2009-10 Canes Country Exit Analysis: Paul Maurice
by Bob Wage on Aug 18, 2010 3:45 PM EDT
in 2009-10 Exit Analysis
Email
Print
Last year we did not have an exit review for Carolina's head coach but several readers have requested one for this season. Of course, Paul Maurice did a great job for the Hurricanes in 2009 as he led them to the Eastern Conference Finals. But this review is for a less successful 2009-10 campaign in which the team started off with a disastrous first two months of the season in which they tied a franchise record 14 game losing streak, (0-10-4).
There are always some factors which are out of a coach's control. Joni Pitkanen started the season in the press box with a sore knee. Eric Staal was playing through an injury from the beginning. Erik Cole broke his leg in the second game. Cam Ward had injury issues. Tuomo Ruutu also missed several games. You can not pin injuries on any coach.
But some of the important issues the coach is responsible for include: designating playing time for players, deciding which line players should be on, setting up the type of system the team employs, and determining who gets to play on special teams.
How did the coach do in these areas?
(more after the jump)
Let's start off with some background.
Maurice is often introduced as the winningest coach in franchise history. His NHL career started as head coach of the Hartford Whalers during the 1995-96 season. Back then, he was at the very young age of 29 and was the youngest coach in the NHL for a period of time. The Canes let him go in December of 2003 as the club hired Peter Laviolette, but Maurice was re-hired in a surprising move when the team released Laviolette in December of 2008.
Maurice has coached a total of 813 games for the Hurricanes and has compiled a record of 336-347-99-31. Including his two years in Toronto, his lifetime NHL record in 977 games is 412-413-99-53. His record in 53 career playoff games is 25-28.
The coach will probably always be compared to Laviolette, Carolina's other head coach who brought the Stanley Cup home to the promised land. Both coaches have differences in philosophies and while Maurice has more franchise wins, Laviolette has the better lifetime winning percentage. Regardless of philosophies, it is acutely obvious that ownership and upper management prefer to work with Maurice, perhaps for better or for worse.
Now, let's look at last season:
The Good: After what looked like a lost season altogether, Maurice helped to turn the team around as they had one of the best records in the NHL from January 1 on, (25-12-3). After recognizing that some of the older players were not performing on the powerplay and on the top lines, he reduced their ice time and played players like Jussi Jokinen and Brandon Sutter, more often. He rotated younger players in the lineup without placing too much pressure on them and in most cases, they played well and should have gained confidence for the coming season. Before and after the trade deadline period, he helped the team to easily transition and keep winning as a plethora of veterans were traded away.
Maurice is usually even-keeled and is easy to speak with and work with. He keeps his ego in check and always seems open to suggestions from his crew of assistant coaches.
The Bad: If a coach receives some credit when things go right, then he must also take some responsibility when things go wrong. Not only were the first two months of the season bad, they were a total disaster as the Canes sunk to last place in the league. While Maurice made the changes listed above to help turn things around, perhaps he was too slow to make those changes. One major concern was that the team seemed to repeatedly allow multiple goals in a row. (Both Atlanta and Buffalo scored 5 consecutive goals in third periods and in several other games there were goals scored within seconds of each other).
Maurice is often criticized by fans for what seems to be his conservative, defense orientated system. When he returned to Carolina in 2008-09, it appeared that he employed a "hybrid" system of sorts, which allowed the team to attack frequently, as well as attempt to be more defensively responsible. But last season, (perhaps due to injuries and personnel), the team seemed more content to stack up in the neutral zone and wait, especially if they had the lead.
The strategy to ride your number one goalie hard and often is not an unusual one, but backup goalie Michael Leighton was obviously rusty the few times he had a chance to play for the Canes. Perhaps Cam Ward could have or should have rested on a couple of the early season back-to-back situations where he played both games?
The Money: The monetary terms of Maurice's contract were not released, but he is entering the second year of a three year deal he signed in the offseason of 2009.
Discussion: What do you think were good points and bad points of Maurice's coaching for last season? How would you grade his overall performance?
92 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I gave him a “B” if C+/B- were available, that’d of been my vote. I dont blame him too much for the bad start. As you said, he cant help injuries. He gets the bump up to B from me because of the fantastic turnaround. Even though young players often dont need motivation, even in a lost season, I give him some credit for getting the team to play hard the whole way out for nothing more than pride. I wasnt around for his previous stint, so I have no prior opinions of him other than the last year and a half. Next year will be a telling year for him. Lots of youth and inexperience for him to work with, and Im curious to see how he handles Wardo.
Who voted A?
Was that a subtle stab at irony, or simply the worst sort of fanatic blinders?
I gave him a D, might have gone for C-. He failed to react quickly enough to the terrible start, and only looked competent for a few weeks. I combine that with his history of mediocrity. I have no real faith in MO, and believe he will have to go before we can seriously challenge for the Cup again. I hope he doesnt ruin Francis and Daniels as coaches.
I hope he doesnt ruin Francis and Daniels as coaches.
Not a Mo fan at all, but we cant lay either of these guys possible failings on him. Besides, the reason we are stuck with Mo again is because " Franchise " declined the big job when they canned Lavi.
it always burns within
the downward spiral never ends
when driven into sin
your salvation's found in a sinner's deed
by Douchebag St John on Aug 18, 2010 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Right
Well, I dont blame Francis for wanting to ease in to coaching. I just hope that as Maurice’s subordinates, they don’t pick up too many bad habits.
gave him a C. His inability to trust his backup, and his reluctance to utilize younger players make him the same old Mo, even if he did allow a little more offensive creativity. He also gets no higher than a C because I think he was too slow to make changes and too conservative with leads, as pointed out in the article. Finally, I give him no higher than a C because he is MO, and as well know, Mo Must GO! lol
On the upside, I do think he had a part in the turnaround at the end of last year, and he managed to keep the team from imploding during the captaincy change. Plus he didn’t get into a fight with Jeff O’Neil this time…..nm that Jeff is retired, I guess.
Oh yeah
I completely forgot that whole debacle. Leighton was clearly not handled well, and the coaching staff (so ultimately Maurice) is to blame.
I should add
If Maurice returns to his old ways and insists on trying to play Cam Ward for 75+ games, our franchise goalie will get hurt again. This is going to keep happening until someone figures out that Ward is a little fragile with regards to his back, and probably should be rested every fourth game or so.
I would really like to see Wardo top out at 60-65 starts. I think that is a fair number and will prevent him from getting to worn out.
it always burns within
the downward spiral never ends
when driven into sin
your salvation's found in a sinner's deed
by Douchebag St John on Aug 18, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
D for Defense
Everyone here seems to agree with my thoughts. First, as Bob mentioned, the hybrid system worked very well in 09. Why you would then go to your old defensive system to open ‘10 is clearly the height of arrogance. Maurice must somehow have thought " we were so close, all we have to do is completely go defense first, yeah that will put us over the top!!!". That is what happened. The team clearly did not buy into that. It was a bad decision from the personel side. What old guy wants to spend 3/4 of his ice time dumping and chasing? Especially, if you just went to the eastern con finals…. Some of those guys won the cup with an up tempo style… Really? Don’t piss into the wind and tell me it’s raining. The injuries kick in and it was a miracle they didn’t lose 20 in a row. This seems to be a reason for A Ward’s disinterest. It then turned into a war of egos… Maurice saying this is the way, the old guys saying this is garbage. Young guys enter and only know hustle. They buy in right away and Voilà.
The injuries: I don’t think any team can be playoff bound with injuries like we sustained last year. Is the coach to blame? Well we automatically say no. In fairness, Eric Staal was injured going for the gold. Some other injuries can be caused by style of play and by how the training is handled. Theses responsibilities are in large part the responsibility of the coach. Did Maurice go out on the ice and break Erik Cole’s leg? No, but is it possible for the coach to employ a style that puts his team in more vulnerable positions? I think Yes. I am not saying Maurice is responsible for injuries, I am saying he should be aware of positional vulnerability.
What about the coach’s ability to change and adapt? All great leaders have the ability to adapt and overcome. They generally don’t let ego get in the way of success. Equally as important as a willingness to adjust, speed of change is critical. Paul simply waited way too long to get those kids in there. He was stubborn and slow. For that, he did a poor job. His ego cost his team wins. Likely not the playoffs, but several wins.
Where we at?
Most of the disgruntled are gone. No more “I know better than the coach” guys left. Only coachable kids remain. They will be stronger defensively and much faster on the transition. They will be a fast resilient bunch. No arguments, no eye rolling. They will be fun to watch. Maurice will be successful with these guys because they will believe and they are talented. Mistakes will be made but in the end they could challenge for a playoff spot.
Paul gets a C from me….
Hard luck with the injuries…. Slow to change…. The worst part was his bad decision to get away from that modified style with the personel he had.
This year will be better no matter what the style is because the whole roster is coachable.
Whew…
by KenRab on Aug 18, 2010 5:48 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Hybrid--LaviMo system
I think you are right about how Mo’s success occurs. When he took over for Lavi, there had to be an incremental scaling back of that aggressive sell out offense first system that produced great results defensively. I think that put us in that hybrid stage that led us to the 09 run. Unfortunately, once Mo becomes entrenched, his pure system kicks in and we become that too conservative, dump and chase, neutral zone sitting, struggling to score goals team. As you stated, when things got shaken up…and the energy of youth and the abandon of fighting back with nothing to lose kicked in, we ratched back to that hybrid model that works. The question is…does MO realize this? Does Francis have influence to keep the team in that place?
