Five Questions for Paul Maurice

I can see both sides of this discussion—give Mo a break and any fan should be able to ask. I can’t claim to be objective about Mo. I’m one of those who hasn’t particularly cared for the way PM’s teams play or for the results over time, but I also think this is a year to cut him some slack because he’s dealing with major challenges, including the team’s self-imposed salary cap, the shortage of defensive defensemen, the terrible early schedule, and the lack of an ideal scoring complement to Staal on Staal’s line (perpetual, but still a problem). We should also remember that his is a very small team and not the most offensively talented in the game.

On team size, consider the Caps game. The Caps list three forwards under 200 lbs and six over 215 lbs, including two over 230. The Canes have nine forwards under 200 lbs and their biggest forward on the ice was listed at 205 lbs (Tlusty is listed at 209, which makes him the Canes’ reigning physical monster, but he didn’t play.) The laws of physics make a strategy based on physical play challenging at best against the Caps.

On talent, there will be more than a few nights where the Canes can’t match the offensive talent of the other team. Facts are facts. The Canes can’t match Backstrom, Semin and Ovechkin. Staal is the only Canes’ player in roughly the same class as those three. Jokinen is good but isn’t in that class. Skinner might get there someday. There are a lot of teams that have multiple big-time offensive talents and the Canes can’t match up. That makes things tough for Mo.

Given these facts, it’s not fair to condemn Maurice based on the Caps’ game or what’s happened so far this season. But Captain Stinky’s questions don’t condemn Maurice. They indirectly express legitimate concerns about the direction of the Canes. Some of those concerns relate not to this season alone, but to the possible continuation of historical patterns.

Will this season see a repeat of these patterns (as I perceive them):

1. Canes’ young forward prospects disappointing when they reach the NHL. The Captain’s second question gets at my most serious concern. Guys who score tons of goals in junior hockey and hat tricks in the AHL (Dalpe, Tlusty) are instant offensive zeroes with the Canes: Boychuk, Dalpe, Bowman, Tlusty. A decline from level to level is inevitable, but forward prospects seem to break through more often and earlier on other teams. Skinner may be breaking the pattern, but that seems based on remarkable talent, and even Skinner’s ability to break the pattern of disappointing offensive output isn’t clear yet. It’s worrisome that we’ve seen no offense from Dalpe and Bowman just as we saw little from Boychuk last year. He’s not a Canes’ prospect as such, but is Patrick O’Sullivan being offensively neutered as well? What is the plan for developing the prospects? Do the Canes come up short offensively because the players lack talent, because the Canes haven’t developed talent, or because the Canes’ style neuters offensive players? Nobody thinks Dalpe and Bowman and Boychuk will turn into Ovechkins, but they do have offensive talent? Will we ever see it while they’re in Canes’ uniforms?

2. The Canes going through long periods where it seems they have very little chance to score. The Captain’s first question reflects the uneasy sense that there is no system in place that creates scoring chances beyond just trying to create a turnover on the forecheck and attack immediately or create a turnover in your own zone and take off on a breakaway or an odd-man rush. When you can’t detect a system and the lines change often, you get a disturbing sense that things are random rather than a reassuring sense that things are driving toward a goal. When what the Canes are doing isn’t working and it’s hard to see changes because you can’t identify the system to begin with, that’s frustrating. Sure would be nice to know how the Canes think their approach is systematically going to generate enough scoring chances to make them competitive.

3. An absence of signs that Paul Maurice has a flair for motivating players. The Captain didn’t have a question about this, but I would like to know how much Maurice thinks about motivating players. Does he leave that task to their salaries and their desire to stay in the NHL, or does he think it’s part of his job? Young prospects get little ice time and seem to get yanked off the ice even when playing well. My impression of Maurice’s shortcomings as a motivator is indirect, based on looking at the team during games. But I don’t recall any player quotes to counter this impression, such as statements praising Maurice as a great coach. That article from Vancouver says players revere Maurice behind the scenes. It would have been nice to see more in the way of sources for that claim. I find it interesting that when the Canes signed Maurice to a new contract, what JR praised was Maurice’s ability to delegate. He talked about how Maurice’s views filtered through the assistant coaches to the players. That’s fine, but it doesn’t sound as though Maurice is leading a charge with the team charging close behind, willing to skate through hell for Coach Mo. It’s more like Mo is top-dog in a 30-man corporate hierarchy. That might look great from still higher levels in a hierarchical management structure but is that the best approach for a head coach to get the most out of a young team? How does it look to Dalpe, Bowman and Boychuk?

4. A lack of specific explanations of what’s going on with the team, the reason for the Captain’s five questions. If the Canes lose, it’s the lack of jump, we didn’t skate, we were a half-step slow. When Maurice says the problem is “we didn’t skate,” that seems to me to reinforce doubts about his ability to motivate. It sheds no light on any systems that might be operating. After a loss, it would be reassuring to hear something about the way the Canes’ played that Maurice could and will change. No law says Maurice has to wait to be asked before saying more about what he’s trying to do, where things went right and wrong, and what he’s going to change. By the same token, no law says Maurice has to explain anything to fans. If he were a little more forthcoming, though, he might have fewer and milder critics.

The minority of Canes’ fans with doubts about Maurice—and I think it is a minority—may be interested in a blog post from his time with the Leafs: Is Paul Maurice a Good Coach?
The Hockey Analysis posting will sound familiar when it talks about the decline in Leafs’ play. For example, scoring on the power play fell—directly relevant to the Captain’s third question. I don’t know anything about the author of the blog post, David Johnson. I throw his comments in here because he’s not just another frustrated Canes’ fan griping about the Canes’ power play. If it is a case of same coach, different team, same outcomes, it seems relevant here. Are some things inevitable with Maurice as coach?

I don’t think it’s reasonable to judge Maurice this year by whether he takes the Canes to the playoffs, but by whether they play hard, seem highly motivated, and play as a team. But none of those is the most important criterion this year. Since the organization has decided to go with youth, improvement must come through the development of young talent. Maurice has to make that development happen at the NHL level. He can’t just wait for Jeff Daniels to send finished products down the pike. He has to focus on developing players in the NHL, too. The Canes’ future is at stake. The criterion for judging Mo this year is how well he develops the kids.

Meanwhile, it would be nice to have Maurice answer questions like the Captain’s, especially about Mo’s plans for developing the Canes’ young talent. It would be nice to know that Mo is trying to make development happen and planning to make development happen instead of waiting for it to happen. What is the plan?

That article makes a great point with regard to the PP and PK. A disturbing pattern for MO, even if Francis is supposed to be in charge of the PP coaching.