Game Analysis: Back-To-Back Vs. Chicago, At Philadelphia
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 30, 2011 12:47 PM EDT
Email
Print
The Carolina Hurricanes played five solid periods against two presumed Stanley Cup contenders, but after dominating the Blackhawks en route to a 3-0 shutout Friday, the Canes fell apart in the third period of a tie game against the Flyers the next night, losing 5-1.
The split moved Carolina to 4-4-3 on the season with the first month in the books. The Canes' 11 points place them ninth in the Eastern Conference. The team played just four of their first 11 games at hthe RBC Center, so they need to capitalize on their home-heavy schedule in November.
Three Observations
1. Cam Ward didn't have to be spectacular against the Blackhawks, but he was on his game when he needed to be and earned his first shutout of the season. He has picked up where he left off last season, going 4-2-2 to open the season with a 2.34 goals-against average and .928 save percentage. Unfortunately, Brian Boucher's three outings haven't gone as well. The team is 0-2-1 — including the loss to Philly that can't be pinned on him —with the veteran backup between the pipes.
2. If Carolina's inability to score in the shootout against Ottawa didn't already convince Paul Maurice that Brandon Sutter deserves a chance in the Hurricanes' next shootout, his third breakaway goal of the season probably did. Sutter hopped out of the penalty box after serving a tripping penalty to find the puck right in front of him. He accelerated toward Hawks goalie Corey Crawford and beat him under the blocker to push the lead to 2-0. All three of the alternate captain's goals have come on breakaways and he has buried them confidence and precision.
3. If you need an example of the "when things go bad, they go really bad" snowball effect, look no further than Eric Staal's minus-4 against Philadlephia. It's hard to find fault in Staal's positioning or play on any of the goals against he was on the ice for. On Jagr's first goal, Boucher didn't handle the puck well behind the net leading to a turnover. Staal offered support at the boards as Tim Gleason attempted to win a battle to clear the puck, but the puck was centered and went past Chad LaRose to Jagr for the goal. The second goal, a shorthanded one by Maxime Talbot, saw Staal set up at the other side of the ice on the power play when the puck was turned over, leading to a goal on a two-on-two. On Giroux's goal, Staal was in deep when the puck headed the other way. Jamie McBain simply misplayed Giroux on the one-on-one, allowing the goal. On the last goal, Jagr's second, Staal won the faceoff and then stick-checked Giroux in front to prevent a chance, but Jagr eventually got the puck and buried it. Staal's league-worst minus-13 is not all due to circumstance, but on Saturday night it was Murphy's Law for Staal.
Number To Know
6 — Average points in October for Staal over the past four seasons. Staal has just five points in 11 games so far this season, but a slow first month hasn't been uncommon for No. 12 in recent years. He managed just seven points last season and in 2008-09, and in 2009-10 he had just five. In 2010-11 he had a big November, scoring nine goals and adding 12 assists for 21 points 14 games, his best statistical month of the season.
Plus
Jiri Tlusty — The former first-rounder earned a shot on Staal's wing with his mix of hustle and untapped offensive skill. And while his placement next to the Carolina captain did not result in Staal breaking out of his scoring slump yet, Tlusty registered points in both games. His willingness to crash the net resulted in several opportunities, including his goal against Chicago that came via a picture-perfect feed from defenseman Bryan Allen.
Minus
Tim Gleason — After a great night against the Blackhawks, Gleason struggled mightily against the Flyers. His defensive zone turnover led to the game's first goal, and he also had other mistakes — he coughed the puck up again later, resulting in him taking a penalty to hinder a Jaromir Jagr breakaway attempt — that have otherwise been minimal this season. There were other culprits in the loss to the Flyers, but Gleason's early game struggles helped set the tone for Philadelphia.
176 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Another + is the team’s faceoff percentage over the 2 games. Much, much improved!
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 30, 2011 1:29 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
This is why I don't put a lot of faith in the importance of a plus/minus rating.
I understand it has it’s place, but I don’t think it’s necessarily indicative of a players performance. Seems to me to be more related sometimes to chance.
Careful not to chaulk up a -13 as mere coincidence. I you could do that, he wouldn’t be -4 clear of anyone else in the league.
Agree. The plus/minus is combination of goals given up while even handed less goals scored even handed. Stahl’s -13 is not just coincidence. It’s because of poor performance. Giroux, the Flyers star, stepped up and led his team and has been doing so this season. Our star, Stahl, has not done this this season and that is why our record is what it is and why his stats are what they are.
by FoxtrotSierra on Oct 31, 2011 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Just another note. Don’t misunderstand my comment above. I’m a Stahl fan and Hurricane fan. I’m just trying to be objective in expressing my view. I hope we keep Stahl and that he improves his play. If he does so, the team will prosper and the games will be fun to watch. There’s nothing more exciting on the ice than when Stahl is on his game and the big boy is not only scoring, but muscling his opponents. We could help him by getting a true first line right winger on his line.
by FoxtrotSierra on Oct 31, 2011 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Agree that the minus-13 isn’t coincidence. BUt the minus-4 from the Philly game shows how the statistic can be flawed.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 31, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. He did play some poor defense for the most part at the beginning of the season, but Saturday’s -4 was not on him.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 31, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Also worth noting that if you’re scoring and playing your shifts in the opposing end, you don’t get a lot of goals scored against your while you’re on the ice. That being said … two of the goals he was on the ice for in this game, the play originated in Philly’s end.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 31, 2011 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. Just as number of goals scored can be a result of chance. Maybe Stahl’s woes are more of a factor of not having true 1st line linemates. Opponents can really wheel on offense against our 1st line because we don’t have very good scoring players on the 1st line except for Stahl. So it follows they only worry about stopping Stahl.
Heck, I don’t know what the problem is, but I know he can be a devastating offensive force when he is on his game. I’m hoping he’ll show that in the games coming up.
by FoxtrotSierra on Oct 31, 2011 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
It's Staal...not Stahl
I know that may seem like nit-picking, but figured I’d mention it because it didn’t seem to be a 1 time typo
You know, Staal is the only forward near -13. The next closest is Skinner at -7. Next closest is Ruutu at -3. LaRose who has been on Staal’s line most of the year is only -2. To take that a step further, when Staal was -4 against the Flyers, LaRose was only -1. Staal is the clear outlier of the group. You can say that LaRose is bad at converting opportunities. That’s fair. His finishing leaves something to be desired and it’s why he shouldn’t be a long term option in the top 6. But even if LaRose converted those opportunities Staal would still be -11 in back of Chad. I want to see an upgrade over LaRose, but an upgrade alone won’t fix all of the issues. Some of this has nothing to do with who Staal is playing with and everything to do with how Staal is playing.
And while LaRose’s shooting percentage is at 4.2%, Staal’s isn’t exactly world beating at 7.9%. Both are off more than 3% from there career numbers, although LaRose is closer to 4% than Staal.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
So, are you saying that Staal was at fault for any of those goals against Philly? Chad also got a + on the Jussi goal and Staal didn’t because of the partial line change.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
No, but Staal is clearly the outlier. Guys that he usually plays with are no where near as minus as him. His shooting percentage is down from his career numbers and he’s missed some open nets himself. Not all of what ails Staal is his linemates. Some of what ails Staal is Staal.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I never said all that ails Staal is his linemates. I’ve even said that Staal’s defensive performance over the first 8 games was poor. But the past 3 have been good for Staal. He has been responsible, skating with power, and creating some scoring chances; he just hasn’t scored. I will call him out when & where needed, but I did not see one thing Staal did wrong in Philadelphia that caused those goals and his -4. I think he & Tlusty played quite well. Staal’s scoring issues have more to do with him and his linemates, but an offensive threat on his right side (whether that comes from Charlotte, trades, etc) would help that line and the team out.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 31, 2011 7:08 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Dude, I don’t think were communicating all that well tonight. You’ve kind of jumped on a couple of my comments to others and I’m not sure what you’re getting at either her or with mo below. What point are you trying to make? I’ve only been giving stats in each thread so I’m not sure what you’re after.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I think the underlying issue in the “LaRose in the top six” discussion is that LaRose being there represents playing it safe, while giving someone else a chance there represents taking a pretty big risk. Some are tired of playing it safe, others see that playing it safe is the best route to the postseason.
by Cory Lavalette on Nov 1, 2011 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Playing it Safe with LaRose
Cory, I don’t see playing LaRose as playing it safe. Playing Tlusty and Ponikarovsky with Staal would be playing it safe. Playing Ponikarovsky and Jokinen with Staal would be playing it safe. Playing LaRose in the top six means that whichever line he is on will be stuck in the mud offensively. It’s the opposite of playing it safe. To the contrary, it is almost guaranteed failure for one of the top two lines. Simply put, any other choice for the top six other than LaRose cannot be any worse that what he does to a scoring line.
Playing Jussi – Staal – Ponikorovsky (or as my 14 yr old says: Mike Wazowski) would be playing it smart, IMO.
Harrumph
Then what do you do for the second line?
Ruutu Skinner Stewart?
I think if you shift Jussi out of the second line all you do is trade one problem, ineffective first line, for a second one, ineffective second line. If the second line is working, why mess with that?
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I have no problem w/ that 2nd line. Ruutu currently is hurt so why play in 1st line against top defenders?
Harrumph
Looking for Video of Interview
I thought the video link was posted on an article on the game at Canes Country; but I can’t find it there. I will keep looking. Here is the audio link, I think.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/769171/mauricepost102911.mp3
Thanks Doug!