2 years to the Cup
I really do not think that MO is to blame for the defensive approach this year
Because we went from having a defensive core that could waltz into the opposition zone with swagger (Pitkanen, Corvo, Babchuk, Seidenberg) to having a defensive core that lacked any meaning of offensive movement, especially when Corvo and Pitkanen were out for extended periods of time, and Babchuk and Seidenberg skipped town. When you have ONE reliable puck moving d, several guys that can do it and may or may not be successful in the attempt, and then the rest who make you wish you were a Caps fan when they touch the puck, then as head coach you are almost forced to use a defense oriented system.
Now I will completely balme MO if he squanders our absurdly offensive (punny) defense this year, and instead insists on having McBain and Pitkanen chill in the neutral zone while Cole and Staal scramble in a futile effort for the puck. Just my opinion.
by SouthernHockeyNutter on Aug 19, 2010 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
I gave Mo
a B but a low B for NOT responding sooner as Bob points out when there were multiple goals ( back to back ) and i don’t worry about Mo corrupting Jeff Daniels….good article
how about one on JR sometime soon ?
And if it Aint Hockey,It Aint Nothin !!
That Checkers 3rd Sweater ROCKS !!!
C for me. Although I like Maurice’s no-nonsense style, I think he relies far too heavily on defense and particularly Joni Pitkanen. The man is a mess playing north of 28 minutes per game, and it seemed that’s where Joni was most nights. Granted, some of the tools at his disposal were hurt, but they still had the pieces to compete on a nightly basis and didn’t get the job done, for the most part.
I don’t see how Maurice’s job is at any peril this year, and I think ultimately that may be a bad thing for us. Job security is great, but there is too much ‘organizational familiarity’ for my liking. With lower expectations come slightly lower accountability, in my opinion. No one will fault him if the team plays .500 hockey and misses the playoffs by ten points this year with a young team.
I can see how some would say ‘D’, but A, B, or F is extreme in both directions. The second half of the year was alright, but that first half will be burned into our minds for some time to come.
I gave him a C. I’m not sure how much blame I place for going to a more defensive posture to start the year, because the team he was given at the beginning of the year seemed more geared that way. The off-season additions didn’t bring a lot of speed. I didn’t blame him for injuries, but he did get dinged for overusing Cam. I’m not sure that’s all Mo, as Cam reportedly has issues with sitting. He got credit for blending the new kids in, and not putting so much pressure on them that they cracked. I agree that this year is a make or break year for Mo. Not necessarily in terms of standings or playoffs, but how he developes the talent, and how he positions the team for future runs. I don’t think his job is in jeopardy, but fan perception drove management to replace him once, and it could do it again.
Voted D and felt generous in doing so
I would echo many of the criticisms that others have expressed, and add these two points:
1. Very seldom has it seemed that the Canes have the initiative in a game when Maurice is the coach. The goal seems to be to stymie the other team and eke out a victory. Maurice’s winning percentage is consistent with that approach.
2. I find it hard to credit Maurice with using young players by choice or turning around the team’s performance after the disastrous start. The team lost many players to injury and the GM traded away many veterans. Maurice had no choice but to play young players to the extent that he did, and then played them less than I would have expected. When Staal finally got healthy, he made a huge difference in the Canes’ performance. I don’t credit Maurice for the resulting improvement. Maurice showed no flair for getting young players quickly into the swing of things or for allowing them to contribute to the best of their ability and rapidly gain confidence. McBain was a revelation but there is no reason to credit Maurice with McBain’s success at season’s end. No other young player from the Canes system had much of a chance to play a prominent role DESPITE all the injuries and trades. If you consider that wise organizational conservatism and the optimal approach to personnel development, then you probably like Maurice because he keeps the brakes on. If you think the approach slows personnel development, then you probably want a different coach.
Maurice seems intelligent, likable and steady. That’s all to the good. However, to be competitive, the Canes are going to need an aggressive coach capable of making the most of Canes’ talent to give the Canes an edge. A caretaker coach who dutifully executes organizational policy may be popular upstairs but the results have been mediocrity with occasional turns for the better. In some years, Maurice’s teams have been very hard to watch.
After all these seasons, there is little reason to expect a breakthrough from Maurice. There is no reason to expect Maurice to turn into the best coach for a young, fast team with budding offensive talent.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 18, 2010 6:12 PM EDT reply actions
After all these seasons, there is little reason to expect a breakthrough from Maurice. There is no reason to expect Maurice to turn into the best coach for a young, fast team with budding offensive talent.
Here Here!
it always burns within
the downward spiral never ends
when driven into sin
your salvation's found in a sinner's deed
by Douchebag St John on Aug 19, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
D
I gave him a D. He has to take responsibility for the terrible start last season. Sure there were injuries, but 14 losses in a row? As a coach it is his responsibility to shake thing up as needed.
Also, he was terrible with Sutter. I remember when he was the only one scoring and playing with passion and yet he was stuck playing 4th line. Overplaying Cam Ward also did not help.
I think this team needs someone who would have business-like relation with the management so that he can be held accountable when the team is not performing.
I Agree about Sutter
He was terrible with Sutter and if I remember correctly , it was after Rutherford stated that Sutter (and I believe it was Boychuk) would be playing 15 minutes in the game that evening, that Maurice was finally forced to play the kids.
I do not feel that Maurice is the right coach for such a young team — there are going to be ALOT of mistakes made and the kids need to know they will not have their time cut if they make a mistake. With the way the team will be this year, we do not need Staal, Cole and Ruutu (Jussi) all on the same line — one of the kids, be it Boychuk, Bowman, Skinner, etc. needs to play top line with Staal – maybe not the entire game, but a good portion of it.
Last year – I hated that Boychuk, Bowman were buried on the bottom lines – that is not their game and I thought that was a mis-use of these kids. These kids are scorers and don’t belong on a checking line
Should be an interesting year to say the least — looking forward to see who is going to make the team!
by livingthelife59 on Aug 19, 2010 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
+35 i agree !!
And if it Aint Hockey,It Aint Nothin !!
That Checkers 3rd Sweater ROCKS !!!
by CaniacSteve on Aug 19, 2010 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
F Minus (Go Back to the Minors)
I’m sorry but Mo deserves an F.
1. Injuries? Ok. I would rather have a 100% AHLer than a 75% Staal. Is that not a product of coaching?
2. Basic Coaching Principles Lacking. Hello. If you go down 3-1 because the opposing team just scored twice in 30 seconds. Time for the Time Out.
3. Riding Goalie. Dead Horse there.
4. Like others have said: DYNAMIC GAME PLAN. Change your strategy at first or second intermission based on game situations. Does Mo? NO! I do not mind a defense first strategy…but when you are down 5-1, time to throw that out the window…
5. Second Guess YOUR MANAGER. Nothing wrong with offering options. It’s all in the presentation…Lavi’s presentation was lacking….Mo is a Yes Man….we need something in-between.
6. What the F are you doing during practices? Focus on shortcomings (PowerPlay). If you need more than an hour….do it. I saw the same crap on Powerplays over and over again. No change there. Product of coaching. That was Ron’s area? Then address it.
7. Yes the bulk of the Caniac Nation dislikes you but star having a little more public visibility. Have thick skin and deal with it (Actually starting to see a little more of this).
All of this is a waste of time anyway. PK and JR see in Mo what Mo sees in Tlusty and Harrison…no freakin’ idea to anyone else.
Product of N.C.
Yes. I like a winner.
BUT, I am not a fair-weather fan.
I do not mind losing IF I see the coach exhaust everything at his disposal to win: PASSION, PASSION, and more PASSION, EMOTION, different game strategies (besides just shaking the lines), and actually acting like he gives a Shhh….did I mention Passion?
I can agree there, win or lose, if our guys are busting their asses out there I’m satisfied. Like anyone I’d prefer to see a W, but I’ll be pleased with the effort. The most painful part of last fall was how often they were simply out-skated and out-worked, they weren’t just losses, they were horrible losses.
C
I’ll say this, I like Coach Mo, I appreciate his ability to stay on the level no matter how the team is doing. His vocal tone in post-game interviews is the same regardless of the outcome. It drove me nuts before January though. Besides that I thought he handled the young guys extremely well, putting them in a position to succeed. I don’t know if he’s the right coach for this team, but I’m content with him.
The one thing he does that I absolutely can’t stand is his (in my opinion) overplaying of Ward, especially in the situation you mentioned, early-season back-to-backs. It’s a long season (duh, Kubota) and I think most of us would agree that Cam is definitely at his best in the second half of the season/playoffs (and I like it that way) so why stack up the minutes before Christmas? I say this all the time, but they ought to aim for 60-65 starts for Ward (assuming he stays healthy all year) instead of 70+ and he shouldn’t ever play both ends of back-to-backs before New Years when you know you’re going to be riding him like a pack mule the last 30 games. Hopefully it would keep Ward fresh for the stretch run and would keep his backup from getting permanent hat-hair while warming the bench.
Someone needs to send this blog to JR
by KenRab on Aug 18, 2010 6:55 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
My take is the carnage took place at the end of ’09. Mo came in and we finished strong and upset the Devils and Bruins. In the process, got knocked around by Boston, leaving nothing in the tank for Pittsburgh and got abused.
