2010-11 Canes Country Exit Analysis: Paul Maurice
by Bob Wage on Aug 15, 2011 9:00 AM EDT
in 2010-11 Exit Analysis
Email
Print
Almost immediately after the last game of the season, at least one sportswriter was calling for Paul Maurice's head. Yet at his end of season press conference, Carolina Hurricanes general manager Jim Rutherford said that he felt like his head coach did a good job.
This contrast in opinion seems prevalent among the fanbase as well.
If you were to look at the expectations of the team before the season started, you might agree with Rutherford. Very few, if any experts around the league were predicting that the Canes would make the playoffs. The team had just entered into a transition period as the GM revamped them from being one of the oldest groups in the league to one of the youngest.
The Hurricanes also had one the toughest schedules in the league. The club traveled more miles than any other team and had the second most back-to-back games. Still, Maurice had his team within one game of making it to the postseason.
Did the abilities of the coach push the team to the limit of what they could accomplish? Or did his policies hold them back? Let's take a closer look.
The Good:
Maurice has been criticized in the past for his inability, or unwillingness, to develop, or play young players. But for the first time in franchise history, a member of the team was recognized as the league's top rookie. Jeff Skinner got plenty of ice time and his game improved, especially in his own end, as the season went on. Another rookie, Jamie McBain, saw his share of ice time as well and he finished fifth on the team with an average of 19:06 per game. The defenseman also improved toward the end of the season.
Just like the previous season, the coach had the team peaking at the right time of the year. The Canes were 7-2-1 in their last 10 and were 9-3-1 in their last 13. They had a respectable 22-14-3 record at home and scored the sixth most goals in the East, (236). The Hurricanes were also near the top of the league in penalties drawn.
The coach is even-tempered and does not lose his cool, he seems open to advice from his assistant coaches, and he did not seem to lose the locker room as most of the team was obviously fighting hard at the end of the season.
The Bad:
Usually this coach and GM are on the same page, but even Jim Rutherford was not happy with the number of games, (74) that Cam Ward played last season. Even though the team had a losing record in the second half of back-to-backs, that didn't stop the coach from starting Ward in most of them. The Canes allowed more shots than any other team in the league and allowed the10th most goals in the East, (239).
While the Canes drew a lot of penalties, their powerplay could have been more effective and finished 24th in the league at 15.9%. The penalty kill was a bit better at 81.2%, good for 20th in the league. For most of the season, the club was abysmal in the faceoff circle but did show a little improvement near the end as they finished at 44.6%, good for 29th in the league.
The coach also gets criticized for not playing his fourth line enough and Troy Bodie, (6:49 average) and Jerome Samson, (6:51 average) will testify to that. When Patrick Dwyer and Jiri Tlusty moved the the fourth line later in the season, they saw their average ice time drop off as well.
"Mo" usually has his teams playing well at the end of the season, but his clubs almost always get off to a slow start. Clawing your way from the back of the pack is usually not a recipe for success and that will need to change this year or his job could be in serious jeopardy.
The Money:
Maurice is in the final year of his three year deal and that makes him very vulnerable if the team disappoints early this coming season.
Sidebar: Forever .500?
The coach has the stigma of being labeled "average" because of his lifetime .504 record. But his team earned 91 out of a possible 164 points last season for a .555 percentage. The previous year he was .488 and his first year back in Carolina he finished .623. Can an "old" coach learn new tricks? He seems to be improving as his three year average of .548 since back in Carolina is significantly higher than his lifetime average.
How does that stack up against some other notable NHL coaches? During the same time frame, (last three years), Jacques Martin has a .546 winning percentage, Marc Crawford is .516, Terry Murray is .565, John Tortorella is .542, Barry Trotz is .583, and Ron Wilson is .488.
Wilson's .488 winning percentage while in Toronto is much worse than Maurice's .530 while he was coaching the Leafs.
___
Last year, the majority of you gave Maurice a grade of "C" after the disappointing 2009-10 campaign. What do you have to say this time around? Did I leave out anything? Please let me know in the comments.
206 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm voting a D
Grabbing my popcorn, this should be fun!
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
by anonymousJ on Aug 15, 2011 9:17 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Getcha popcorn ready!! This should be good…
For the record, I gave him a C. B’s and A’s are for playoff teams, IMO. I probably could have gone lower since he had at least 2 or 3 “play-off” games at the end of the year that he didn’t win.