My take: Maurice is much more curt when answering the question about the lines and doesn’t elaborate, which he is prone to do when answering other questions. Didn’t get the vibe that he was irritated tho.
Harrumph
Isn’t playing a guy who is 13 detrimental to a scoring line? You who love the +/ stat, who couldn’t talk about Brindy’s enough, how do you address the fact that Staal is -13 while LaRose is -2? We’re blaming LaRose for Staal’s struggles, when the numbers don’t bare that out.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I don’t think it’s blaming LaRose for Staal’s struggles, it’s that LaRose is ineffective on that line. You ask who else would you put there? I don’t know, but try something different to see if it works.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
Staal has no even strength goals. Accordingly, LaRose has not one assist to Staal at even strength. LaRose has one goal, and that did not come on an assist from Staal. If LaRose is there to help Staal, then by that criteria he has not been of assistance. So in answer to who else would I put with Staal and Tlusty: (1) Dalpe when healthy; (2) Ponikarovsky; (3) Boychuk, (4) Bowman; (5) Sutter – as center with Staal as RW. If none of those worked, I hope Jim Rutherford will work a trade for a right wing.
I would keep Skinner/Ruutu/Jokinen intact as a line. I would not under any foreseeable circumstances keep on with the LaRose in the top six. As a scientific experiment, it has failed enough for me to be satisfied it won’t work well.
I think it is an interesting observation to note the Detroit is bringing up Nyquist in an effort to find offense. An organization and coaching staff opting to try a talented youngster to get a spark. I’m betting he’s not going to spend a lot of time on the Red Wing’s 4th line….and he’ll get more than 6 minutes a night.
On the Bubble...
As usual…
I guess we expect this team to be right about where it is. However, if we had more PP success and Staal was producing, we might be slightly above the bubble.
MEH
"Forget about style; worry about results."
Bobby Orr
MeH +
i agree with ya Caniac233…the canes are above the bubble…:-)
9/11/01 - Never Forget !!
Long Live #63 The Condor
Go Canes & Checkers !!!
Staal
It can be frustrating to watch other teams star player(s) do what star players do, then see Staal not live up to his billing as our star player. Staal is a very solid player but I think we sometimes expect too much from him. He’s a smart player how won’t make too many mistakes, skates very well north to south, and has a great release on his wrist shot. He’s not going to fake any goalie out of his pads on a breakaway, or have the visionary passing of a Joe Thornton. He’s very good at a simple north-south game, but he doesn’t have the ability to be a dominate player nightly as an Ovie or Crosby does. He’s our star right now ( until Skinner takes the mantle in a year or two) but we can’t compare him to others.
Seems the simplistic view on the world for some is that Staal’s play is all bad and Skinner’s is all good.
Skinner is 7 and has played with Jussi and Ruu…. two effective and top 6 forwards. Rarely does this line see the other teams top offensive or top defensive line. Staal has been saddled with a 4th line winger ( allegedly there to add some defensive help ??!!) and a fringe player who may emerge but is not yet proven at that level. This “powerhouse” line regularly sees the other teams top offensive or defensive lines and are clearly overmatched in most instances. In my opinion this is taking its toll on Staal in many ways. If anyone would like to watch some tape with me, I can show you 5 clear goals against this line where Staal was deep, made a perfect pass in the slot to LaRose that he mishandled and it popped out the other way for an eventual goal…. another () for Staal who did nothing wrong.
Getting back to Skinner. Sure he has put up some early points but In my mind his play is below last year’s second half effort. In his defence he is getting added attention but a lot of his turnovers are a result of stickhandling into traffic or not distributing the puck to open linemates.
To me so far this season the biggest, glaring shortcoming in the use of the players that JR assembled for the coaching staff ( some of additions which I have previous questioned) is keeping LaRose in the top two lines. I played for a long time, coached elite kids, watched for a long time, and have somewhat of a regular access to most of the Canes coaches…… it is by far one of the most bizaare and steadfastly stubborn decisions I have ever seen and I just don’t get it. Have yet to hear a justification that makes sense to me.
Hmmm... not sure why the lines through the 2nd paragraph.... unintended and at the core or my point.
You used two “-”. Not sure anyway around it. SBN assumes everything between two “-” is strikethrough. If the quotes work above, maybe that’s a work around.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I’m pretty sure you need to be sure you have a space between the hyphen and the letter (at both ends) and it will show exactly as typed and not as “strikethrough”. sample: – no strike -
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Oct 31, 2011 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
So – 7 and – 13 is good, but -7 and -13 is no good?
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
pretty much – and there was also a hyphen at the opposite end with no space that was the tag < /s > that closed the “strikethrough” section (span for html users)
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Oct 31, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
You are right. The misuse of LaRose as a top six player is one of the most inexplicable things I’ve seen from the Hurricanes’ coaches. The fact that Maurice got noticeably irritated when Luke DeCock asked Maurice about it was telling. Now Maurice is running LaRose on power plays, despite the fact LaRose has a single goal on any power play in his entire career. That power play goal occurred when LaRose came out of the penalty box as his penalty was expiring and got a break away goal. Lovely goal, but hardly a reason to play him on the power play. LaRose has mishandled a multitude of clean passes over these past two years. It’s just astonishing that Maurice and his coaching staff continue to put LaRose in the top six. The way the other forwards on the third and fourth lines have played, I’d be fine with LaRose being traded. He seems redundant as long as Dwyer is on the team. Totally baffling.
Maybe this will all turn around. But many, including us, are scratching their heads and wondering how an otherwise smart guy is hanging his career on the play of LaRose.
When Dalpe gets healthy it will be interesting as to what they do. Put him with Staal? Then where does Chad go; Do you send Boychuk back down? He has played better than I thought and for the first time in a while I’m seeing the upside…. but he has to play and in the right circumstance.
As I have said many times…. why do we have both a Dwyer and a LaRose in the lineup. They are pretty much the same player and give you the same contributions. Keep one and trade the other. I know that sounds cold but that’s the nature of the business.
Resigning both LaRose & Dwyer was the most confusing move JR made this offseason; and this from a guy that hated the Kaberle signing. You have two similiar players, you resign both, and one make $1 million more than the other. It would have been better to pick one and open up the additional spot for a prospect or free agent.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
I think in an ideal world Dwyer plays fourth line and fills in on the third and LaRose plays third line and fills in in the top 6 for an injury. LaRose has the ability to at least handle himself in the top 6 for small stretches. I think the problem is that it looks like Dalpe has been injured since around the Winnipeg game in Charlotte which has led to LaRose foisted upon the top 6.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
wondering how an otherwise smart guy is hanging his career on the play of LaRose.
I don’t want to re-hash this too much, but what other option do you have right now? It appears based on his play the Dalpe was initially injured sometime in or around the Winnipeg game in Charlotte. The choices for second top 6 winger have been LaRose, an injured Dalpe, Stewart, and now Boychuk. LaRose was unfortunately the best choice. He’s still only -2, which is on the top end of the top 6 forwards (Jussi has somehow managed to get himself to plus2)
I’m hoping Dalpe comes off the IR and is a top 6 RW. Lord knows the team needs it.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I find it odd that Maurice gets “hot” when asked a question by the media. He had tougher Q & A’s when he was up in Toronto for Xmas sakes. He needs to address the question.
Harrumph
Neither … he was fine. There was no tension.
by Cory Lavalette on Nov 1, 2011 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
So Doug is incorrect when he stated above
that Maurice got noticeably irritated when Luke DeCock asked Maurice aboutLaRose being in the top 6??
I’d still like to view the video evidence of this myself. Link anyone?
Harrumph
I don’t notice any significant change in Mo on that question. Jaw is still clenched, answers are still short, etc. If anything, he seemed more “irritated” by the Sutter shootout question.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
My impression is that both the Boychuk question and the Sutter shootout question irritated him. That is how it looks and sounds to me.
I’m not anti-Maurice. I continue to believe he ought to be given the entire season. I disagree with several of his decisions – (1) unwillingness to put Dalpe [when healthy], Boychuk, and Bowman on the first line; (2) unwillingness to let Dwyer and LaRose battle it out for right wing on the third line; and (3) a lack of creativity on the power play (which is related to the first two).
It’s a long season. He’s putting in a new defensive system with a number of new faces on the team. Even if the team hits the skids, I’m hoping he is retained. If the team makes it to the playoffs, I would think many people would believe Maurice had done a good job. I would even while thinking he didn’t have to make the task harder than it already was.
Cory, I only have the video to review. From the video, it is clear to me that Maurice was demonstrably irritated to be asked why Boychuk was not given a chance in the top six. It was a rational question, and the response by Maurice was silly.
I know Staal is going to take a lot of heat for the team’s record & it’s scoring ineffectiveness and deservedly so. He is the captain and the best player, it’s part of his responsiblity. But I will say that other than his continued struggle at putting the puck in the net, I have no problem with Staal’s play over the past 3 games.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
+1
He’s been more physical, and has not been a liability defensively speaking. I like Tlusty on his line, but they need a creative player with them. LaRose is not that guy.
I’m really not trying to bash LaRose, because he has played decent; but I agree that he is just not a threat and that reduces the work Staal & Tlusty have done. It’s almost like 4 on 5 for the Canes in the offensive zone, because LaRose is often the forgotten man and hasn’t made any team account for him. Again, Chad has done his thing; its not his fault he is playing in an area that he is not qualified for.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
You hit the proverbial nail...
