I don't think it mattered if MO had practised instead of resting them. They were going to play like crap yesterday because that's just where they are right now.

True - but since the beginning of this he season, Maurice has played a massive role as to why this outcome was inevitable.

His consistently poor roster management of top 6 talent, poor TOI management, lack of timely and intelligent in-game adjustments and inability to maintain accountability for everyone on the team is a major reason why last night was an eventual inevitability.

 

[ffh]

They just force everything forward as fast as they can. That's what PoMo coaches. Unless you are slick as Ehlers you have no choice but to dump it in. It's junior hockey level coaching. We have an elite NHL roster. Someone ain't doing it right.

a lot of pundits say we have an average not elite bottom 6 and I believe them. copp lowry tanev armia Hendricks petan dano roslovic Lemieux Appleton.

 

[pucka lucka]

This doesn't mean what you think it means IMO. It just means there's lots of variance in hockey.

Playing good increases your chances. Playing bad decreases them. Sometimes teams playing bad figure it out for playoffs, and sometimes they get really lucky. That doesn't mean it's better to play bad than good...

I am always confused by those kinds of posts. What is the actual point? That playing bad is good because bad teams have won?

 

[cbcwpg]

Once you get to the dance anything can happen, but...

I would rather be a team playing good going into the playoffs with a 1 in 16 chance of winning it all ….over a team that is playing like crap that limps into the playoffs only because their record in the first half of the season saved them.