"I don't hit people who I know don't fight. I have zero interest in people who don't fight." - Tim Gleason
twitter.com/caniac176
So if a team coming off a 60-point season finishes 9th in their conference, their coach still deserves a C at best?
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Huh?
I didn’t reply to you, bud.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not your bud Procton but I can still answer a question…
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
What a couple of tools. Did that really just happen in the opening “popcorn” segment?. I’ve waited all summer for this and it has not disappointed. This is great.
by coastalcaniac on Aug 15, 2011 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions
But you weren't the one who made the statement, so your opinion on the matter isn't really relevant.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Honey, can you please bring me some more melted butter? Thanks Sugar.
by coastalcaniac on Aug 16, 2011 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Maurice = B-
I thought Maurice did a good job of keeping a young team focused throughout the season, despite an impossible schedule. I felt he had a plan for Skinner’s development and neither held Skinner back nor rushed him. I thought Maurice was able to maintain continuity in a defense that was being rebuilt on the fly. The fact the Hurricanes were one regulation win away from a playoff spot was positive.
I also felt Maurice did a good job in avoiding a team meltdown when the Canes hit a post All Star Game skid. All in all, Maurice to me had more positives than negatives.
On the negatives side of the equation, I felt Maurice cost the Hurricanes a playoff spot by his stubborn insistence on overslotting players such as LaRose and Samsonov. I felt it was painfully obvious that LaRose was being asked to play beyond his abilities. I also thought that Samsonov was going through the motions in terms of forechecking and backchecking; and it is not a surprise to me that Samsonov remains unsigned. I also felt Maurice did a poor job of handling Boychuk, Bowman, and Dalpe. In my view, Maurice has a rigidity of thought that hinders him. If a young player makes a mistake, even if that mistake does not lead to a goal, Maurice seems to take an old-school approach of yanking that player immediately down to the fourth line.
It is a style I dislike and feel is ineffective. It is especially ineffective when other veterans can have their mind-freeze moments without consequence even if those mental breakdowns result in the opposition scoring. It’s not quite a form of hazing, but it is not helpful to building a young player’s confidence. I also very much disliked Maurice’s lack of use of the fourth line. I wonder how much of Maurice’s coaching philosophy is influenced by the fact he never played in the NHL and that when he did play, he was a defenseman.
I am convinced, however, that Maurice has tremendous hockey intelligence; and that he is capable of adapting his style to his talent. It will be interesting this season to watch. Either he’ll have the Canes rocking right out of the gate, or if the team falters at the start, the anti-Mo faction will be beating the drum of firing him. I expect by December, it will be clear which direction the Hurricanes are going and whether Maurice is at the helm or is moved into the front office.
Agree w/a lot of what you said....just not the grade
I gave Mo a C. He did a lot right this year. He was working with a “rebuilding” team and much of the time got the most out of them. However, as AD rightly points out, Mo mishandles youth, mostly by refusing to play them in properly slotted roles. I really don’t have any problem with him underplaying his 4th line; that’s his philosophy and it has mostly worked for him. But putting youngsters who need NHL speed and experience to continue their growth on a 4th line that plays 5 to 6 minutes per night is doing them and the team a disservice. Drayson Bowman is a perfect example. While he stalwartly embraced whatever role was assigned to him, the last few games where he was skating on the 1st and/or 2nd lines really showed what he could do when given the chance. It began the process of rebuilding his confidence (which I’m sure will continue this year).
I also feel that Mo lost us at least 3 games by stubbornly reverting to the “prevent” once we got a lead. We would go up a goal or two, only to see the lead vanish. Or worse yet we would claw back to a tie, even take the lead, only to see it ripped from us because we would play conservatively and our defensive weaknesses would come to the fore (not being able to get the puck out of our zone, for example). However, if he had remained consistent, allowing his players to press the advantage, there were games to be won that we ultimately lost. I put this at Mo’s feet.
Finally, I believe that Jeff Skinner forced Mo to play him given his talent. However, even with him, his minutes were relatively low, especially early on. My guess is JR told Mo, “…play this kid or else…” or something to that effect. Skinner put fannies in the seats…
I do think that Paul Maurice has a good hockey mind, but one that might be more suited for a front office role. If he was as instrumental in helping to assemble this year’s team, then I believe that will become more apparent….this year’s team is going to surprise a bunch of folks.
Your Skinner theory doesn't really wash.