…right on the head. Chad is a good and solid player for the Canes who is currently miscast in his role. I would far and away prefer to see an untested Checker, or a partly tested Boychuk or Bowman (creative scorers) on that line. Risky, yes….but better than trying the same thing that hasn’t really been effective. Chad on our 3rd or 4th line means that we’re dangerous because we have more offensively creative players slotted appropriately.
I didn’t get to go to the Chicago game as I was in the air on my way home so all I got to see what the epic meltdown against Philly. I’m guessing my feelings about the team are a bit more negative than those that saw both games. I’m not seeing many positives right now other than Cam and an improvement in the faceoff circle.
On a side note, did anyone else notice that Stormy got a new head? He looks “surprised”, like a person who got a bad facelift.
I’m just the opposite. I had to miss the game with the Flyers. The Hawks game was so positive that I’m finding it hard to believe what I’m hearing about the game I missed.
by curiouscanesfan on Oct 31, 2011 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions
re-post without the lines crossed out. Thanks C-Leaguer
Seems the simplistic view on the world for some is that Staal’s play is all bad and Skinner’s is all good.
Skinner is 7 and has played with Jussi and Ruu, who are two effective and top 6 forwards. Rarely does this line see the other teams top offensive or top defensive line. Staal has been saddled with a 4th line winger (allegedly there to add some defensive help ?) and a fringe player who may emerge but is not yet proven at that level. This "powerhouse" line regularly sees the other teams top offensive or defensive lines and are clearly overmatched in most instances. In my opinion this is taking its toll on Staal in many ways. If anyone would like to watch some tape with me, I can show you 5 clear goals against this line where Staal was deep, made a perfect pass in the slot to LaRose that he mishandled and it popped out the other way for an eventual goal…. another minus for Staal who did nothing wrong.
Getting back to Skinner. Sure he has put up some early points but In my mind his play is below last year’s second half effort. In his defence he is getting added attention but a lot of his turnovers are a result of stickhandling into traffic or not distributing the puck to open linemates.
To me so far this season the biggest, glaring shortcoming in the use of the players that JR assembled for the coaching staff ( some of additions which I have previous questioned) is keeping LaRose in the top two lines. I played for a long time, coached elite kids, watched for a long time, and have somewhat of a regular access to most of the Canes coaches…… it is by far one of the most bizaare and steadfastly stubborn decisions I have ever seen and I just don’t get it. Have yet to hear a justification that makes sense to me.
by sittler27 on Oct 31, 2011 10:06 AM PDT up reply
Thank you for this post as you sum up many of my feelings and are much more qualified to give them.
I always enjoy your level headed rational comments.
Once, during Prohibition, I was forced to live for days on nothing but food and water ~ W.C. Fields
by SouthernHockeyFan on Oct 31, 2011 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No help for Staal
I have mentioned this many times over the past couple of seasons, other than Shane Doan and Rick Nash who gets less offensive help than Eric Staal?
IMO the Canes are a .500 team until someone is brought in to play on Staal’s wing. A second line center would help to, but with Rask looking more and more like the real deal, a top line winger is a must for this team. And I’m not talking about a “top six” player, I’m talking about a top three forward. I find it frustrating when Mo talks about getting the big guy going and then shackles him with La Rose and Tlusty. Rose and Jiri belong on the 3rd line where they can team up with Sutter and dominate with regularity.
At this point I don’t have much faith that Dalpe or Boychuk or Bowman can be that top line winger we need, simply because Mo will never give them the chance to develop. Skinner is the only young forward that Mo have given playing time to, and quite frankly Skinner forced his hand with a dynamic rookie year.
Coaches are supposed to put their players in a position to succeed, I do not see this happening at all so far this season.
Once, during Prohibition, I was forced to live for days on nothing but food and water ~ W.C. Fields
by SouthernHockeyFan on Oct 31, 2011 1:50 PM EDT reply actions
Skinner is the only young forward that Mo have given playing time to
Let me try, one more time, to move past this. Brandon Sutter played 50 games in 2008-09 in his first season. Maurice was re-hired by the team in early December of 2008, say 25 games in to the season. This was after the Islanders game where Sutter was concussed. Since then Sutter has played 72 and 82 games in the two seasons he has been on the team and Maurice was the coach. Brandon Sutter is a young forward that Mo has given playing time to. In addition, Sutter is a center which means he has much more defensive responsibilities than a winger. So, not only has Mo played a young forward a lot he’s played a young forward that has high defensive responsibilities a lot.
Last season was the final year of of 16Sutter’s entry level contract. He had 122 games of experience at that time and was used as the center of the teams defensive shutdown line. Do you think that Paul Maurice of all coaches takes the role of center on the defensive shut down line lightly? I would think he does not. He used Sutter, with all of 122 games of experience going in to that season, in that role for every one of 82 games last year.
He’s played Tlusty, he’s played Jussi. He’s played Jamie McBain, who has only ever played under Maurice. He played McBain in 76 games last year. 76!!!
I’m fairly neutral on Mo as a coach, but it’s simply untrue to say he doesn’t play young players. It’s furthermore simply untrue to say that Skinner was the only one. There are plenty of valid, objective criticisms of Mo’s coaching style. He generally has his players playing to the level of their opponent. He’s a players coach which isn’t always great for a team of fairly young players like the Hurricanes. He’s not the most aggressive in late game situations when his teams have the lead. He can be fairly hands off during the game. He tends to focus too much on drills during practice. The powerplay still sucks. The young player argument though does not hold water.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
by C-Leaguer on Oct 31, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
CL, I don’t believe you’re correct about Sutter. Mo did coach Sutter for 25 game, same as Lavi in 08/09. Neither used him that much. Sutter averaged less than 9 minutes a game, but he did average just over 2 minutes of PK a game. In the 09/10 season, Sutter was called up due to injuries and the team’s horrible performance. Even when he displayed he was the best forward for the Canes during that horrible stretch of losses, Mo was very reluctant to move him up lines. I remember, because there were a lot of complaints on this blog about that. He is still young, so Mo has given him more opportunity; but is took a little while for him to get comfortable with Sutter.
I am not a Mo supporter, so my opinion is always bias; but I don’t believe he is fair in his treatment of younger players. He seems to have a very short leash for young players. I just think another coach could be better at developing our young players/prospects, but Mo is our coach. So I must bare it until a change is made.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
I’ve seen the complaints about Sutter being sent down when he was supposedly clearly better. The thing I don’t get is that Sutter is has been great for this org. I fail to see the handling of Sutter as anything but a success. Using Sutter’s handling as an example of poor decision making doesn’t compute.
Mo had Sutter after the concussion. That’s why Sutter’s time was limited that year under Mo. The team used him very gingerly after that waiting for him to turn 19 so they could send him to the AHL.
As for the next season, he was used 16:32 per game, which was more than Erik Cole was used per game that season. Check it at NHL.com here. That was more than Ruutu that season, and only a few seconds less than Jussi. Only Whitney and Staal were forwards that played for the team all season that saw significantly more time per game than Sutter in that season. I’m not sure how Mo could have been slow to warm to the guy and he could be above everyone but those two in TOI per game.
To take it one step further, Jamie McBain last year averaged 19:06 of TOI per game. Check it out here. Only Gleason Corvo and Joni averaged more TOI among the defense and only Staal amongst forwards. Pretty impressive too when you consider McBain played 76 games.
I don’t believe he is fair in his treatment of younger players. He seems to have a very short leash for young players. I just think another coach could be better at developing our young players/prospects, but Mo is our coach. So I must bare it until a change is made.
This is different to saying he doesn’t play young players. He clearly plays young players. He’s played young players in big roles. Skinner, Sutter, and McBain have all seen big time under Mo. Is he overly cautious with some players? Perhaps. Does he not see how to fit certain skill types in to his system? I think an argument could maybe be put together there. But to say he doesn’t play them is flat out wrong, and it gets repeated here frequently.
As I’m looking back over it, I can’t see any young players that Mo has had since his return to the Canes that haven’t seen time other than Bowman, Boychuk or Dalpe, and I think things may change for Dalpe when he gets fully healthy. Even Faulk was given a chance.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
CL, I don’t believe you’re correct about Sutter. Mo did coach Sutter for 25 game, same as Lavi in 08/09.
Yeah, that’s what I was saying. That’s why I noted that Mo was hired after Sutter was concussed in the Islanders game. I wasn’t very clear on that subject though.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
CL, you’re looking at the 09/10 season as a whole; I was commenting about his first month of action that season. He came in and was the best forward on the ice, it took Mo time to increase his minutes. He still relied heavily on Rod and it drew many critical remarks. When he was called up, he scored 2 of the Canes 6 goals in the his first 5 games up. He only averaged 12 minutes a night. While Rod was a -9 in those games with 0 points and averaged over 21 minutes a night. Brandon’s time didn’t start increasing until it had to when Staal got injuried.
And I didn’t say he doesn’t play young players, he does. But it seems that he is more or less “forced” to play young players. Skinner – because the GM was not sending him back to juniors, McBain – because who else is he going to roll out there last season. And again Sutter – saw his time increased from 12 minutes to 17 mainly because Staal was out with injury. He eventually comes around, but it takes a little to push him in that direction.