Organizationally, the team felt we had to get tougher picking up Ward, Alberts, Kots, etc. With those changes, we went from the least penalized and quick team, to a slow team with too many penalties and the injuries added salt to our wounds.
It wasn’t til later in the yr, after changes,that we got back to being quick and not taking as many penalties and actually winning games.
In hindsight, they were bad moves, but we got bullied at the end of the ‘09 playoffs. Could Mo have done better, sure, unfortunately it was too late once we got our team speed back. I can’t put that all on Mo.
Well…
First off let me say I really appreciate the generally respectful tone that has pervaded this discussion. I’m not sure there’s a more polarizing figure in franchise history, although not so much because he is widely loved, but he sure is despised by many.
I wasn’t here before 2005, so I have no history with Mo Version 1.0. Although I will say that I’m not anywhere remotely near the person I was in 2004, so I don’t expect my hockey coach to be the same either.
I like him. That being said, I agree with the sentiment that he waits too long before puling the trigger. He seems to be a patient man, but I don’t think his patience always serves him well, like when he needs to give his goalie a rest, or call a timeout when the team has been scored on twice in two minutes, or sit a grizzled vet and move up an eager upstart, or go for the jugular instead of sitting on a one-goal lead. I agree with all those opinions. But I do also think his patience sometimes pays off because he doesn’t panic and moves through adversity in a level-headed manner, and many times I think that is a good thing. I do wish he’d loosen the reins and let our guys play more aggressively.
One thing that did impress me was during last year’s adversity, he never “lost” the team. He never gave up on the team and they never gave up on him or themselves, and there was certainly ample opportunity. I remember going to a practice after one particularly torturous game during the winless streak (I don’t remember which one) and the RBC staffers told me he’d never left the building from the night before. Say what you will, he loves this franchise and believes in his players, and there is something to be said for that. And collectively he and the team almost pulled it out at the end of the season, they gave it a heroic run, and while I thought it was too little too late, I believed that they believed.
Again I think the forum has it right (at the time of my vote) as I believe his grade should be somewhere between a C+ and a B-. I was going to give him an ‘A’ just so I could tell the purple monkey dude I was the one (wink), but I gave him a B.
Phoblographer and Finn Aficionado
SISU
Ah, the voice of reason. I get what you are saying about being patient and I agree. But oddly he seems to be less patient with keeping the same line up over a period of time to see if it will eventually gel. It’s odd that he is not as patient in this area as he is with others.
Is it October yet?
by hotchipsnsalsa on Aug 19, 2010 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s one of the anomalies I see in every discussion on Mo. The same people who say he is too slow to change are quick to indict him for changing the lines. Every coach changes lines. Injuries, matchups, or just trying to find that magic scoring combination are all drivers for that. Other than a very few combinations, it is extremely rare to see one line stay together for any significant time, on any team. When a combination clicks, a coach rides it until it stops. Then he tries something else. When a team is struggling, the changes are even more frequent. My other complaint is that people seem to think a coach can play a certain style regardless of his players. I find that the players on a team dictate style far more than the coach, and that has more to do with the GM than the coach. In Mo I, wehen he had the line to do it (BBC?) he had them attacking. After the 02 season, the team was slower and the pace reflected that. The end of 09 was also faster and more attack oriented, reflecting the young players. The start of last year was slow because of the players JR brought in. When they started to fall, and younger players came in, the pace picked up. That’s a sign of a coach utilizing the players available. Gee, isn’t what all his critics say Mo doesn’t do? Makes you wonder.
I dont think we have the defense this year to play a strictly a defense first style of play,
given that most of our guys are the mobile type.
I gave Mo a “C” because I think he rode Cam and Pits too hard last year and failed to
“motivate” during the 14 game slump. The “playing not to lose mentality” lost us some games.
How he will handle a much younger “hungrier” team remains to be seen. Except for Cole
the only CUP guys he has left are younger ones. So he has a whole new canvas on which to “create” his team—————-it will be interesting to watch.
I hope JR will help in the development of a game plan (especially with regard to Cam)
Ask me the same question next year at this time !! I am not totally confident about Mo’s
ability to develop young guys, because, to me he has always shown partiality to vets.
GO CANES! Go Heels!
Not a knock on anyone in particular but I love how when the Canes go on a hot streak all everyone talks about is how good Cam is when he can play every night and get into his groove! Remember before his back started acting up all the talk was how he was sooooo good on the back to backs? Leighton started 5 games for us, and played HORRIBLY, had he been at the least adequate, he’d of played 10-14 games, putting Cam in the 72-68 range. In the years before Cam had played 69, 68, and 60. The back problems are fairly new, and who knew he’d get his leg sliced. If Cam is to be considered “elite” he should be comfortable playing 68-72 games. Look at the top of the list for NHL goalies. Brodeur, Lundqvist, Nabokov, Kiprusoff, Miller, Luongo, and Fleury all played 69 games or more. It was a bad losing streak and Leights was only making it worse when he did play. He was 1-4 with a 4.28 gaa!!! and a .848 sv pctg. Cam is young, hes a conn smythe winner, is payed well, and is counted on as a cornerstone of this organization, and looking at his gaa and svg pctg compared to Leighton, I’d of rode Cam too. And you cant blame Leightons poor play on a “lack of playing time”, the guys been a back up for 6 seasons, its his job to play on a moments notice. If you cant come in and perform on the fly you cant be an NHL backup. Im sure he saw enough rubber in practice to keep “warm”. I guess I sound like a Mo apologist, Im really not, I’d of given him a c+/b- as I stated above, Im just playing devils advocate to everyone else who seem to think Mo’s an idiot for trying to let Cam play through the slump.
C
C is what Maurice gets. I think he handled the change of captain and losing and playing rookies fairly decent. I would expect a B grade for him next year if our youngsters progress, he’s in a position to succeed from the transition from old to new.
by Cincinnati Reds on Aug 19, 2010 2:46 AM EDT reply actions
not to be rude or crass..
But what would our attitudes be IF the canes did make the play offs..even if the they lasted only the first round, would many of us,who like Capt.Stinky chant Mo must go , would we be harsh on him and yes Mo is too slow to pull the trigger…
And if it Aint Hockey,It Aint Nothin !!
That Checkers 3rd Sweater ROCKS !!!
Maurice I versus Maurice II
I gave Maurice a B. I am not surprised that the overall grades are between B and C, while the comments trend toward the highly negative. I think all NHL coaches bring out that kind of reaction. In the case of Maurice, the actual data of his second tenure is wildly disparate from the majority of the criticism.
In 2008-2009, Maurice took a dysfunctional team and took it to the Eastern Conference Finals. He then had to face the Pens without Ruutu or Cole for a significant part of that series.
In 2009-2010, Cam Ward and Staal entered the year with injuries. Pitkanen couldnt’ play at the start of the year due to injuries. Cole fractured his leg in the second game. As was discussed endlessly, A. Ward was a master of disaster on the ice for the Hurricanes. Yelle was terrible. Wallin did not buy in at all to the defensive system. Jokinen hurt his hand in prior to training camp while working out. Alberts started off the season taking some really bad penalties and turning the puck over in his own end – but was tremendous at timing hits (which the Hurricanes desperately needed). Harrison was simply terrible much of the time during his first stint with the Hurricanes. Sutter began the year either on the fourth line or in the AHL.
As the injuries began to mount, Cam Ward went down with first a slash to his thigh, and then later was out with a back injury. Leighton was terrible and the team has zero confidence in him, I thought. Corvo was lost for a significant time due to the slash of his Achilles tendon. Gleason had a broken foot. Last, but not least, Brind’Amour was a shell of his former self.
Additionally, LaRose had an injured knee and was also mired down in an horrendous scoring slump. Cullen, too, was in a scoring slump. All in all, it was a recipe for disaster.
I don’t fault any coach whether it is Maurice, Laviolette, or Torts, or anybody else, for injuries. Injuries are not an excuse for any team, but injuries highly influence the arsenal a coach has available to put on the ice. I do feel Maurice has to bear ultimate responsibility for the lack of cohesiveness of the team at the start of 2009-2010. I thought the team looked like a squabbling family. To me, the veterans were not buying in to a defensive system that required everybody involved to finish checks and to significantly increase their physicality. The veterans were taking incredibly ill-timed penalties and the Hurricanes quickly became the NHL’s most penalized team.
I do feel Maurice needed to find a way to get the team unified; but that is easier said than done. I also felt Maurice needed different kinds of players than the veterans he had. As the Hurricanes brought up their young, talented players, like Sutter, Boychuk, Tlusty, Dwyer, and Bowman, and later McBain, the Hurricanes became vastly more successful and more fun to watch.
I was not at all sad to see Maurice leave the first time. I was really stunned when he was re-hired and began as neutral to skeptical about his re-hiring. Over the course of the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 season I have had opportunities to hear Maurice in person and to speak with him one on one. I have asked him very direct questions and have been increasingly impressed with him the more I hear him in person and speak with him. Almost to a fault, Maurice takes personal responsibility for everything that happens on and off the ice. He is highly demanding of himself. He also strikes me as a players’ coach. He does have a clear idea in his head what Hurricanes hockey is and is seeking to get a 100% buy-in with all the players on that system. I think Maurice II is far more concerned than Maurice I with having fast, skilled players who can create odd-man rushes; and I think Maurice II values offensively creativity much more than Maurice I.