Yes, he got more PT late in the season than early, but outside of his highest (an abbreviated April) and lowest (November, not the first month of the season) months, his TOI time every month was tightly bunched between 16:25 and 17:08.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Skinner's TOI
Jeff averaged 16:43 TOI, good for 12th on the team and a full 43 seconds more than Chad LaRose. While I don’t have the exact game by game stats, most of the games that I saw early in the season felt like his shifts were shorter and his total ice time was less than many of the Top 9. But that’s anecdotal, so I’ll yield to your stats review. My main point was that Skinner forced his way into the discussion with his play (and his camp).
This line of reasoning is beyond ridiculous. You can’t out of one side of your mouth say Maurice isn’t good with young players and then completely discount Skinner. It’s gaming the system to get the results you want. Maurice chooses the lines. Hey chooses who plays in what scenarios. He did things to put Skinner in position to not just win but excel. He did this because Skinner proved that he could be trusted out on the ice, something none of the other young players did consistently.
There is also the issue of McBain and Sutter who have both made great strides under Maurice and that seems to be ignored simply because it’s inconvenient.
I’m not trying to say Mo is the best coach for young players, but you have to recognize what he has done and be objective.
Furthermore, how can we blame Maurice for missing the playoffs by a few points but then also blame him for not playing the other young players who had defensive liabilities that could of cost the team points and games? You cannot have it both ways. Either he gets credit for playing the kids all he could while not sacrificing too many points in the standings or you say the season was a rebuilding year and that the playoffs were less important than experience for young kids.
Mo is by no means the best coach. If I had to put him in the top third in the league it would be at #10. To me he’s somewhere between #15 and #11, top half of the league, but only by a little, and I’m not comparing any guys who aren’t current head coaches, such as Mr. Lewis on the bench next to him.
Don't trust me. I have psychological issues.
by C-Leaguer on Aug 16, 2011 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
C-Leaguer, I certainly respect your opinion and your right to it. However, a player’s success is neither totally due to coaching nor totally unaffected by it. Skinner’s success had as much to do with Jeff Skinner, his inherent make-up, and his outstanding set of skills as it did with coaching. Yes, he was put in a position to excel but he was given way more latitude to make errors. To overlook Jeff’s defensive lapses is to not admit to reality. Did he improve over the course of the year? Absolutely. However similar lapses by other young players were swiftly and rapidly punished through reduced playing time and line changes…and it rarely took more than one event for that to take effect.
McBain suffered throughout the year through multiple pairings and inconsistent PP time to name only two “coaching” issues. Sure, his “rookie-ness” came through, from time to time, but was there really a comparable replacement for Jamie? Yet even with this, I agree, that both Sutter and McBain made great strides, some surely due to coaching and some due to their own efforts. The fact still remains, and this is my opinion, in the aggregate, Paul Maurice mishandled some of his young players. Drayson Bowman, properly slotted in his last few games, showed that he could perform at a high level when he was given more ice time. Do we not fault coaching for this situation taking so long to germinate?
As I’ve stated before, I’m not a Mo hater; quite the contrary, I think he’s a pretty good coach (not great, just pretty good). Indeed, I feel this is the year where he either makes the kind of strides that can change people’s minds or he can reinforce anti-Maurice beliefs.
Finally, your argument that “playing the kids” would have sacrificed points just doesn’t hold water…we just don’t know that. In fact, an equally immeasurable argument could be made that playing the “kids” would have provided more energy, more scoring, more speed, and more heart. To say that they would have been more of a defensive liability than say Samsonov or Stillman cannot be proven either.
So I don’t believe that either you or I feel that differently about Mo; but he’s the coach of this team. It’s his game plan, his line up, and therefore, ultimately, his responsibility to succeed…at least that’s the way I’d feel if I owned the team.
Without looking – what is your best guess of the percentage of Bowman’s shifts that were on the 3rd line w/Sutter and how many were on the 4th? (Or were you thinking he should have been up in the top 6?)
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 16, 2011 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I was thinking more of those few games at the end of the season where he was getting shifts in the Top 6 I believe…now I’m going from pure recollection here, but I thought I recalled something like 3 games where Drayson pulled shifts on Staal’s line…but maybe I was wrong…maybe they were on Sutter’s line…my point was that he added jump and was defensively responsible and was a bit snake-bit w/his shot…
I remember him getting some PP time in the 3rd unit that scored – I think against the Habs? I don’t recall much time with Staal though according to Dobberhockey he had just a couple. 60% of his shifts were w/Sutter and either LaRose or Dwyer.