Most coaches are wary of playing kids over veterans, but you have to let talent shine and he seems to like to keep it in the dark corner of the room. In certain situations (like Skinner), that “light” is too bright not to be notice. But in others (like Dalpe), given a little fuel (ample opportunity); it could be a bright as well.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
Two things
1) You do realize that SouthernHockeyFan, the guy I respond to did in fact say mo doesn’t play young forwards, right? I even quoted it in my reply.
2) You started out your first post with:
CL, I don’t believe you’re correct about Sutter.
When all I did was post stats about Sutter that are in fact accurate
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
What I was responding too was that you were talking how Sutter was used in the 09/10 season. You said he averaged more time than Cole and Ruutu. I was just pointing out that a lot of that had to do with the injury to Staal. He was being used gingerly until Staal was injured and Month was forced to use Sutter because he didn’t have much other choice. When Sutter was originally called up in that season; Staal, Brind’Amour, and Sutter were all on the active roster. Staal & Brind’Amour were average over 20 minutes a night while being ineffective. Sutter was get 10 to 12 minutes while notching 1/3 of the team’s goals in that stretch. What would have happened if Staal didn’t get hurt? Would Sutter still have been giving limited time?
That’s what I was trying to point out. I was just giving some other facts/stats to counter your point.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 31, 2011 8:43 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Dude, Stall was injured on nov 25. It’s not like that was all that late in the season nor was it all that much time to give brindy, you know the captain and the guy who led the team to the cup, the chance to come back from a knee injury. Also sutters time didn’t suffer when Staal came back. So what does your additional data add because I don’t see all that much.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
DUDE, Staal missed from Nov 1 to Nov 25. And the stats say that Rod was getting over 21 minutes while Sutter was getting 12 despite having 2 goals and a -1 compared to Rods 0 points and -9. If they were worried about Rod’s knee, then wouldn’t you limit his time? But you are right that Sutter’s time didn’t suffer when Staal returned, it was Rod’s. Mo again was forced to go with the younger guy by then because Sutter produced and it was obvious that Rod was done.
And the additional data was the time, goals, and +/- that I provided.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 31, 2011 10:40 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
So Staal went out earlier than I thought. Nov 1 is about ten games in to the season. Sutter’s time isn’t cut when Staal returns. Rod’s time is cut. Sutter missed a few games at the start of the season down in the AHL. And you also said this above:
Most coaches are wary of playing kids over veterans
So are you trying to say Mo did what Most coaches would do?
Honestly, dude, your point isn’t very clear. You’re kind of all over the place here. I think you’re letting your biases that you admitted to show.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Sorry my point isn’t clear. But what I’m pointing to with all of this information is that Mo was forced to play Sutter more due to the injury of Staal. He was getting limited time up until that point. Once Sutter got more time, it was obvious that Sutter was the better option than some of the vets. Due to Mo’s normal operating procedure, we might not have known how good Sutter was if Staal never got injuried and forced Mo to increase Sutter’s TOI.
For someone that loves to use other posters quotes, you missed two from me.
But it seems that he is more or less "forced" to play young players.
Mo again was forced to go with the younger guy by then because Sutter produced and it was obvious that Rod was done.
And yes I am saying Mo did what most coaches would do. That’s why I believe if this team is trying to rebuild through its younger talent, they should have gone in a different direction with the coach. PK & JR should have addressed this issue by finding a coach that isn’t as reluctant in playing younger players. A coach that is more of a teacher.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
Kind of coming in late here, but I thought this quote was interesting:
But what I’m pointing to with all of this information is that Mo was forced to play Sutter more due to the injury of Staal.
Now couldn’t there be the flip side to that point? That Sutter forced Mo to play him more after his performance during Staal’s injury? Yeah circumstances forced Mo’s hand into giving him the chance, but Sutter took that chance and ran with it. He was good for that stretch of games, surprisingly good actually.
Maybe Mo is hesitant to play younger guys; can’t say I blame him too much about that-most of us would go with a known entity over an unknown one any day, but especially if our job depended on that entity’s performance. Maybe he does need some sort of instigating factor (an injury to a more established guy for example or a roster that isn’t veteran heavy due to a GM signing spree during the offseason) to prompt a younger guy getting more playing time. But part of this is on the player too. They have to seize that opportunity. And maybe with the exception of Sutter, Skinner, and McBain, guys just haven’t seized the way they needed to.
My point here is that maybe the answer lies sort of in the middle of this road. I think there’s more to this situation than a straight up “Mo hates young players”. Essentially I don’t think this is as black and white as either side tries to make it out to be. It’s all different shades of grey.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
CG, I agree with that point. I thought I basically said that in the 2nd blocked quote in my post. Staal’s injury forced Mo to give Sutter more time and Sutter’s performance forced Mo to keep playing him.
And I do agree that Mo, like most coaches, would probably go with the “known entity” over the prospects. But what I was trying to say is that if the organization was going in the direction of rebuilding, they should have brought in a coach more willing to develop the prospects.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
I’ll ask again. Sutter is a fantastic player for this org. Why is there such interest in proving something negative when the outcome really could NOT have been better? No one knows what the outcome would have been had Sutter played more minutes early or if Sutter hadn’t gone down to the AHL. What we do know is that he’s developed into a great player on the roster. If anything Sutter’s success should be used as an example of proper and patient handling.
Just trying to point out that young players given more opportunity might actually help this organization out in the long run. It’s nothing negative about Sutter.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
I know it wasn’t directed at Sutter but rather his handling.
My point is that you can’t argue with success. Sutter’s story is a success. Period. To suggest he was mishandled implies that you know what the outcome would have been if things had unfolded differently.
I’m not necessarily saying he was mishandled. I’m saying that with opportunity, talent (like cream) rises to the top. Could Dalpe or Boychuk be as good as Sutter? I can’t answer that because I don’t know. I would like those guys be given the opportunity to show what they can do. If all else is failing, why not try something different?
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
Oh I know. I just wanted to elaborate on it and the first quote did a better job of illustrating that “black and white” nature that this discussion often seems to have.
As far as developing prospects, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. First off, I don’t see that as much a part of Mo’s job as I do Jeff Daniels, who I believe was given the AHL job for exactly that reason.
Second, I’d even go so far as to argue that despite it not being really his job, Mo has done a dang fine job with three of our biggest prospects, two if you decide Skinner never really needed development (not saying you would, but just heading off another rebuttal). Sutter is outstanding. McBain is coming along and looking stronger each time I see him. And then Skinner? If Mo really didn’t want to develop the young guys, I don’t think we have a Calder winner on our roster.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
And I’d say that Mo would have been fired last season if he didn’t play Skinner. Just like Melrose (maybe not the BEST example out there) was fired very early in the season years ago when he wouldn’t play Stamkos, TB #1 draft pick, in top 6.
I think Mo knew what he was getting from Skinner. In all honesty, I can’t see any of our young forwards even being at Skinner’s level. So agree Mo’s hands are tied and he appears to be playing it safe w/ #59 in top 6. But, it certainly ain’t working so where is the adjustment?
Finally, this summer signings do not bode well for JR, do they?
Harrumph
Fair enough, I actually kind of agree with you about the whole thing which is why I originally said that you could leave Skinner out of the prospect equation.
I added him in there simply to point out that the “Mo won’t play the kids” theory doesn’t hold water. If the kids are good enough to play, they’ll play. Skinner is a notable outlier in just about every way possible, but that doesn’t change the fact that if the theory about Mo was actually 100% true, he wouldn’t have played Skinner.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
Staal, Skinner, and Sutter were NHL ready the moment they hit the ice. They made such a strong case for themselves, no NHL coach would keep them out of the line up. To some extent, it argues against the notion that Maurice won’t ever play young players. On the other hand, it might also support the idea that Maurice does not view his role as developing players. He plays them when he feels there are already full NHL players. It is also worth noting that Skinner was the rookie of year, Staal was a top five pick, and Sutter comes with an amazing pedigree and has an amazing hockey I.Q.
Certainly, Maurice’s personality seems to be highly risk adverse. Young players do make mistakes; but so do veterans. Gleason is a highly seasoned defenseman; and his two clunker plays cost the Hurricanes dearly. I feel certain he would concede, he knows not to pass the puck in front of his own goal. It’s a high speed sport. Players make less than ideal decisions in the heat of the moment.
I’m also not ready to fire Maurice. He has his strengths and he has his weaknesses. All in all, he’s shown he is essentially a .500 coach whose teams can muster a strong play-off run every three to four years. He is not the best coach I’ve ever seen in handling young players; but he is nowhere near the worst I’ve seen either.
On the other hand, it might also support the idea that Maurice does not view his role as developing players. He plays them when he feels there are already full NHL players.
That’s a fair point and one I don’t disagree with. What coach would rather have untested talent over completely NHL-ready players? Not one I can think of.
I guess I just keep going back to the coaching staff, Mo included, knowing far more than I do about the players and where they’re at developmentally. The group of coaches this team has put together has about a bazillion times more NHL experience than I do and for that reason, no matter how crazy it seems, I have to think they’ve got a plan going on.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
McBain was called up in 09/10 due to trades and injuries. When he was first called up, the comments on this board were about him being the best thing since sliced bread. Then the 10/11 season rolled around and he was criticized a lot, its even now to the point that some believe he might be traded. So, he spent time in the AHL and came to the NHL at a unbelievable level (10points & +6 in 14 games). He also spent 3 years developing in college. Then he had an offseason with Mo and his play wasn’t at the same level. Is that normal; I don’t know? Did he regress?
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
Then the 10/11 season rolled around and he was criticized a lot, its even now to the point that some believe he might be traded.