I am also impressed with the way Maurice II has a team concept toward coaching. He gets high marks in my estimation for being willing to delegate authority and to accept the advice of his coaches.
Looks to me like the overall is between D and C
I guess it is according to which side the invidual leans who is commenting but more votes for F and D that for A and B. Honestly I do not see how anyone who watched the games last year could vote any higher than C.
Very interesting.
Most of us do not have access to PM. I am very encouraged with your assessment after having spoken to the man himself. Agree very much that he did not have the type of personel to pull off the style of play that he was shooting for. I hope you are correct in your opinions. I can see a difference too with the deligation. While I am convinced delegation is a good thing at IBM, as a head coach? Not sure about that one. Football team with 100 players …. yes.
I do trust JR and his ability to put together a team and a coaching team too. I believe the year will be successful because of the level of buy in from the kids.
I am very interested to see the young team that we will field. Should be fun to watch…Season please get here I am dying over here…………
Thanks. Not to be disrespectful to anybody because CC is all about the free exchange of ideas, I can generally read the posts and comments and tell which people have spoken with the coaches or Jim Rutherford or heard them talk in person, and which ones are reaching conclusions without being able to discuss things with them. I have been impressed with the openness of the coaches and Jim Rutherford. There is not a trace of arrogance to them. Maurice does have a great sense of humor with a bit of an edge to it. I also found Francis to be extremely open and thoughtful. Francis is extremely articulate. In all situations they explained their thinking and how they saw the progress of the team.
I could see why players really liked playing at Carolina. The emphasis is always on player development with a team concept. The Hurricanes organization goes to great lengths never to throw its players under the bus; and is very, very slow to write-off a player.
All in all, what I’ve come away with from the totality of watching games, listening to the public statements by the coaches, Jim Rutherford, and Jason Karmanos, and talking with various ones of them is that there is a style of hockey that is the team identify or “Hurricanes hockey.” When the Canes play Hurricanes Hockey, they beat teams like Pittsburgh, Washington, and Montreal. When the Canes deviate from that style of play, they lose to Atlanta, Florida, and Tampa Bay. I think the entire organization is on the same page about the kinds of players that are best suited for Hurricanes hockey; and the team is being constructed consistent with that unified vision. The foundation for Hurricanes hockey is total, unmitigated effort and desire – the will to win each shift no matter the personal sacrifice required. Another pillar of Hurricanes hockey is raw, pure speed and agility, mixed with the desire to play a physical game by the forwards. When the forwards crash the net and swarm the puck, the Hurricanes win. When the forwards float back and don’t finish checks, things get ugly fast.
Since Maurice has been named coach, the team has been transformed to one that fits this team identity. It is not accidental. To the contrary, the transformation is part of a long term plan to bring the Hurricanes the fold of teams that consistently make the playoffs and regularly are contenders for the Stanley Cup.
Doubts about the stated concept of "Hurricanes' hockey"
The definition as stated has incontestably positive elements but zero differentiation from the approach taken by other NHL teams. Every team in the league wants players that play hard every shift—play with “total, unmitigated effort and desire.” A substantial percentage of teams base their approach on speed and agility. Virtually every team wants its forwards to play a physical game. These are all pillars of good hockey, and fine as a basis for “Hurricanes’ hockey,” but they will only lead to success for the Canes if the Canes either have above average talent or execute this nearly universal strategy better than anybody else. It is problematic to do that game in and game out and year in and year out.
What is lacking in the above description of “Hurricanes’ hockey” is any sense of imagination, innovation, or flair. If the team has been transformed to suit Maurice’s notion of long-term team identify, then I despair for the future of the Hurricanes. Maurice has a long record of mediocrity. The successful half-season under Maurice II piggybacked on Laviolette’s system which, while it has its disadvantages and risks has, like it or not, had far more success than Maurice’s approach. The visionary Maurice II took a big-budget team last year and produced an absolutely disastrous season. His performance was spectacular in the not-getting-fired-despite-ruinous-performance department. Laviolette got fired despite far better on-ice performance through an injury-plagued period than the period that Maurice survived last year. (Laviolette joined the exclusive got-fired-despite-recently-winning-the-only-Stanley-Cup-in-franchise-history club.)
There was adversity to be sure. But adversity multiplies and intensifies when you are at a loss to adapt. In my view, Maurice was utterly at a loss. He was trying to get back to his system and for a variety of reasons the results were catastrophic. If veterans didn’t buy in, that is entirely the fault of the head coach. Why couldn’t Maurice, the coach who loves veterans, get the veterans to buy in? That suggests Maurice, the players’ coach, had lost the locker room faster than Laviolette did, or failed to win it in the first place. Why couldn’t Maurice adapt to the talent on the team rather than steering the same futile course game after game? Why couldn’t he at least call a time out when massive lapses led to consecutive goals—a time out much like the one that Laviolette used to turn the tide in a playoff series last year? Why couldn’t Maurice bench nonproducing vets faster and go with talented kids because plainly things couldn’t get worse?
I wish Paul Maurice well. I haven’t met him, but he seems smart and likable. I’m sure he has the best of intentions. Unfortunately, there is overwhelming evidence that he is not a head coach who can take an NHL franchise to the promised land.
AD, I find your comments on Maurice at odds with your many dead-on and insightful observations about the Canes and their choices going forward. For example, I think Maurice would be just about the worst possible coach for a team that is trying to roll four lines, as you and I favor.
There are two possible explanations for our different views of Maurice. The first is that since I’ve missed out on private conversations with Maurice, I’ve misunderstood what I’ve seen when watching the Canes play. I’m not as knowledgeable as you and so that is a distinct possibility. The second explanation is that personal interaction with Maurice has led to your seeing the Canes through lenses distorted by your personal regard for a good, hard-working, dedicated, well-intentioned man.
For the Canes’ sake, I hope that I’m the one guilty of misunderstanding the Canes’ recent history.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 19, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
AD goes to the same charity events that several of us attend.
We’ve all had a nice quick stand-up conversation or two with Mo over the years.
However, those little chats haven’t given me any special insight into the man, other than he’s a good small-talker and seems like a nice enough guy.
He’s definitely good at PR for the team at those kinds of events, which is important in a small market.
Certainly seems to have snowed AD. ;-D
Here we are now...entertain us.
I agree with AD that there is a “Hurricanes philosophy”. It is obvious from the approach taken to acquiring players, and the system wide adherence to teaching the same principles. I disagree with CCF on a couple of issues. The first is blaming the coach for not bringing up younger players. That’s not the coach, that’s the GM, and a lot of it last year was based on the team being up against the cap. You can’t add a player if the cap won’t absorb him. You can’t just swap players back and forth if they may be susceptible to waivers. A lot of the maneuvering of players is dictated by the cap, which this team usually didn’t have to worry about. Last year, I’m sure was a lesson for JR. I also disagree that he didn’t adapt to the talent on the team. The new personel and the injuries to some of our players made the team slower than needed to play a pressing game. The first part of the year was plodding because we had too many plodders. As newer younger players were infused, the pace increased. That is adjusting to the plyers you have.
You’re right to fault me for failing to note that the cap restricted the Canes’ personnel moves. I find it hard to remember, perhaps because the situation now is the opposite.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 20, 2010 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Maurice and the Hurricanes
I absolutely could be totally mistaken; and could well lack sufficient objectivity. On the other hand, I do find the idea that with all the coaches on the bench that it is solely Maurice’s fault that time outs were not caught at a particular time. According to interviews the Maurice gave after the season to a Canadian reporter, Maurice took full responsibility for not motivating the team at the start of the season. I totally disagree that Maurice was at fault for the injuries or that he had great options in how to deal with Aaron Ward, Yelle, Wallin, and Brind’Amour.
What is lacking in the above description of "Hurricanes’ hockey" is any sense of imagination, innovation, or flair. If the team has been transformed to suit Maurice’s notion of long-term team identify, then I despair for the future of the Hurricanes. bq.
When the Hurricanes jettisoned their under-producing veterans, got Cam Ward mostly healed, got Staal mostly healed, and brought in young prospects the Hurricanes became one of the hottest teams in the NHL. In short, Maurice had players capable of playing the way the Hurricanes team needs to play to be successful. I found that style very fun to watch and found it to be a style that fits the talents and skill sets of the team. How can anybody complain about the Hurricanes success from the end of December through April?
Big "D" (and I dont mean Dallas)
I gave hime a D if for nothing else playing guys he knew were hurt…Wardo is a perfect example. The lack luster special teams effort is another reason. he has to take charge and lead the team or we will be in the same boat. It seems to be a case of talent getting us by not the coaching
Playing Hurt
There is no way Mo or JR ( or any coach or GM) in the league with a hair of integrity would ever play someone with a known injury that could become serious due to overuse. The reality of any professional contact sport is that during the course of a season annoying injuries such as shoulder strains, ab and groin pulls, minor strains, bruises will crop up. Players routinely play through these.That is just the nature of pro sports. Come playoffs you would be amazed at what players will endure. I had a season where I played through a partially separated shoulder, groin strain a bad knee. I sure felt them every shift.
The reality is that these are expensive assets to a team…. no team would risk permanent damage to a long term prized ( and expensive) asset such as Staal or Ward. Additionally, playing an individual where you can cause a career threatening aggravation would be a grievance under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It is a call made in consultation with medical and training staff and the player.