I don’t consider him playing on Sutter’s line in the NHL as under-utilizing his talents. So that may be where our evaluations diverge here.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 16, 2011 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions
By my calculation (and I’m an English major so take the math for what it’s worth), it looks like Bowman had about 13 or 14 shifts w/Staal’s line. And no, I don’t think that he was under utilized on the 3rd line….it did take him a while to get there. Perhaps, as I’ve said, some of my recollection is tainted, but my sense is that Bowman in particular made the most of situations where he was given additional ice time as well as a more favorable slotting. Sure, he didn’t score, but to most who watched, I think they would have to admit that he was more unlucky than unskilled…he even got over his early season case of the nerves. I’m sure he made stupid mistakes like any rookie, but that goes with the territory….my point to all of this (and then I’ll be quiet), it I had hoped he would have seen more ice time earlier in the season…worked through a few of his issues and, perhaps, he would have realized the scoring potential that we all know he possesses.
I think it may be more of a subtle thing as I work through my memories of last season, but I just felt like the youngsters deserved a bit more ice time in a proper role for their skill set. I fully supported sending them down for everyday work once more established players came back from injury, etc….but I could have easily stomached seeing Sammy or Chad sit out a game or three while some of the Checkers rotated in.
Skinner’s success had as much to do with Jeff Skinner, his inherent make-up, and his outstanding set of skills as it did with coaching.
At least you finally admit that Maurice had something to do with it.
However similar lapses by other young players were swiftly and rapidly punished through reduced playing time and line changes…and it rarely took more than one event for that to take effect.
This is a ludicrous comparison. Skinner was more defensively sound than any of the other young players in the Canes system. To put him on par defensively with other players is simply wrong. He also had greater offensive upside so had more ability to mitigate any errors. This is very similar to Joni Pitkanen who has lapses but has the ability to make up for them.
McBain suffered throughout the year through multiple pairings and inconsistent PP time to name only two "coaching" issues. Sure, his "rookie-ness" came through, from time to time, but was there really a comparable replacement for Jamie? Yet even with this, I agree, that both Sutter and McBain made great strides, some surely due to coaching and some due to their own efforts. The fact still remains, and this is my opinion, in the aggregate, Paul Maurice mishandled some of his young players. Drayson Bowman, properly slotted in his last few games, showed that he could perform at a high level when he was given more ice time. Do we not fault coaching for this situation taking so long to germinate?
McBain and Sutter are given most of the credit for their improvement, but Mo is blamed for the “situation” with Bowman? I mean, that’s incredibly duplicitous and an unreasonable double standard. Also, do you not think that Bowman improved his game between the start of the season and the end? I most certainly do. For his improvement he was rewarded with extra ice time. Clearly Mo got through to Bowman on his initial call ups and got the player to work on the holes in his game. Mo gets no credit for this?
To say that they would have been more of a defensive liability than say Samsonov or Stillman cannot be proven either.
Samsonov in 58 games with the Canes had a +/- of 0 and had 15:27 TOI. Stillman in 21 games with the Canes was +2 and had 16:54 TOI. Bowman was even through 23 games with 9:48 TOI. Dalpe even with 7:56 TOI. Boychuk was 2 Boychuk was at 10:43. Statistically speaking Samsonov and Stillman took up more TOI and had better or equal numbers. Now, without checking deeper, I would also suggest that Samsonov and Stillman played against more difficult competition as they had more TOI (general rule of thumb I’m using here is more TOI = higher line which means stiffer competition). So, the young kids couldn’t eclipse Samsonov or Stillman, and they likely played against lesser competition, which means that they were likely more of a defensive liability. Given that Boychuk had the highest TOI of the young players, he likely played against the most difficult competition, and he had the worst +/ I think I can make a pretty good case that the young kids were not as defensively responsible as Samsonov and Stillman. Now, if we extrapolate further from that and assume that the young kids would have been more negative than Samsonov or Stillman that means a more negative even strength goal distribution (gf/ga), which most likely correlates to fewer points in the standings.
Again, I hate getting in to this and having to defend Mo. I’m not really a big fan of his. But for crying out loud, do some research and be objective.
but he’s the coach of this team. It’s his game plan, his line up, and therefore, ultimately, his responsibility to succeed…at least that’s the way I’d feel if I owned the team.