Wait, you’re trying to imply that because folks are taling about him being traded they are down on McBain? It’s just the opposite. The reason McBain is talked about as being tradable is because he has value and one must trade value to get value. Maybe others have said something about McBain being washed up or worthless, but every time I’ve spoken of trading him it’s because he has value and he can return value.
And are you trying to imply that McBain regressed last year? Really? Is that the case you’re trying to make?
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I’d say he “struggled” last year. So did John Forslund several times. McBain is SO much better thus far than where he was at last season at this time. Don’t you agree?
Harrumph
Struggled in to the All-Star skills competition though? He struggled at the start of the year, but he was good enough to be in the skills comp and was solid by the end of the year. Come on, how much struggling we talking about here?
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I’d say he struggled last year. I wouldn’t call it regressing, but more of an evening out process. It’d be hard for any rookie (and that’s what he really was last year) to keep that same level of production going for an entire year. I think the drop off is completely normal for a young player learning his way in the league. Going from the AHL to the NHL full-time is a jump and he had to work his way through the transition. I think he would have struggled no matter who was coaching him.
I guess my bottom line here is this: you can make the case that Mo doesn’t take enough risks. I think it’s a valid point; one that I made the other day in relation to Sutter in the shootout. But I don’t know that you can unilaterally claim that Mo doesn’t do a good job of X when you don’t know that it would have been any different with another coach.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
I’m just saying that McBain’s rookie season saw his PPG’s drop almost half compared to the 14 games a season earlier. Maybe he was just in a zone in early 2010?
You are right that I don’t know what another coach would have done, but Mo’s track record would indicate he is not the best at developing prospects. Maybe that is a result of the Canes organization inability to actually draft well. There are a lot of factors. I’m just not sold on Mo being the guy to take our kids from prospects to NHL players.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
Mo’s track record would indicate he is not the best at developing prospects.
Serious question here, no sarcasm or confrontation intended: what track record is that? What player (from his current run as coach) has struggled mightily in this organization and gone on to be gangbusters in another?
Maybe I don’t know as much about the game as I’d like to think I do, but I’m having a hard time seeing where this track record comes from. Is it Dalpe not being on the first line? Or Boychuk getting 4th line minutes during his call-up? Because to me, it’s too early to tell if those were bad calls, especially since Sutter (who has turned out well) went through much of the same thing.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
That is why I added:
Maybe that is a result of the Canes organization inability to actually draft well. There are a lot of factors.
I cannot think of any.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
LOL that doesn’t really clear it up for me PP, but at least you were being honest.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
CG, I was discussing this same question (which Canes prospects went on to achieve good things elsewhere) on twitter the other day with @ShutDownLine (I think he goes by “MyFriendCorey” here?), and we could only come up with one player, Andrew Ladd.
by Jamie Kellner on Nov 1, 2011 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s the only I can come up with myself and he didn’t even play under Mo.
"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."
He was good offensively in 09-10 … just needs to be better in his own end. That’s still a work in progress. He had more points than Doughty last year, tho. I bet if all teams were redrafted tomorrow, Johnson would go before Ladd.
by Cory Lavalette on Nov 1, 2011 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe he was just in a zone in early 2010?
10 points in 14 games from defense and it’s only “maybe he was just in a zone”? That’s a 59 point pace over 82 games. Yandle, Lidstrom and Visnovsky were the only players to eclipse 59 points on defense last year. Green Keith and Doughty were the only ones the year prior. Lidstrom and Keith are both Norris trophy winners. Doughty was a finalist as was Green. Norris trophy level stuff he did in a 14 game try out and all you can say is “maybe he was just in a zone”? C’mon man.
Mo’s track record would indicate he is not the best at developing prospects.
Young players who have thrived under Mo’s current tenure:
Skinnner
Brandon Sutter
Jamie McBain
Jussi Jokinen
Young players who have thrived under Mo’s former tenure:
Erik Cole
Shane Willis
Dave Tanabe
Jaroslav Svoboda
Josef Vasicek
That’s not a terrible track record right there.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
You could argue that Skinner, Sutter, & McBain have prospered. You could also argue that Skinner was just an unworldly talent that succeeded despite Mo. Sutter may not have been given a chance until later if not for Staal’s injury. And McBain seemed to be better coming from AHL than after an offseason under Mo. Not saying any of these answers are right or wrong.
But regarding Jussi; he was a 50 point player in Dallas. I don’t think Mo can be given credit for his development.
I’ll give you Cole and Willis (too bad about his injury). I would consider Tanabe as a disappointment. He was expected to be a lot better than he actually was. What did Svoboda ever do? He never even scored 15 points in a NHL season. And Vasicek was a solid player, but was he really anything good? He had only one NHL season where he got more than 40 points. He was basically a little better than Chad LaRose.
That’s not a good track record of developing prospects. But like I mentioned above, maybe some of that also has to do with the organizations ability to draft players.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
I would say Mo and JR get some credit for Jussi given how poorly he performed in Tampa. That had a lot to do with being poorly used, but they get him going and got his confidence back. It may not be development in it’s typical form, but it’s still helping a young player.
How can you seriously discount Sutter and McBain? Staal only missed 10 games, and Sutter’s wasn’t demoted back to the fourth line after that. McBain was selected to the skllls comp last year and you keep referring back to a pace through 14 games that is not common for defensement to achieve over a season in the NHL over the last two seasons. I really feel as if you are trying to go out of your way here to not give Maurice any credit for the handling of these players.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I think you are trying to go out of your way to give him credit. You used Svoboda as an example of a player that “thrived under Mo”. He had 134 games in 4 seasons, scoring 29 total points and being a -5.
Jussi had 55, 48, and 42 points the years before joining Carolina. And when he came over from Tampa, he really wasn’t lighting it up in 25 regular season games. It wasn’t until the playoffs that he burst out of his “slump.”
Regarding Sutter & McBain. I just don’t believe Mo would have given the kid a shot at more time if not for Staal’s injury. And McBain, I don’t think he has gotten better from his first exposure to the NHL. Yes, he was hot; but he was so much more aggressive in that 14 game stretch. He was dangerous and then that was taken away from him or something. He’s still not a bad player, but I think he could be better if not so worried of messing up in Mo’s system.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
Jussi had 55, 48, and 42 points the years before joining Carolina. And when he came over from Tampa, he really wasn’t lighting it up in 25 regular season games. It wasn’t until the playoffs that he burst out of his "slump."
So because it wasn’t immediate no credit?
I think you are trying to go out of your way to give him credit. You used Svoboda as an example of a player that "thrived under Mo". He had 134 games in 4 seasons, scoring 29 total points and being a -5.
He was still given every opportunity to prove himself. He may have not made much of himself outside of some decent play in the playoffs, but he was given every opportunity by Mo.
Regarding Sutter & McBain. I just don’t believe Mo would have given the kid a shot at more time if not for Staal’s injury. And McBain, I don’t think he has gotten better from his first exposure to the NHL. Yes, he was hot; but he was so much more aggressive in that 14 game stretch. He was dangerous and then that was taken away from him or something. He’s still not a bad player, but I think he could be better if not so worried of messing up in Mo’s system.
I honest to god don’t even know what to say to this. When presented with the success of both players you find a way to try and not give Mo any credit for either player. Not one iota. Look, I don’t think Mo deserves all the credit nor do I particularly think he’s the greatest of coaches. Probably 15 to 20 in the NHL right now with a few others better than him not in the NHL. But come on man. No credit? Sutter would have been buried even though he wasn’t after Staal’s return. Seriously? McBain is so worried that he played himself on to the Rookie Squad for the all-star game? You’re better than that.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Pretty much describes all posters here, myself included.
I believe in strength. I believe in unity. And if that strength, that unity of purpose, demands a uniformity of thought, word and deed then so be it.
by Douchebag St John on Nov 1, 2011 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Uh….did my link get removed?
I believe in strength. I believe in unity. And if that strength, that unity of purpose, demands a uniformity of thought, word and deed then so be it.
by Douchebag St John on Nov 1, 2011 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
1. I can’t give him credit for developing Jussi when Jussi already had a 50 point &
2. You said Svoboda thrived under Mo. He may have been given an opportunity, but he didn’t thrive.
3. Again & again, I don’t think Mo would have given Sutter more opportunity without being forced to with the Staal injury. Sutter would still have developed, but it would have been slower IMO. McBain was a good defenseman last year, I just think he should be better based on what I saw during his “hot streak.” And the rookie squad thing’ – he was good, their are a limited number of rookies, and it was in Raleigh. Would Eric Staal had been captain if the All-Star game was not in Raleigh?
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
So you’re going to tell me that Svoboda “may have been given an opportunity” under Mo but Mo wouldn’t do the same for Sutter? Seriously. In the same post you say that right above. Think about that for a while and tell me how that’s consistent., because I got to tell you, I’m not sure how it is. To me, the only reason I can think of for you to have the stance you do on McBain and Sutter is to deny giving any credit to Mo for those two, which I’m just not sure how that’s even possible.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Like I’ve said for the 10th time, I believe Sutter was given more ice time due to Staal’s injury. Eventually he would have gotten more, but that could have been a year down the road. When Mo was “FORCED” to give Sutter more time due to injury; Sutter shined and made it impossible for Mo to limit his time when Staal returned.