Lastly it comes down to the effectiveness of a player with ailments. Is an 80% Staal better than a 100% Samson? Is an 85% Ward better than a 100% Leighton. That is judgment call made by the coaching staff (again in consultation with the medical and training staff and JR.
At times last year there were so many walking wounded that JR had some tough calls. He was actually right up against the CAP because there were so many contracts of call ups on the pro roster. Also, unless it is an emergency injury call up, some player because of their contract status would have had to clear waivers to be sent back down and we could have lost some of our more experienced prospects.
not all injuries result in permanent damage
Just look at the list of players tha thave surgery at the end of a season, go back and see how many of them played in games right up to the last game. You are going to tell me all those injuries happened in the last game they played? You are mistaken here, guys play with nagging injuries all the time.
You have to forget about 2008-2009 when grading Mo for last year
This was the topic that made me dig out my old ID and password to post here. How can anybody give Mo anything above a “D” for last season. He was the in charge over a losing streak that was approaching a league record. The team spent much of the year in dead last or close to it. The team didn’t come close to making the playoffs. Yes, there were injuries (every team has them) and the team played well down the stretch (with no pressure and facing a lot of back up goalies).
He was too slow to make changes. He kept Sutter buried in the lineup much too long. When is he going to learn that Cam has a wonky back and probably shouldn’t be in goal every game? Why did he send Brindy out in a shoot out?
There’s a lot to like about Maurice. But I gave him a D. His handling of the early season injuries was wrong. For me it was Larose as much as Staal. Chad was worthless until he sat out and rested. And Staal wasn’t much better. The theory of ‘playing thru it’ didn’t work too well.
And yes, I would prefer a 100% Samson for 2-3 games over a 80% Staal. If that means in 2-3 games Staal is 99% versus an 80% Staal for months because he Never heals.
And I never understood the perverse Breakdown-test they did on Joni late last year.
C
What I don’t care for:
- He should be more proactive in taking players off the ice when they have lingering injuries
- Don’t ride your #1 goalie like he’s your last card
- Transition to youth took too long. 09-10 was an obvious transition season from old to new players, and it took the ORG far too long to execute.
What I liked:
-Transition away from the non-producing vets to the young players was executed well once it finally happened.
- I love Mo’s personality, post-games and always seems to be a good coach in-game.
D
He got a D from me… Did not react soon enough during the 14 game loser to change things. Needed a shakeup after the third loss in a row. Bench the star for a game, bench A Ward, whatever but a message needed to be sent and it was not done. There was no fire set under the proverbial asses… Even if there was no 14 gamer and we won the cup, his choice of ties alone warrant a D.
D
The Canes braintrust built last year’s team for the playoffs. They didn’t make the playoffs. Mo was part of the decision-making process about who to bring in; the Canes spent near the salary cap and flopped. Blame injuries, blame joojoo, but the Canes were spectacularly bad in in October and November.
I believe Mo is a good coach. I believe that he, like the rest of us, strives to better ourselves and learn form our failures. I believe he can coach a fast, aggressive team that is defensively responsible. I also believe that last year’s performance gets him a D as the head coach.
An F for sure
Since we are in a medium-sized market, and many of the Caniac nation are still remembering the early years when we fretted year-to-year about losing the team, jeez we’re just happy to have the NHL gracing our hick town, etc., I think there has been an “aura of mediocrity” growing around this franchise. The BEST FANS IN THE NHL are very forgiving here in Raleigh, as we absolutely love our team no matter what. It’s almost like it’s okay that they had a crappy season last year and we’re all finding excuses.
I run a small business. Thankfully, it is successful. It is successful due to, in large part, my leadership (not to be pretentious) as is the case with 99% of small businesses. It’s the same with corporations — the most successful have great management and leadership. Those that fail? 99% of the time due to poor management and leadership.
If the Canes were a small business or corporation, last year they would’ve been flirting with going out of business or closed their doors altogether. It’s been a trend with Mo over and over again — spots of success followed by years of mediocrity. He is a mediocre coach. For the team to be successful, they need an infusion of WINNING LEADERSHIP at the coaching level.
Mo must go.
hey capt.
1. I as part of the we, the people thank you the small business guy for hanging in there I know it aint easy & i wish you well…and while we have NOT agreed several times…but on this we agree…wether it’s in sports or in business Quality leadership is Paramount!! have a good week end capt…be safe !!
And if it Aint Hockey,It Aint Nothin !!
That Checkers 3rd Sweater ROCKS !!!
Thank You Stinky!
The voice of reason. Glad to see he and I were 2 of the 26 that gave an ‘F’.
I’m sorry but if you were happy 1 out of 5 Christmases to get what you wanted…..then Mo is your man.
I want what I NEED, EVERY Christmas…..and Mo is not going to give that. .500 as a goal is not cutting it.
Good Analyst? Ok. Be an Asst Coach or Head Coach in the AHL.
He cannot do BASIC coaching techniques…much less anything better.
I challenge anyone to a debate on this topic.
Thanks Stinky!
I could go further and say that describes the majority of coaches. Or at least the ones with some success. It is also the reality of a smaller market team. A look around the league pretty much confirms this. We are fortunate to have a stable management that can at least reach the “spots of success”. We have completed a decade with an amazing success ratio. Part of the price is the down years that were in between. I remember reading a question from a fan in St. Louis a few years back. At the time the Blues had a long run of consecutive years making the playoffs, but very little success once there. The fan’s question was whether it was better to be a playoff team, with a low success rate, every year, or to have the exhilaration of a long playoff run. i guess every fan has to decide that themselves. As a fan who has had the fortune to attend 2 SCF’s here in Raleigh, I prefer the exhilaration. As a businessman, I guess you prefer the stability.
Lavi was here, what, 3 years and won a cup. Mo’s been here forever, made two decent runs. Me thinks Lavi had the better ratio.
I TOTALLY AGREE on the majority of coaches having spurts of success followed by years of mediocrity. Difference here is that when those other teams get crappy, they switch coaches to jump-start the team, while we just stand pat and hope it gets better.
Maurice's spots of success: there is a pattern
“Spots of success” does describe most coaches, but some coaches have more spots of success than others. Apples to apples comparisons of coaches are impossible, but the most reasonable point of comparison for Maurice is the other Canes’ head coach, Peter Laviolette.
Laviolette has served as a head coach for eight seasons with three franchises. However, in three of the eight seasons, Laviolette coached substantially less than a full season. He has been fired twice, on both occasions by teams with winning records.
Laviolette was fired by the Hurricanes when the team had a 12-11 record with 2 overtime losses. Laviolette did not have a 14 game winless streak. Despite a winning record at the time and in previous seasons, he didn’t have the opportunity to make the playoffs in that season.
In his first partial season with the Canes, Laviolette coached 52 games and missed the playoffs. The team was 20-22-6-4. That was Laviolette’s ONLY losing season as a head coach. The third partial season was last year with the Flyers, where his record was 28-24 with 5 OTLs and of course the Flyers lost in the Stanley Cup finals.
The Islanders fired Laviolette after a 35-34-11-2 season with 83 points following a stellar season with 96 points. The Islanders made the playoffs both years that he coached there. He got fired for losing twice in the first round and because there was team dissension, players unhappy with their roles, etc.
In five seasons in which Laviolette coached start to finish, he missed the playoffs twice. Significantly, both misses were with the Canes, and in both years, the Canes had winning records: 40-34 with 8 OTLs and 88 pts in 06-07, and 43-33 with 6 OTLs and 92 points in 07-08. Those years would not ordinarily be considered disastrous; other teams had better records, but the Canes had winning seasons. Laviolette’s worst point total in a full season as Canes’ head coach was 88.
Paul Maurice has been a head coach for 13 seasons and made the playoffs four times with no Stanley Cups, one loss in the finals, and one loss in the conference finals. He did not take the Leafs to the playoffs in two seasons though he did have winning records both seasons.
When the Canes fired Maurice in 03-04, they were 8-12-8-2 after a 61 pt season. That was the year that Laviolette’s record was 20-22-6-4.
Laviolette’s point totals in full seasons as a head coach: 96, 83, 112, 88, 92. Four out of five seasons, 88 pts or more. Low, 83; High, 112. Maurice’s point totals in full seasons as a head coach: 75, 74, 86, 84, 88, 91, 61, 91, 83, 80. Low, 61; High, 91. Three out of ten seasons, 88 pts or more. Looking just at full seasons coaching the Canes, Laviolette’s point totals: 112, 88, 92; Maurice’s: 75, 74, 86, 84, 88, 91, 61, 80. As a Canes’ head coach, Laviolette only fell short of Maurice’s BEST point total once.
There are other metrics that say essentially the same thing. Playoff winning percentages: Laviolette 54%, Maurice 47%. Record in conference finals: Laviolette, 2-0, Maurice 1-1.
Laviolette clearly has the capacity to rub players and owners the wrong way, but his record is sprinkled with far more spots of success that Mo’s. The point is not that the Canes should bring back Laviolette, but that the spots of success in Maurice’s record are not representative of highly successful coaches.
Yes, it was tough for Maurice starting out with the Whalers. But the 61 pt season happened in 02-03 with the Canes. Yes, the Canes could never spend like the Redwings of old. But it happens that another Canes’ coach fared far better than Maurice. Yes, Maurice sometimes made the playoffs, but 4 times in 13 seasons and no Stanley Cups isn’t what Canes’ fans would like to see for the next 13 years.