And learn what are a coaches and a GMs responsibilities. It most certainly is not Mo’s lineup. It’s JR’s lineup and that’s the most critical part. You can’t make a Geo Metro run like a Cadillac no matter how good of a mechanic you are.
Don't trust me. I have psychological issues.
CL – we can just agree to disagree on a number of points, not the least of which is a value of an argument that uses a +/- differential of 0 and 2. How does that equate to “making a good case that the youngsters were not as defensively responsible”? The stats just don’t bear that out, nor does my anecdotal, albeit non-scientific, viewing of the games. And there is no way to predict how well the youngsters would have performed had they had the opportunity.
As I said you are entitled to your opinion that Mo significantly benefited the youngsters, I happen to believe that his impact was less (perhaps even negative) than I would have hoped (perhaps this is more on Ronnie and Rowe, who knows). As far as Bowman’s situation, he was sent back down when Tlusty came back from injury, someone who seems to be a Mo favorite (and somebody that I think has great potential as well). Bowman’s improvement MAY have had more to do w/Jeff Daniels coaching down in Charlotte. There was never any doubt about his heart and effort (recall this was highlighted as a reason that he was initially put on the NHL club).
Finally, I would suggest it is you that need to review the roles of the GM and Coach. Mo is given the players, but he produces the line up for each game, the line configurations, and the amount of TOI for his players. One thing is for sure, you don’t know how the Lexus drives until you take it out on the road for a while. It is my opinion that Mo never got off of the lot with most of the youngsters….again, my opinion, but one also shared by a number of other Caniacs.
I agree. Trying to suggest Samsonov was better defensively that Boychuk with the plus/minus difference of 0 and minus 2 is a huge stretch. All in all, I think Maurice has a mind set that he will bring along his young forwards at a given pace, unless they are E. Staal or Skinner (and are sui generis). Sutter was given very similar treatment his first year and a half as Boychuk, Bowman, and Dalpe received. Maybe it is an organizational philosophy that it’s better to hold back young players than risk demanding too much too soon.
I will be very interested to see how the Daniels, Brind’Amour, Francis influence is seen in the handling of young forwards. In hindsight, it also struck me how much emphasis Rutherford put on having an assistant coach who had played defense in the NHL. Makes me wonder if there is more to that comment in terms of next season.
I agree. Trying to suggest Samsonov was better defensively that Boychuk with the plus/minus difference of 0 and minus 2 is a huge stretch.
As I mentioned below, read the complete post that takes in to account not just +/- but also TOI and likely competition. Saying “Samsonov was better defensively that Boychuk with the plus/minus difference of 0 and minus 2 is a huge stretch” and ignoring the remainder of the argument is like saying a driver was perfectly in the right to be in an intersection and ignoring the fact that the light was red. Details matter.
Don't trust me. I have psychological issues.
Sutter also wasn't very good in his first year and a half.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
we can just agree to disagree on a number of points, not the least of which is a value of an argument that uses a +/- differential of 0 and 2. How does that equate to "making a good case that the youngsters were not as defensively responsible"? The stats just don’t bear that out, nor does my anecdotal, albeit non-scientific, viewing of the games
You’re ignoring the TOI and the quality of opponent factor that I mentioned above. It’s not an either/or thing. As you note the +/- stats alone don’t really tell us much. When combined with the TOI though they do tell us something about quality of opponent and defensive responsibility.
As I said you are entitled to your opinion that Mo significantly benefited the youngsters, I happen to believe that his impact was less (perhaps even negative)
Even negative? Really?
One thing is for sure, you don’t know how the Lexus
Are you really trying to say the young players were Lexuses (what is the plural of Lexus?)? A team that is partially for sale that needs to make the playoffs on a budget to show a profit is going to sit a stud player to got with a vet? Home playoff games net about $1m per for the owner. Getting to the playoffs Guarantees 2 and helps sell season tickets. Samsonov made only $2.8 all last year. If there really was a Lexus to replace him it would have been better from a cost benefit stand point to play a younger player. This thread of logic simply doesn’t hold water.
I’m not a big fan of Mo. I still question whether he can win a cup with a good team. I still question if he’s the best coach for young players. To me I think he’s good at getting the most out of mediocrity. I also think he’s decent with young players, but there are others who may be better. I was beyond livid when he came back. I evaluate him objectively. I don’t game the system by ignoring the improvements that the young players made and then saying they can be attributed completely to the player and 0 to the coach. I also don’t bias my opinion by suggesting that the coach had a negative impact on the young players. I may, how is that even possible given how well those players played when they were returned to Charlotte? Get real.