And how is what consistent? Mo gives a lot of time to his guys, nothing new there. Svoboda proved to me an underskilled guy, that appears to be what Mo likes. Just because he gave one guy a chance doesn’t mean that he limits the opportunities to others.
And while you believe this McBain Rookie All-Star Skills Selection means something, I still believe that he played better coming straight from the AHL than he did after getting an offseason from Mo. While I admit it was a hot streak, why has McBain not been able to get even close to those number over any 14 game stretch last season? He obviously has it in him, so my only conclusion is Mo’s development plan has taken it away from him.
I’ve thought about it and I still come to the same conclusion; I don’t believe Mo is a good developer of young talent. If you disagree, that’s fine; but he hasn’t given us a large alumni in his 900+ games to support your claim that he is.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Nov 1, 2011 10:34 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Svoboda proved to me an underskilled guy, that appears to be what Mo likes.
This is tin foil hat conspiracy crazy. You’re saying an NHL coach with over 900 games of experience likes underskilled guys.
why has McBain not been able to get even close to those number over any 14 game stretch last season
Maybe, because as I pointed out only six d-men total have done that in the last two seasons and two of them were Norris trophy winners and two others were Norris Trophy finalists. You’re holding on a hot streak of Norris Trophy caliber play and wondering why McBain can’t get there. Do you really believe that McBain is a Norris Trophy winning player? Do you honestly believe that?
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I’m saying Mo isn’t good at developing players. The guy has coached in the NHL for 14 seasons. How many true NHL players has he developed? And I’m talking about true NHL players. Let’s say Erik Cole, Sami Kapanan, Niclas Wallin, Jeff O’Neill, & Josef Vasicek. I’ll even give him Skinner, Sutter, & McBain. That’s 8 players in a 14 year stretch; not very good.
Maybe I am holding out too much hope regarding McBain. I just thought that he played better in that stretch than any time last season. I just find it interesting that he spends time in the A, comes up, and is quite dominant in his first NHL experience. Then after getting direction from our NHL coach, he seems less confident in his abilities and doesn’t perform as well. Maybe it’s just coincidence.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
CL, I think your right about a bunch of this stuff. Mo does play young players, especially when he doesn’t have a choice (see McBain, Jamie). However, he can be inconsistent, or perhaps, more appropriately difficult to fathom. Drayson Bowman is a perfect case where he was asked to play a role last year as a defensively responsible, 4th liner…and he took on the challenge and by all accounts succeeded. Then, very late in the year he got some Top 6 time (something like 2 or 3 games, perhaps a bit more) and proved to still be defensively responsible, pretty darn offensively creative, but was just "snake-bitten, the definition of “off the post” kind of luck. At the close of the season Bowman’s critique was essentially, “…loved his effort, proved to be defensively responsible, but he really has to score”. It is that type of Quixotic rhetoric that can send a youngster’s head and confidence spiraling.
So while I agree with your assessment that Mo has selectively given younger players chances to prove themselves, he is, nonetheless, incredibly quick to punish youngsters for the same types of mistakes veterans get a pass on. And, no matter what you say, his treatment of talented kids with regard to pitiful quantities of only 4th line ice time, appears to be proving to be ill thought out.
Let me ask you this question in a different way….Look at Cam Newton with the Panthers. Kid had lots of success in the “Jr.’s”, had all the talent in the world, had the pedigree….and had one of the least inspiring pre-season’s on record. His coach took all that into account along with his practices and chose to play him, chose to let him make some mistakes as he learned to be a big league professional. Sure the Panther’s haven’t won many, but they’ve been in almost every game, all of which have been very exciting to watch. Now maybe that’s the key, he hasn’t won much, but I would argue that the Canes have a heck of a lot more talent than the Panthers do and are much closer to winning consistently. My point is that Ron Rivera chose to play the “kid” as he has learned and matured on the job. Perhaps that’s the point that you were trying to make with your McBain and Sutter comparisons, but I would argue that those situations were a bit different.
Right now Mo has the same choice that Rivera did. Play the kids, gamble on big upside success, and regardless he gets to be a real coach, teaching the talent to be better and to be a winner. And you put a very exciting product on the ice…maybe you get winners as a result.
1) Drayson Bowman played a fourth line role because that was the spot open on the team. As far as him really having to score, isn’t that what top 6 players are asked to do? Aren’t we all complaining about LaRose because of his inability to score?
2) As far as punishing youngsters, did Mo not just say a few nights ago about one of the young players that it was a rookie mistake and he wasn’t going to hold it against him? (Does anyone recal/have a link to the exact quote? I’ll look again shortly but I’m not coming up with anything right now)
3) Are you really going to compare the Panthers, who are rebuilding, with the Canes, who are supposed to be a playoff team? That’s a comparison that just doesn’t hold up.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
??
Since when were we supposed to be a playoff team? We spend to the floor brother! All be it, we missed the playoffs by one win last year, no one that knows hockey locks us as a “playoff” team. We are a bubble team at best. Play the youth and we can develop into a team that could make a run in the future. Continue to allow a flawed system to be the status quo (Mo’s system), and we languish right where we are….ON THE FENCE..
Respectfully…C2
"Forget about style; worry about results."
Bobby Orr
Check this link:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=589130
Here’s a quote:
But we certainly have a better team than we had last year and we’re a team that certainly can be a playoff team
Bubble team may be accurate, but that’s still a heck of a ways from where the Panthers are.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I am sure that JR must position himself in this manner and is rightly hopeful of a playoff berth. After all, it would not be good PR to admit that we are truly on the lower side of the league and are okay “getting close” year after year.
"Forget about style; worry about results."
Bobby Orr
After all, it would not be good PR to admit that we are truly on the lower side of the league and are okay "getting close" year after year.
Why say in words what you can do in actions.
I believe in strength. I believe in unity. And if that strength, that unity of purpose, demands a uniformity of thought, word and deed then so be it.
by Douchebag St John on Nov 1, 2011 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
CL, I think that sometimes you just selectively see what you want and ignore the rest of what is being said.
Bowman’s situation is entirely germane. He was put on the 4th line, worked his way up to the 3rd line. Clearly changed his game to insure that he stayed with the big club, but was told by both Mo and JR that he needed to take the next step and score. The kid received mixed messages (like Boychuk). Be defensively responsible, don’t make mistakes and you’ll stay up with the big club. And despite the fact that throughout your career you’ve been a prolific, creative scorer we want are going to put you in a situation where that is not your role. Then when you excel at the role in which you were placed, we’re going to say that you need to be a scorer….damned if you do, damned if you don’t!
Your selective reference to a single Mo quote when his history and almost entire body of work with young players is to diminish ice time for single instance mistakes is laughable. The number of times when the youngsters get their TOI reduced for “rookie mistakes” are legion. I would only ask that he treats all the players the same.
Finally, you totally misunderstood the reference to the Panthers. The issue wasn’t a rebuilding team vs. one that’s supposed to contend for the playoffs. If you asked Ron Rivera at the beginning of the season, I’m sure he felt he had just as competitive of a team. The issue is that one coach has determined that his talented “youngster” is best served receiving significant game time experience. The other is incapable moving out of his comfort zone, giving talented and deserving youngsters true opportunity. For goodness sake, even Tim Tebow is getting a shot.
LaRose & Brindy
I recall reading in the past that LaRose and Brind’Amour are pretty close. Could this somehow cause Mo to feel the need to appease Roddy by giving Chadd roles he’s not suited for? It’s not mind boggling that LaRose is in the NHL , but that Maurice gives him the role that he does.
You want to know the grand conspiracy keeping LaRose in the top six? It’s jr not getting a treetop six guy and dalpe being injured. The options at rw are Dwyer LaRose Stewart and boychuk. I think LaRose can make a case he is the best most proven option. You want to find the culprit look to the gm and take the tin foil hat off.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I'd believe that this year,
But we saw the exact same thing last year—and that was a stated rebuilding year and Larose still got the top six time and —19 or —21 rating doing it….
…If that were not the case, I’d give some benefit of the dount to your argument.
The other issue about Mo and youngsters, is defenders do seem to get the chance, but then again, where’s he going to bury them? Not like he can play any two defensive lines 27+ minutes each to bury a defensive prospect—his hands are tied once they make the lines…
Not so the forward prospects. One mistake, boom 4th line. Come up as a scoring prospect?? Boom 4th line. Go out and look good onthe 4th line. FIne, so what? Do it for ten games at 5 minute, OK, maybe I’ll give you a shot….
Then who else gets the call this year? Who? Where is the answer to that question? Stewart? Great, two guys on the same line who need to be fed the puck and no one to feed them. Dwyer? Do I need to answer that one? Dalpe? At best he was injured at worst he disappeared after the middle of the preseason and that includes the time on the top lines. Boychuk? He hasn’t even been an option until the last two games and are we to forget his defense last year?
And what does last season have to do with this year? That’s like saying the previous spin impacts the next spin at roulette. They are independent data sets.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
And, just to take the last season argument further, after the trade deadline LaRose was no longer in the top 6. It was Cole – Staal – Stillman, and Jussi Ruutu Skinner. So, clearly Mo isn’t philosophically opposed to having Mo in the bottom 6. It’s not like Mo is as adamant about LaRose being in the top 6 as a Catholic is about the sanctity of life.