What about Maurice II vs. Laviolette? Well, the fabulous new Maurice II just finished coaching an 80 pt season. Yes, Maurice had a great record after taking over from Laviolette in the previous season. But he took over a team that wasn’t playing Maurice II’s system. Maurice II’s system is what we got more of last year and the results almost exactly matched Maurice’s average point totals in eight full seasons as a Canes head coach: 79.9. If you throw out the high 91 and the low 61, Maurice has averaged 81.2 pts in full seasons as a Canes’ head coach. If you take his five most recent seasons, the average is 80.8 pts.
Maurice has a very substantial track record. It is not a perfect measure of his worth as a coach and certainly not of his worth as a human being. But Maurice’s long record as a head coach must surely say something about his ability as a head coach. Expect his teams to finish with about 80 pts and miss the playoffs. It is wildly optimistic to do otherwise. (Laviolette’s average point total in five full seasons as a head coach: 94.2.)
I don’t expect the Canes to fire Maurice regardless of the team’s record in the coming season, but I hope they will keep an open mind for future seasons.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 20, 2010 11:32 AM EDT reply actions
but I hope they will keep an open mind for future seasons.
Don’t hold your breath on that. We are stuck with him until he dies, Franchise takes the bench, or PK moves the team to a more " Profitable " market .
it always burns within
the downward spiral never ends
when driven into sin
your salvation's found in a sinner's deed
by Douchebag St John on Aug 20, 2010 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions
At some point, won’t the Canes have to attach higher priority to getting the most out of all this talent they’ve acquired and maximizing their chances of winning another Cup?
Like you, I’m mystified by the Canes’ devotion to Maurice. I don’t hold PK in high esteem either—he seemed petty in his public personal attacks on Laviolette, and he seems consistently petty in preferentially drafting players from that other team that he happens to own.
PK will be better off financially if the Canes win. You would think that would at some point merit his attention.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 20, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Paul Maurice and Peter Laviolette
For some fans, even if Paul Maurice were to win back to back Stanley Cups, he would remain on their list of NHL coaches who ought to be immediately fired. As a practical matter, the organization believes in Maurice and Maurice is going to be associated in one manner or another with the Hurricanes. If every NHL coach is blamed for the fact that his team loses its #1 goalie to injury or other top players to injuries, there is going to be no shortage of former NHL coaches looking for work.
I don’t know if Maurice is the best coach in the history of the NHL, and I tend to doubt he’d say he was. I do know that I prefer Maurice, flaws and all, one million times over the chaos that was and is Peter Laviolette. Still, the idea of saying Maurice is wretched without also condemning Francis, Rowe, Barrasso, Wesley, and Daniels seems far-fetched. Similarly, there is no question that once an NHL head coach is given by the GM a group of talented players who have the skill and mind set to play the way the coach wants them to play, the burden shifts to the NHL coach to either produce or leave. The question of course is how long is a fair amount of time to assess whether the specific coach will or won’t be successful. With a rebuilding team, it probably takes longer to assess the coach. With a veteran team, the window of time is much shorter.
When Maurice wins back to back Stanley Cups, I'll be happy to reconsider
While it’s true that losing a number one goalie is a blow, it’s not true that Maurice has suffered that fate every year for 13 years. One year’s rash of injuries can’t explain Maurice’s career.
If Maurice has been the victim of misfortune often enough to explain his long mediocre record, then the Canes should part company to break the hex that he seems to bring down on the franchise.
Another point about losing a number one goalie. Some coaches are better than others at getting the most out of a career backup in goal. It might be said that Maurice flunked that test last year with Leighton. Same year, same backup goalie, Laviolette road him to the Stanley Cup finals.
I’m aware that the rebuttal to that argument is that the Flyers had better defensemen than the Canes. But put Maurice in Philadelphia last season, and I find it inconceivable that Maurice would have gotten the same results Laviolette did after losing multiple goalies, Carter and Gagne. I don’t think Maurice would have adjusted successfully. I don’t think he would have sensed a key moment, called a timeout, and given an impassioned speech that turned around a playoff series.
If perchance you follow the NY Giants football team, you know that they had an outstanding defense two years ago and one of the worst defenses in the league last year under a highly regarded career defensive coach who, for whatever reason, couldn’t handle a coordinator’s role. His name was Bill Sheridan. The Giants had injuries and they played a role, but the biggest problem was that Sheridan was unable to adjust to what opposing offenses chose to do. He couldn’t inspire players. He couldn’t get a high level of play out of star players. Sheridan remains a highly regarded assistant; I believe it was the Dolphins that hired him after the Giants fired him as defensive coordinator. He just isn’t up to the job of being a defensive coordinator in the NFL. Based on Maurice’s long record, he is not up to the task of being a head coach in the NHL.
On Laviolette’s chaos: different styles work for different coaches. Laviolette’s coaching style works in hockey games and on balance has worked well throughout his career. Players have groused but the results speak for themselves.
I hate Bill Belichick’s coaching style but I can’t argue with his results. I liked Jim Fassel’s coaching style when he was head coach of the Giants, but I have to admit that the results left something to be desired. Maurice’s results are what they are. He has had modest success at intervals.
Even conceding your view of Laviolette—which I can’t since I don’t know the man and find PK, his character assassin, far less credible in every respect—you appear to be describing a classic choice between style and substance. The “chaos that was and is Peter Laviolette” has gotten far better results than model citizen and organization man Paul Maurice. One man’s chaos is another man’s intensity, and a lot of successful coaches have hair-raising intensity that you wouldn’t want in a coworker or neighbor. Bear Bryant probably belonged in prison over player abuse.
From what I understand, there are some coaches who get great results and make good neighbors and coworkers. It would be wonderful if the Canes got a coach like that. But even if Paul Maurice wins the Nobel Peace Prize and finds the cure for AIDS, his career record as an NHL head coach suggests that particular role is not ideal for his abilities.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 20, 2010 4:01 PM EDT reply actions
Laviolette's Style
Let’s see how Laviolette does this year. I think with Laviolette it is that his style and his substance are unified. He depends on having his players fly around the rink without much, if any, regard for maintaining any structure. That style worked amazingly well in 2005-2006; but for the Hurricanes it didn’t work before or after that season in terms of the playoffs. I liked Laviolette and hated his coaching theory and his style of play. It was like watching college basketball players go outside and play hoops on the concrete. Some of that play is inspiring but the lack of continuity make it fun to play and awful to watch.
In any event, arguing about Maurice is like arguing whether blue is a pretty color or not. Some people are so persuaded he is one of the NHL’s worst coaches that nothing, including multiple Stanley Cups, will truly dissuade them. I do wonder how many people who have spoken with Maurice still hold the view he is a terrible and incompetent coach. As for me, I’d be delighted to spend several days talking in detail with Maurice and would have more information to make a judgment. I’d rather talk to him, however, in a casual setting and hear what he had to say than merely judge by watching him on the jumbotron and reading the comments of other participants at CC.
And just how many minutes would you say you have invested in conversations with Mo to provide such in-depth understanding of his coaching methods and philosophy?
Also, while I’m here, it’s entirely hyperbole to describe Lavi’s system as “having his players fly around the rink without much, if any, regard for maintaining any structure”.
He ran the very same F1/F2/F3 system we run today for offense with the only differences being the criteria as to when the D had the green light to activate with the F3 shifting high to cover them.
Here we are now...entertain us.
Given the time I’ve spoken with him in person and heard him speak in person would be an estimate of two hours to three hours. I would be delighted to have more time with him. I certainly came away with a much better idea of what he was thinking after speaking with him. I could gain more insight if I had more time with him. On the other hand, I think Laviolette’s approach is fairly described as "having his players fly around the rink without much, if any, regard for maintaining any structure". One could see that approach working for a short period of time, but ultimately, Laviolette’s teams get sick of watching odd man rushes against them and having Laviolette scream at them. Once Laviolette loses the room, he gets fired and moves on to be a hockey commentator until another team hires him to fire up the team, temporarily. He is a rent-a-coach. When the team dissent starts, the entire situation rapidly deteriorates for Laviolette. It is also far more than merely have a defenseman pinch in from time to time. The forwards stay behind the blue line an amazing amount of the time; and the defenseman and goalie have to stop counter-attack after counter-attack. There is virtually no back-checking by the forwards because they are usually too low to do anything other than call “watch out.” In Philadelphia, the pure talent at forward helped keep down the disasters. Of course, relying on Leighton to win a Stanley Cup is the ultimate in false hope.
Yeah, I go to the same events you do, so have logged about an equal amount of time “listening to him speak”, along with some brief opportunities to small talk with him. Was wondering if you somehow had exclusive access to him beyond those opportunities.
And, again, complete (and typical) hyperbole to characterize Lavi’s system as being nonexistent or even so very different from what we run today.
When forwards get caught too deep, it’s because they’re being over-eager and not positionally aware. No forward wants to be the odd-man out “F3”, not even today. Left to their own devices, they will tend to chase the puck in too deep, even after F1 and F2 have the situation covered.
But, Mo’s conservative game emphasizes that defensive responsibility moreso than the offensive advantage, looking mostly to capitalize on mistakes made by the defense.
Nothing wrong with that, but it’s only a subtle difference between the two systems, one more of aggression than anything else.