If you don’t like the guy because you don’t like the guy, say that and own it.
Don't trust me. I have psychological issues.
You’re ignoring the TOI and the quality of opponent factor that I mentioned above. It’s not an either/or thing. As you note the +/- stats alone don’t really tell us much. When combined with the TOI though they do tell us something about quality of opponent and defensive responsibility.
Our arguments are almost to the point of silliness, so I’ll only say that you are ignoring an equally important point…if the youngsters had been played more while being slotted on higher lines more often, there is an equal chance that they would have performed at the same level or even at a higher level…we just don’t know because IMHO they were not given the amount of consistent TOI to determine that.
The car analogy was really an attempt at humor given your Geo/Cadillac metaphor…but again, my contention is that Mo stuck with the older guys, the potentially less skilled guys at the expense of the young guys. I don’t know why and it is my uneducated opinion that this was done to the detriment of the team and potentially to the detriment of the young players. We really just disagree and your specious contentions haven’t yet changed my mind. I certainly enjoy our dialogue, but I’m convinced I’m not going to change yours either. Perhaps on another topic at a later date….
if the youngsters had been played more while being slotted on higher lines more often, there is an equal chance that they would have performed at the same level or even at a higher level
No sorry, you’re wrong. There is not an equal chance. If there was they would have been given the chance as either Maurice or JR would have made the roster moves to do so.
we just don’t know because IMHO they were not given the amount of consistent TOI to determine that.
We do know. The young kids weren’t given more ice time because they didn’t earn it. You’ve moved in to conspiracy theories here.
Don't trust me. I have psychological issues.
Ignoring the impact a GM has on lineup decisions seems foolish.
Do you really think Rutherford would be happy to see one of his big-money, one-way players scratched or heavily limited in TOI?
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions
"High-level performance" is meaningless without PRODUCTION.
If the team plays great, but loses every game, is that success in your mind? Because that’s what you’re giving Bowman credit for.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmmmmm
AD, You sure are a positive guy. I like that. I however, do not feel so Rosey about Mo and gave him a C, but feel it should and could have been lower…
Really didn’t like this:
I also felt Maurice did a good job in avoiding a team meltdown when the Canes hit a post All Star Game skid. All in all, Maurice to me had more positives than negatives.I feel he was directly responsible for that slide.
Mo and the other coaches, plus our commentators remarked how Mo decided to implement a more defensive system and mindset. He lowered the offensive attack, sent less forecheckers into the mix, and had less offensive pressure in the offensive zone with a locked up high forward. It resulted in numerous discussions on this board. It also resulted in a sub .500 record, much worse than the rest of the year, significantly less goal production, and bumped us further down in the playoff chase so that we needed other teams to lose before we had a chance…
Yes he released that defensive mindset/less aggressive tactics so we had a “win one and in” chance later, but that “slump” was totally Mo induced and was more responsible for us missing the playoffs than the last game of the season loss…
But that’s jmho.
C
Needs to stop riding Pitkanen and Ward. That drives me crazy. Every year it’s the same. Maybe the addition of Kaberle and Boucher will help with that. Maybe.
I like him, though, reminds me of myself.
It's easier not to do that when you have valid alternatives.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
one can of worms..Now open
I voted Mo a low C ..as he while good at getting the vets to play up top thier potentioal but asside from Skinner 7 McBain..as it was pointed out the rst of the ypunger players floundered..which sucked…i realize and appreciate that Mo is and will never be the kind ofcoach a Scotty Bowman was..but you’d think he’d at least try …my only open complain is that just because JR may have been happy over all with MO’s job…but we of the Caniac Nation as a whole if we had an ownership stake in the Canes…Mo would be gon already…but who’d be in his place now…I’m not sure..but still this fan refuses to take or accept another year of 500 hockey..this team is a hell of lot better than that…gee i had better cool off otherwise I’d be starting to sound like Capt. Stinky and rant.Mo must go !!
Thanks ..got to run have a MD appointments and a trip to the market to get done..
What did you do during the summer when the playoffs are over ?
Go Canes & Checkers !!