So, if we know it’s not philosophical for Mo to have LaRose in the top 6, and we can eliminate all the illuminati, Mason, tin foil hat conspiracy theories for it, what are we left with? We’re left with a coach who wants to win making game by game decisions on who is the best option. We’re left with a coach who when presented with different personnel creates different lineups, moving LaRose up and down in the process. This is starting to sound like a rational person making personnel choices based on the players given to him. Knowing that he makes different choices when given different players it seems as if the GM provided Mo with better players the coach would be willing to play those better players in a higher role if it maximized his chance of winning.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Ultimately the GM is responsible for the players the coach has to choose from for sure. But the coach also has the option to try some different things with the hand he was dealt. I get your point about LaRose being the best of the worst, as it were. I would like to see the team/coach just take a chance on a Boychuk for a at least a full game. Yeah his defense has been suspect but sometimes the best defense is a good offense – IF he could develop some chemistry with Staal and Tlusty. This team is .500 and not looking like it’s going to break out of that mold anytime soon, so what are we risking by giving a player the shot he’s been waiting for? It
s like a baseball player’s batting average falling below .200. He’s not standing pat with his swing or approach to hitting because he fears his average is going to get even worse if he tries something else. He’ll try new things. LaRose on the top line is like batting .200
The critical thing to remember with Boychuk is that he’s been up with the team now for only 3 games. It’s a very small sample size. I do like what he’s doing. I’ve praised his first game on here and was supportive of his work against Chicago. Before we go to Boychuk, I’d like to see Tlusty and Staal for another game or two. Get a bit of a bigger sample size on Boychuk and see if the Staal Tlusty pairing helps things at all. There seemed to be the start of some chemistry the last couple of games. If that’s still not sparking things, and the team is 12 games in (roughly 15% of the season) then I think it is time to start the throw things at the wall and see what sticks.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Getting a bigger sample size of Boychuk is fine, but if it’s not within a role that he is suited to play that sample is meaningless. He’ll never be a grinder. Give him a shot at a skill line. Let him play with better players and see if he responds.
Getting a bigger sample size of Boychuk is fine, but if it’s not within a role that he is suited to play that sample is meaningless
Sorry, but no. Look at what Boychuk did his first game up. Did some grinding, but also was able to create an opportunity and be on the puck. Those are things he will have to do in the top 6. Guys can still show what they have even with limited time on the fourth line.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Guys can show their potential on a 4th line for sure. Put Crosby on a 4th line and I’m sure he’d still impress. But hockey is a team game and any skill players full potential will never be seen playing with linemates who have limited offensive skills – unless said player is one of a handful of players in the NHL who can simply create on their own. I agree with you for the most part, but there really is no argument for not trying a few different options besides LaRose. There is nothing to lose and everything to possibly gain.
There is nothing to lose and everything to possibly gain.
This is where I disagree. LaRose has 6 points thru 11 games. That’s a 45 point pace. Not great, and you’d certainly like better from a top 6 guy, but it’s also not terrible. It’s also higher than Staal’s 5 points, just to provide a frame of reference. He’s also -2, which is considerably better than Staal and better than Skinner and Ruutu.
Boychuk has more offensive upside, and probably even more talent right now than LaRose. However, I think it’s fair to be worried about his defense and playing with Staal. I like Staal, he’s a fine player. I have no problems with him on this team or his contract or him being captain. There are times, like the last 45 games of the season or so last year where he is simply a beast. His playoff performance cannot be argued with. In spite of those superlatives, he’s in a funk right now. He’s the outlier when it comes to +/-. Not all of that is fairly earned, but it’s still his. My worry with Boychuk is his play will exacerbate the funk Staal is in. To me, that doesn’t help the team.
My hope is that Dalpe comes back, shows he is a true top 6 player, and helps to get Staal out of his funk, or his placement in the line up co-incides with Staal coming out of his funk as Staal has had some good games that have not translated to the score sheet of late.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
It also depends on what you're asked to do
Samson said when playing up with Mo he is asked in his role to be defensively responsible and conservative in his decisions. For many offensive skill guys, that’s counter to their games, history and strngths. So they play differently, and they are having to think more than react or do what they do naturally. That doesn’t help a player stand out. Mo’s record of benching prospects when they make a mistake also bodes poorly for them trying to accomplish anything creative. Bowman hinted at as much in his comments this pre-season. I believe and attribute to MO Corvo’s comments from last year on how he was playing trying not to make mistakes, and as a result, wasn’t playing his natural game so he looked off. When he went back to being “Corvo” we got what we expected and wanted.
Mo’s taskings to the prospects, his giving of limited ice time, makes it hard to move up. Sutter moved up because of his defensive accumen and sound two way play—not because he was an offensive dynamo. Sutter came in with that ability and mind set—see our reasons for drafting him. That’s not the same with skilled, scoring guys…
Samson said when playing up with Mo he is asked in his role to be defensively responsible and conservative in his decisions. For many offensive skill guys, that’s counter to their games, history and strngths.
Tell me again how not being defensively responsible is an endorsement for getting top 6 minutes? I just don’t follow that logic.
I believe and attribute to MO Corvo’s comments from last year on how he was playing trying not to make mistakes, and as a result, wasn’t playing his natural game so he looked off.
That’s a smart assumption because Corvo has never had a problem with that in the past. Nope, never struggled with that in LA or in Ottawa. Certainly never struggled enough to get the nickname “Uh-oh Corvo”. Just to take that further, Corvo played some of the most consistent hockey of his career under Mo so we should give extra credit to Corvo for playing well in spite of Mo.
Sutter moved up because of his defensive accumen and sound two way play—not because he was an offensive dynamo. Sutter came in with that ability and mind set—see our reasons for drafting him. That’s not the same with skilled, scoring guys…
So the team is drafting the wrong players? How is this Mo’s fault again?
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I'd rather...
….we try and win some games now by adding scoring punch. This petty argument that he needs to “show us more” is ridiculous. HE’S A BETTER PLAYER THAN LAROSE! Give us results.
LaRose’s stats this year would indicate that the opposite is true.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
In your opinion
But as you may have notice, Mo is not consistent and does not do the things you say he does in the minds of the rest of us. To Whit: We know Mo isn’t philosophically opposed to having LaRose in the bottom six—IF another veteran player he trusts is available. Which ties right back to last season as I mentioned. We were clearly not a playoff team, we were clearly supposed to be rebuilding. LaRose got top line time until Stllmain. Why didn’t we play Dalpe or Bowman on the top line to see how they worked out? They made the team—they played limited 4th line minutes… We knew what LaRose could do, and how he wasn’t a top six forward, yet Mo still played him in that role. So we sent the kids back to Charlotte instead of playing them.
Bowman got Mo’s message—play safe. plat defensively responsisble when you come back up and I will not sit you on the bench with limited 4th line minutes. Bowman did that when called back up. He made the comment this preseason that he had showed Mo he could play defensive two way hockey, now he hoped he could get the chance to show he could play some offense. This, to me, clearly showed what Mo tells and wants from the offensive forwards. It’s also consistent with his playing our offensive prospects on the 4th line and limiting their minutes unless Mo’s hands are forced. Mo’s own comments that all the forwards need to play the same and battle and grind for goals tells me he has no concept of how to utilize the kind of prospects we have. The press articles about trying to fit Boychuck in as grinder/banger highlight that.
In limited minutes, there have been good hints at what these guys can do, yet they aren’t given the chance unless something else happens. Defenders are different—there’s not 4th line, there’s only six, etc, they have to play…
My discussion point is simple. We didn;t do some of the right things last year in playing some of our prospects, we changed course and JR went out and got some veterans that still didn’t get us into the playoffs. Well, right now the vets aren’t getting it done again. It’s still early enough to give some of our talented youngsters a shot in the positions we expect them to play and deliver in. Ruff in Buffalo does this. They get better results from their prospects. We need to do the same and either make it work or cut bait and move elsewhere.
Mo plays it safe… And we go nowhere.
I would add, Squeaky, that the Oilers took the extreme opposite approach. They bit the bullet, played their kids a lot, paid the price by losing a ton of games, but the Oilers look far more competitive this year. The Canes don’t have as many top-of-the-draft picks as the Oilers, but you can make a case that playing the forward prospects last year and the year before would have contributed to missing the playoffs (which the Canes did in both years anyway), given the Canes higher draft picks, and accelerated development of some prospects.
by curiouscanesfan on Nov 1, 2011 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
We were clearly not a playoff team
This is not true. Had the Canes won the final game of the season they would have been in the playoffs. Now if you want to say the Canes should have followed the Chicago/Edmonton route you won’t hear any disagreement from me. But it’s patently false to say the team was “clearly not a playoff team” last season. The standings clearly say otherwise.
LaRose got top line time until Stllmain. Why didn’t we play Dalpe or Bowman on the top line to see how they worked out? They made the team—they played limited 4th line minutes… We knew what LaRose could do, and how he wasn’t a top six forward, yet Mo still played him in that role. So we sent the kids back to Charlotte instead of playing them.
Well, part of this is based on the assumption that the Canes were clearly not a playoff team, which is incorrect. Even on January 1 of 2011 they were only 4 points out of a playoff spot with two games in hand against Montreal who was in 8th. Check the link here. The team was fighting for a playoff spot at least from the first of the year.
If you work from the assumption that the Canes were trying to win as many games as possible, which I believe is the more accurate assumption, what conclusions do you draw from your above quote? If the team was trying to win as many games as possible, wouldn’t a rational person put out the best possible line up each and every night? If that’s true, what does it say about LaRose getting time over the other players you mention?
Mo’s own comments that all the forwards need to play the same and battle and grind for goals tells me he has no concept of how to utilize the kind of prospects we have.