Giving Mo new dogs instead of old dogs has helped with the teaching of new tricks. And, the biggest help of all is coming from Jeff Daniels instilling that system of play and that demanded defensive responsibility in the minors.
Here we are now...entertain us.
Forwards too Deep
When forwards get caught too deep, it’s because they’re being over-eager and not positionally aware. No forward wants to be the odd-man out "F3", not even today. Left to their own devices, they will tend to chase the puck in too deep, even after F1 and F2 have the situation covered. bq.
In Laviolette’s approach to hockey, the forwards are encouraged to go to positions that you have described as being “not being positionally aware.” In my mind there is a universe of difference between a coach teaching and instilling positional awareness and a coach encouraging forwards to err on the side of recklessness.
Giving Mo new dogs instead of old dogs has helped with the teaching of new tricks. And, the biggest help of all is coming from Jeff Daniels instilling that system of play and that demanded defensive responsibility in the minors. bq.
I agree that coaching is a critical element in teaching positional awareness and defensive responsibility. Daniels has done a truly masterful job in teaching highly skilled, fast, motivated forwards how to balance their zeal to score with the need to keep their brains focused on defensive responsibility.
No, sir, they are not “encouraged to go to positions that [I] have described as being ‘not positionally aware’”.
I said the problem is caused by the forwards being over-eager and chasing the puck, not because they have encouraged to be out of position.
Lavi was constantly fussing at them in practice to be aware as to whether they were the F3 in the play or not.
He certainly wasn’t encouraging recklessness. Another glaring example of hyperbole, by the way.
Here we are now...entertain us.
Logically Inconsistent
I said the problem is caused by the forwards being over-eager and chasing the puck, not because they have encouraged to be out of position. bq.
Lavi was constantly fussing at them in practice to be aware as to whether they were the F3 in the play or not. bq.
He certainly wasn’t encouraging recklessness. bq.
You argument continues to contradict itself. Supposedly, it is not a coaching system problem because as you say “Lavi was constantly fussing at them in practice to be aware whether they were the F3 in the play or not.” Yet, Daniels is praised by you with these words: “And, the biggest help of all is coming from Jeff Daniels instilling that system of play and that demanded defensive responsibility in the minors.” So Daniels is able to coach the new Hurricanes to be positionally aware, but Lavi was not able to coach positional awareness. Lavi could not restrain the over-eagerness of the Hurricanes forwards (and now the Philly forwards).
So according to you, Lavi has a great system, but alas, he unfortunately can’t coach positional awareness or perhaps his was just saddled with forwards who couldn’t learn positional awareness from Lavi. These same Hurricanes forwards were, however, able to understand Maurice, Francis, Rowe, and Barrasso and were able to restrain themselves.
In my view, it is inarguable that the source of the lack of structure and lack of discipline was the Lavi’s system and not the lack of hockey intelligence by the forwards. Indeed, the fact that young forwards were able to grasp the concept of positional awareness with the present coaches, including Daniels, is further proof, if not finally conclusive proof, that the flaws reside in Lavi’s system. On the other hand, perhaps you are correct and the flaws are with Lavi the coach and his inability to get players to follow his desires and instructions.
You know, I just don’t know what to do with you.
Please quit misquoting and ascribing meaning to my words that just aren’t there.
This isn’t a courtroom where the only objective is to cast doubt on all other’s statements, so cut it out.
And this “logistically inconsistent” jag of yours over is really getting tiresome. Pull that log out of your own eye first.
Daniels is working with kids. Lavi was working with vets. Big difference that you don’t seem to get. “Old dogs” and “new dogs” being a bit too subtle for you, I suppose.
Didn’t say his system was “great”, just your usual habit of putting words in a poster’s mouth and then using it to attack.
And I have no interest in “discussing” this with you any further.
You’ve already plainly shown yourself for what you are on this subject, so I have no further purpose in exposing the flaws.
They’re evident.
Here we are now...entertain us.
I quoted your words precisely to avoid any contention on your part that your words were misquoted. The shaded portions are your words in blocked quotes. No person could possibly complain that you or anybody else has a preference or an opinion. Neither do I complain if you chose to reference contradictory arguments to support your opinion; but it is also appropriate to point out that the reasons you cite contradict themselves. For example, Lavi is said to be a great coach; but he couldn’t teach veteran forwards under his system how to avoid forgetting which forward was F3? Either the system was so complex that veterans couldn’t grasp the Lavi system or the veterans were not willing to play that way or Lavi is simply not able to explain what he wants. On the other hand, Daniels is able to teach the Canes young forwards how to maintain the defensive structure. As such either Daniels is a much better coach than Lavi or the new Hurricanes players had more hockey intellect than the older Canes forwards or these players were very willing to play the style of hockey Daniels, Maurice, Francis, Rowe, and Barrasso want them to play.
The inexorable conclusion is that either the Lavi system has significant flaws or he was not able to teach his system to the Hurricanes players.
Francis
Maybe the next time you see Ron Francis and get to speak with him you can describe to him your assessment that he was a player like Cory Stillman and did not spend time battling in front of the net.
I prefer Lavi's system, drawbacks and all
It’s aggressive. You take it to the other team knowing that sometimes you’ll get burned, but you apply tremendous pressure, force the other team to play intense defense every minute, and, more often than not given equal talent, you wear them out and outscore them.
That is an aggressive system. It is anything but chaotic. It requires offensive talent, speed on offense and defense, intensity, and superb conditioning. Success is not assured. No system ensures success. But it has to mean something that Lavi has had pretty consistent success for quite a while.
AD, you prefer a different style. That doesn’t make Lavi’s aggressive style chaotic. Teams can win with the kind of style that you prefer. Mo has won sometimes with it, but not often enough.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 20, 2010 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
But relying on Leighton to win a conference championship worked out fine
Not that anyone thinks that would have been Lavi’s preference. He had no choice. He had to play Leighton. He made it work.
I find it surprising that you would choose to attack Laviolette for “relying on Leighton to win a Stanley Cup,” as though that shows Lavi is an idiot pursuing false hopes.
Lavi wasn’t making a strategic choice. He was playing a backup because he had to. And with that backup and four overworked defensemen + two others who couldn’t slow any Hawks forward, Lavi gave the Hawks a run for their money.
It might make more sense to characterize your distaste for Lavi’s approach and preference for Mo’s as such rather than to demonize Lavi. Your argument above is about a style preference so intense that it overrides the results. That is your choice, AD, but I’ll go with better results.
If Mo could get better results, I would be more willing to live with a style that I happen to find passive and boring by comparison with Lavi’s and the styles played by many other teams. But regardless of your preference and mine, in a sport, results matter more than styles, and more than the content of private conversations. I would add that there are coaches with conservative, defense-first systems who have gotten much better results than Mo.
Did you have some horrible private conversation with Laviolette in which he confessed that he wants his players to fly around the rink without regard for structure so that he can indulge in his favorite pastime of screaming at his players for allowing odd-man rushes?
Wasn’t he usually screaming at a forward for forgetting that his role in the structure was as high forward? I kind of thought Lavi placed tremendous pressure on his team to rotate intelligently so that someone was always back, and to skate back like crazy when the other team got the puck. That’s extremely demanding, but is it chaotic? Or is it a different orderly system that makes calculated risks, and, when the risks don’t work out, places very high demands on players?
Some players clearly are accustomed to and prefer systems that allow them to stay back more often and get back more easily, but in my view, that isn’t enough to condemn a system. It’s a lot like what Albert Haynesworth is doing to the Washington Redskins, refusing to play nose tackle for however many millions of dollars per year, because he prefers to play a different position in a different style of defense. The essence of his argument is that “I don’t want to play that way because it’s harder so trade me. A change in defensive systems voids my obligations under my contract, but not the team’s obligations to pay me.” That kind of made Mike Shanahan mad at Haynesworth, didn’t it? I’d suggest that Lavi’s behavior is no different and that it’s typical of head coaches in major sports.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 20, 2010 5:10 PM EDT reply actions
Laviolette
bq. Wasn’t he usually screaming at a forward for forgetting that his role in the structure was as high forward? I kind of thought Lavi placed tremendous pressure on his team to rotate intelligently so that someone was always back, and to skate back like crazy when the other team got the puck. That’s extremely demanding, but is it chaotic? Or is it a different orderly system that makes calculated risks, and, when the risks don’t work out, places very high demands on players? bq.
Laviolette’s system requires forwards ultimately to be two places at once. He did indeed criticize them for not coming back and realizing who had the point; but he also criticized them for not attacking the net (or at times having three players below the puck). Over an 82 regular season game, that style takes a tremendous toll and players tune him out because they know hockey and know his system is inherently flawed. Fascinating to me that the Flyers apparently view Leighton as the #1 goalie.
In terms of results, for Maurice II, we have to see how the results go. If you are correct, the Hurricanes team will fail miserably and ultimately Maurice will be moved to the front office. I happen to think the organization has too much talent to fail and that as long as the coaching is rational, the talent will rise to the top. In the end, players win games, sometimes in spite of rather than because of the coaching system.
Flyers viewing Leighton as number 1 goalie
I think the salary cap played a big role in the Flyers’ decision on Leighton. They found it affordable to upgrade their bottom-two defensemen, but not to sign a proven top-flight NHL goalie. As it was, they had to give Gagne away. They must have a plan B in the event that Leighton doesn’t work out. It is possible that he will, but nobody can consider him a sure thing, and no team with a chance at a Cup run will stand pat if an unproven goalie falters.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 21, 2010 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t say Lavi’s system doesn’t work, at least temporarily. He has been 3 places, and gotten quick results. But, if you are so result oriented, explain the next 2 years. We missed the playoffs twice. One of those years we missed by 2 points after losing 3 of our last 4 games. The last game we lost 6-3 against Florida at home, where it looked like they were playing for the playoffs, and we were playing out the string. Far too often during those 2 years, and the partial one, the post game interview included the phrase "we weren’t ready to play … " . That’s an indictment of the coach. I don’t know why Lavi has so much trouble sustaining success, and I hope he finds a cure, but so far he’s looking like a Mike Keenan clone.
The Canes missed the playoffs twice under Lavi but had good records. I think the problem at the end, and in the embarrassing loss to Florida, was that Lavi made a misjudgment about personnel. He benched less-talented fill-ins and played talented vets who were coming back from injury. I would infer that Lavi thought the vets would play better and seal the playoff spot. He was wrong. The basis of his misjudgment? I’d guess he asked the vets how they were feeling and how well they could play and trusted their judgment as vets. It was his mistake.
As for the phrase “we weren’t ready to play,” it is unfortunate. Lavi was obviously surprised and devastated by that particular loss and the way the Canes played. He tried to get things turned around during the game and failed. He was the most astonished and devastated person in the building. It was his responsibility to get the Canes to win the game and he couldn’t do it on that night.
But you have to remember he did succeed in making the playoffs in most seasons, and that was a near-miss. That one truly unfortunate game in which he failed as a head coach was the low point in his career, but shouldn’t be allowed to characterize his entire career.
You may be right about Lavi’s having Keenan-like qualities and career patterns. It’s too early to be sure of that, but the abrupt endings of his tenures with the Islanders and Canes are consistent with that view. Like you, I will be interested to see how he does with this year’s Flyers. He might well do better this year since he’ll have a full training camp to teach his system and condition his team. The Flyers may continue to have issues in goal; Leighton is at least somewhat capable, but he’s not an all-star.
If your theory about Lavi crashing and burning is correct, it’s probably more likely to happen in the following season. He would be ahead of schedule if he wears out his welcome in 1.5 seasons.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 20, 2010 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow!!!
Very interesting read people…. Let’s all agree that we are all wanting to see our team just win. Go Canes!!
As far as the Maurice debate goes, there is truth to the idea that Maurice is not a great coach. His record speaks to it. Ultimately, the GM has his success tied to the coach he chooses. JR clearly feels that Maurice is a better extension of himself than was Lavi. PK clearly likes Mo better. For whatever reason, that is their take. Lavi was not an organizational guy and Canes blood is thicker than results. IMO, JR has improved as a GM. Some of the talent levels of his early teams was poor. Most of Mo’s record has been established without a ton of talent. Toronto is chaos!!! No coach has been able to win with that maniac GM. I am one who thinks Mo is average but can win with a good talent mix. If he can sit back and and his guys are talented enough to cover up mistakes, his structure along with the talent can and will win.
Lavi is intense and I can see players thinking it is getting old.
Let’s see what happens with this talented young group. If he starts slow, my guess is the leash is shorter this season. Jeff Daniels is an up and coming coach and also an organizational guy.
I did like the decision to bring Mo back in ’09. Because I thought he was what that team needed and the staff did a nice job. This is the year IMO, for Mo to sink or swim. This team with great coaching is in the playoffs. This team with average coaching is a 9th place club.
Mo is on my hot seat. I am a patient man but I want this team in the playoffs. Mo’s best bet is to delegate to Jeff Daniels a lot.
Thanks to everyone for the great entertainment….fun read.
by KenRab on Aug 20, 2010 8:54 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Great perspective. Thanks!
Phoblographer and Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 20, 2010 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
My take on NHL coaches is that given the fact their future is determined by the talent on the team, by injuries, by the help they get from their key players, and by the ability of the entire coaching staff to formulate a system that works with the talent on the team, the main thing the head coach can do is instill a sense of unity and confidence. I have no clue whether Maurice will be able to take his body of hockey intellect, which is impressive, and translate that into convincing his players they can beat the world. Clearly, no matter how great an NHL head coach is, he won’t beat teams that are vastly superior in talent and commitment on a consistent basis.
I don’t think Maurice gets all the credit or all the blame for what happens this year; but he is responsible for melding the players into a team. Last year for over twenty games, the team purely as a team was dysfunctional. This season as long as the players arrive healthy, there is no justification for the team to lack continuity and the will to win. I feel optimistic that the plan will come together well; but then again there is always the risk and potential that things will fall apart. They do in life and in sports for reasons none of us ever fully grasp. Yet, there are also the times of mystical radiance where everything that could go right breaks our way. So here I wait to see which direction the river flows.
Ironically, I think this is a year in which Mo should get a longer leash
I’m not a Mo fan, but in fairness, this is a team in transition. The Canes could be a very good team if multiple young players develop rapidly, but odds are always against several young players coming through in short order. I doubt Mo is the best coach to bring young players along, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t get time enough to have a reasonable chance at it.
There’s another issue as big as the transition to youth and that’s on defense. The defensemen as a group have a lot of offensive talent, but there are few shut-down defensemen and few strong defensive types with toughness and grit. That could be a big problem for any coach. For a defense-first coach like Mo, it may be an even bigger problem.
Although I question whether Mo is the right coach for the long haul, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to give Mo the bulk of this season to make things work. In short, I don’t think Mo should be expected to make the playoffs this year.
However, it is essential to demand that Mo successfully lead the team through a period of transition. I don’t see him as well-suited to that role, but it’s unfair to ask any coach to make such a transition instantly. Besides the uncertainty about which young players will make the transition from junior hockey, the NCAA or the AHL, there is uncertainty about young players who WILL be with the Canes. The youth movement includes Sutter, Tlusty, McBain, Carson and Peters. Sutter has been good, but his career shouldn’t level off at last year’s level. Tlusty, Carson and Peters hardly count as part of a veteran core. Add Boychuk, two or three other forwards, a center and Sanguinetti, and Mo will be coaching a very inexperienced team.
I think the true test of Mo’s performance this year should be whether he leaves the Canes with a good collection of young but proven NHL talent for next season. By “proven NHL talent,” I mean players who have demonstrated more than the talent for hanging back on defense and preventing odd-man rushes. Defensive responsibility is important but it isn’t everything. The talent should perform all over the rink, including in the offensive zone, and some of the Canes’ young players should emerge as NHL goal scorers. Given the state of the Canes’ team and the talent level in the system, allowing offensive talent to blossom is part of Mo’s job.
Even though I think Mo deserves a shot, doubt about Mo’s ability in that respect is what worries me the most about having him as head coach.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 21, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree with your approach to this year. And, although we don’t always see things the same way, I have to give you props for being fairminded about a coach you’re not fond of. I would add one other criteria for Mo this year. Whether you want to call it commitment or buy in, or whatever, the ongoing attitude of the team is important. Do they go into games feeling they have a shot, and skate that way? Do they show hustle and fight game after game? Do they show that no mattter how good or bad things are going, there is no quit in them? With a young impressionable team, the coaches and captains are going to have to be sure to keep a positive attitude, while maintaining an even keel approach to avoid excessive highs and lows. I think that will be a big judgement point for the whole leadership group, and as head coach, especially Mo.
A Summary of the Lavi v. Maurice Debate
My summary of the Lavi situation is that he was fired because he could not persuade the Hurricanes team to follow his system and instead the team devolved into a group of individuals with inconsistent effort and a lack of unity of purpose. Maurice was brought in because he is a person who believes in structure and positioning. He was also brought in because Jim Rutherford was convinced he and Maurice would be on the same page.
Maurice has benefited greatly from the experience in Toronto, but I think he benefited even more from having a coaching team of Francis, Rowe, Barrasso, Daniels, as well as Wesley and now perhaps Brind’Amour. I think one of Maurice’s strengths is strategic analysis. He can rely heavily on the coaching staff to help with those aspects that are not his greatest strengths and to provide a reality check. My recollection, for example, is that Francis was a strong advocate for McBain being brought up to play for the Canes. As it turned out, reliance on Francis’ eye for talent helped the team in many areas, but particularly with McBain and the timing of McBain’s play at Carolina.
I don’t think young players are going to be helped by screaming at them. I would much prefer the Hurricanes organization draft players who have a burning desire to succeed and who have character; and I think they have done that. I don’t see an NHL coach needing to motivate players; and he that is his role, it speaks poorly about how much initiation and pride a player has that he has to rely upon his coach to get fired up to play hockey. I do see the coach as having an important role in articulating the identity of the team and providing the vision of the team and its success. Maurice is in a great situation now with the Hurricanes. He is being given every chance in the Universe to succeed. Now it’s up to him.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Should Dominic Moore be suspended for this hit on Rangers’ Fedotenko? (Video)
- Thursday’s Three Stars: Max Pac hat trick; Chris Phillips’ memorable 1,000th game
- It’s over: Montreal’s Scott Gomez finally ends goalless streak (Video)
- Scott Hartnell’s goal celebration now includes fighting Dion Phaneuf (Video)
- Puck Previews: Leafs meet Flyers; Steve Yzerman not playing in Winter Classic Alumni Game?
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