So we have a team where every player isn’t expected to battle and grind at some point? Again, I point to Marion Gaborik and all the success he didn’t have on the Wild while cherry picking and not playing the same style as the rest of the team.
Answer me this, outside of Skinner, who is talented enough that they can cherry pick and never have to battle and grind on this team? And then, compare that to the fact that even Skinner grinds and battles. I got to tell you, I don’t see Wayne Gretzky in any of the prospects.
The press articles about trying to fit Boychuck in as grinder/banger highlight that.
Should I even ask for links to these articles? You do love to say things happen without backing it up.
Defenders are different—there’s not 4th line, there’s only six, etc, they have to play…
Ah yes, another of the excuses why Mo should get no credit. Add it to the McBain regressed, Skinner was otherworldly good, Staal’s injury led to Sutter. Am I missing any?
All these excuses remind me of the folks who used to support the geocentric theory. The problem with their theory was that for it to be true every star and planet in the sky had to make all these little epicycles for it to be true. Every orbit had all these tiny little orbits and speeds sped up and slowed down. It was quite complicated. Then, a heliocentric theory is proposed that’s simpler and doesn’t require a geometric twist to work.
My discussion point is simple. We didn;t do some of the right things last year in playing some of our prospects, we changed course and JR went out and got some veterans that still didn’t get us into the playoffs.
You won’t hear any argument from me on this front. I remember taking flack when Carter was traded for Stillman. It signaled the wrong direction. But that’s a JR issue. You even say as such. It makes this line:
Mo plays it safe… And we go nowhere.
even more odd. You fault the man at the top but then put the blame on the lieutenant.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Had the Canes won the final game of the season they would have been in the playoffs. Now if you want to say the Canes should have followed the Chicago/Edmonton route you won’t hear any disagreement from me. But it’s patently false to say the team was "clearly not a playoff team" last season. The standings clearly say otherwise.
While true, it’s patently false from the beginning of the year. We were told and everyone agreed it was a rebuilding year, we were going to be playing the prospects in top roles and rotating them up and down from Charlotte. AT the trade Deadline, JR declared we were changing because of our record, and the surprising contributions from Skinner, so he made a move to go out and get vets for a run. Previous to this move?? All our statements were to the contrary. But that doesn’t mean teams play to lose. Even rebuilding teams play to win, but we only went halfsies on the rebuild and playing prospects part. So we still are unsure what we have…
…oh, that’s right, same coach.
Note the link I made to the standings as of Jan 1, 2011. The team was 4 points out of 8th with two games in hand.
Again, how do you keep blaming JR and then call out Mo? There weren’t a ton of roster spots open early in the year. There was no where for prospects other than Skinner and McBain to play. Even on Dec 1 of 2010 the Canes were only 6 points out with 2 games in hand.
You want to fault JR for not seriously rebuilding, go ahead. You want to fault PK for not taking a season on the chin for long term success, go ahead. But I’m still unsure of where the fault to Mo comes from? He exceeds expectations with the team last year, doesn’t have the roster spots open to play kids early and is in playoff contention from December 1 on, puts Skinner in a position to play and win the Calder, and the fault lies there? I’m sorry, I do not follow that logic.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
well it’s a Karmanos issue if you really drill to the core. He set a budget ( which I think is reasonable for a small market team) , he employs Rutherford who gets the players and employs Maurice who deploys the players. Rutherford must endorse the way players are used because he has not fired Mo. Karmanos must not be too irritated by it all because he has not fired JR, Or even ( as far as we know) given JR a directive to pass along.
Suffice it to say that many of us had hoped the Canes would take more of a direction Edmonton took, but they didn’t. They chose a .400 season with exciting young players in the lineup for a .500 season and a chance to sniff the playoffs if Cam Ward stands on his head all year.
The team was fighting for a playoff spot at least from the first of the year.
Every team is…to one extent or another. But it doesn’t change what we started as, nor does it invalidate the point I made—You want us to play to lose???
That doesn’t make us a playoff team. Making the playoffs makes you a playoff team. Being IN PLAYOFF POSITION to make the playoffs makes you a playoff team…
So when confronted with the standings at both January 1 and the end of the season that contradict you’re assumption that the team was “clearly not a playoff team” you’re doubling down on it? Really?
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Yes
Last I checked, playoff teams actually make the playoffs… I don;t remember us playing any best of seven games after the 82 game.
By definition then, we didn’t make it. We were not a playoff team.
Hmm, this:
We were not a playoff team.
and this:
We were clearly not a playoff team, we were clearly supposed to be rebuilding.
Are not the same thing. The first is quantitative and a statement of fact. The second is qualitative.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
My qualitative assessement even after the trade deadline was we were not a playoff team then. We were in position more from the relatively poor play of our competition than based on our own play. Once the playoff chase came down to the wires, the other teams picked up their games—Buffalo had no trouble with us. Niether did Tampa. Once the competition became higher, we were not a playoff team in a qualitative assessment—in my opinion—then either.
So we have a team where every player isn’t expected to battle and grind at some point? Again, I point to Marion Gaborik and all the success he didn’t have on the Wild while cherry picking and not playing the same style as the rest of the team.
No, not hardly. But did Whitney score goals by grinding and battling in front of the net? Mostly no. Players have roles, some are better set up men and passers, some are better grinders and abttlers in front of the net. Some are better slapshot snipers (Stamkos).
Sometimes Stamkos has to battle and grind for goals. But if your offensive philosophy says thats what every forward should be doing would be a waste of assets and talent. If Tampa didn’t set up their offense to use the wicked passing of ST Louis, the sniping of STamkos they look a lot less potent on offense.
To ignore the various strengths and skill sets of your players and to ask each to be the same and score and battle the same is poor coaching. Maybe, as I believe, it’s opne of the reasons Mo coached teams are.500 teams. Maybe it’s why Mo coached PPs are not up to top standards. Maybe that’s why players say he stifles offensive creativity.
But I agree, all players have to work, battle and grind at various points in any game. Never said they didn’t…
Ah yes, another of the excuses why Mo should get no credit. Add it to the McBain regressed, Skinner was otherworldly good, Staal’s injury led to Sutter. Am I missing any?
Alright, what position did Mo play again. I acknowledged Mo does A little better with defensmen. That said, I though McBain did look worse last year under Mo. He come up to the Canes after a year under JD and looked very good. Not so the next year. He was a scratch this year until Faulk was sent down. Was it competition? Was it Lewis working with him? Was it Wesley?? I don’t know. McBain is better this year. Credit whom you will. Mo gets credit as the top coach, I’ve said that before, but again, there’s not much he can do in a game with a defensman like he can with a forward…
On that same token, Mo gets the blame when they don’t develop—and they haven’t been given an adequate shot to try. If they had that shot and failed? Not on Mo… If they are told to go play their game, score some goals and they fail, not on Mo…
That said, I though McBain did look worse last year under Mo. He come up to the Canes after a year under JD and looked very good.
You’re making the same comparison PP17 did. Comparing the pace of a 59 point season to all of last year when he was selected to the all star rookie squad? That’s the argument you’re going to hang your hat on?
As for not given a shot, Boychuk has had his and been inconsistent. Dalpe is in the process of getting his.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
As for not given a shot, Boychuk has had his and been inconsistent. Dalpe is in the process of getting his
Most prospects are. Many of the better coaches at developing players try to work and see if they can develop consistency instead of dropping them back to the fourth line. On the other hand LaRose has demostrated remarkable consistency on th etop lines. High — ratings, 5% shooting percentage, bad penalties and bad times…
…but he keeps getting the time, not 4th line demotions…
There is clearly a difference to how Mo treats his vets vs his prospects.
The Business Side of Hockey
My least favorite part of the NHL is the business side. Looking at the Hurricanes team, the business side says to trade Kaberle and LaRose. As sitter27 has described, LaRose and Dwyer are essentially the same player in terms of their role on the ice. LaRose’s roster spot in the top six can be served by Dalpe and/or Boychuk and/or Stewart, even if no other trade occurs. Kaberle is redundant as well. Even if all the Hurricanes get are draft choices, the roster spots need to be opened for other players.
They can’t trade Kaberle and LaRose and only get back picks. LaRose and Kaberle together have a cap hit of $5.95M according to cap geek. With a total cap payroll of $50.5M the canes are only about $2.2M above the cap. That means they can’t dump more than $2.2m of cap space with any trade and stay above the salary cap floor. Furthermore, it’s likely that trading Kaberle will only bring back a similarly price player with similar length. Given the struggles the team has on the PP and how well Kaberle has looked there I’d rather keep Kaberle than trade him for a similarly priced player with a different hole in his game.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
Kaberle and LaRose for Penner
The L.A. Kings are said to want to trade Dustin Penner. I’d trade LaRose and Kaberle for him in a nanosecond. Penner may have his issues about conditioning, but he is also a guy who has the ability to be outstanding. It all depends on how badly the Kings want to move Penner.
I would love to trade Kaberle, but please no Penner. He’s going to take a year before he can even get back to the level he should be at. Just please no.
Some managers manage using the carrot, Mo manages by using "The Stick."
by PackPride17 on Oct 31, 2011 6:56 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Trades are a two-way street. The KIngs already have enough d-men.
by Cory Lavalette on Nov 1, 2011 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Directv and Fox make up!
For those of us with Directv who haven’t heard yet.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canes Country
Related FanShots on Canes Country
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