C
Once again, I felt he was just average.
by wolfpackcanes 2011 on Aug 15, 2011 10:38 AM EDT reply actions
Easy A
Love the guy, best post game interviewer ever. Then again who doesn’t like sarcasm? For some reason my phone never lets me vote so I’ll give him my A when I get home. Mo must Glo.
I'm trying to be positive here, so if you're not go PUCK yourself.
by canescup on Aug 15, 2011 10:51 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
what the hell are you smoking
and where can i get some?
by brass bonanza on Aug 15, 2011 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I always know I can count on you canescup. :)
"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 would’ve gave him an A+ but the bags under he’s eyes bug me. You would think with his $$ he would have that fixed.
I'm trying to be positive here, so if you're not go PUCK yourself.
or during a team event get poked
and have the team do & pay for the plastic surgury and call it a workmans comp injury!!
What did you do during the summer when the playoffs are over ?
Go Canes & Checkers !!
Gave him a D
Although Maurice seems like a nice guy and the players really seem to like him, I do not believe he did a great job coaching this team.
Other than Skinner, he did mis-handle the youth. Instead of letting the kids play when they were called up and if they made a mistake, so be it, let them learn – if any of the kids made a mistake they were plastered to the bench and started the next game on the fourth line. Neither Boychuk or Dalpe are 3rd line checking, 4th line projected players. At least these 2 players are goal scorers and really needed to be put in that position to succeed and there weren’t, other than the one-off game they might have had a chance. This is not developing youngsters. I was in NY and watching a Rangers game and they had called up their leading AHL scorer (who had scored fewer goals than the top Checkers forwards) – Torts put this player on the top line and left him there. The kid did a good job, probably because he knew the coach had faith in him. And I am not a Torts fan.
The games we lost in the 3rd period when they were leading after 2 periods and the team went into this defensive shut-down mode and the offense seemed to disappear was terrible, If we had just won ONE of those game, we would have been in he play-offs. Again, the coach must be accountable for this decision.
I also do not feel that Maurice did even an adequate job with Cam or with Peters for that manner. I worry that this past year may have hurt Peters alot more developmentally than anythign else. Cam was probably very burned out at the end of the season, although we know he will never admit it.
LaRose and Samsonov were overslotted for quite a bit of the season. The power play was terrible, The fourth line got little ice time. Staal played WAY too many minutes and that was probably the reason he was hurt at the end of the season, when we needed Staal to really put the push on for the play-offs.
All this is on the coach — he is the one making the final calls and needs to be held accountable for the results.
The good: Skinner was allowed to play his game – thank goodness for that and he developed because of it.
The above is JMHO — don’t have to agree – it is just how I feel.
by livingthelife59 on Aug 15, 2011 10:56 AM EDT reply actions
One little stat jumped out at me that seems to conflict with your observation. When the Canes were leading after 2 they went 27-1-0, which means they won 96.4% of the time. Here’s the NHL stats on that. More details here. Only the NYRangers were better at 100%. Vancouver only 92.7%, Boston won 88.2%. Washington won 90.6%
So when you say “and the offense seemed to disappear was terrible, If we had just won ONE of those game, we would have been in he play-offs.” there was only one of those games. And yeah – if they’d won it they might have been in the playoffs, but I don’t believe it’s accurate to characterize the Canes 10-11 season for giving up leads in the 2nd. In fact that stat would be in the reasons to praise Maurice. If you hold the coach accountable, you need to raise his grade for this statistic – or find something else to criticize.
The Canes were second in the lead to win when leading after 2, so I’m not sure what more you expected. And for teams who came back to win after trailing at second intermission, they finished 13th in the league at 5-25-5.
Now, that lousy Adams Trophy winner Dan Bylsma’s team never won a game when his team was trailing after 2. (0-19-1) And only won 88.9% of the games his team was winning after 2.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 15, 2011 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
wow, thanks for those stats.
I know that stats can be used to support/dispute lots of things, but it’s nice to have the stats available for the very thing being put forth.
The Hurricanes ability to hold a lead after 2 was mentioned often this season here at Canes Country. – they were undefeated for a very long time. I wish I could easily determine which was the one game it was they lost – anyone remember?
Also – typo in my comment above: The Canes were second in the league to win when leading after 2
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 15, 2011 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Pretty sure it was against the Caps, but that’s just off the top of my head.
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 15, 2011 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Looks like you are correct. From nhl.com
by unyieldingflan on Aug 15, 2011 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Jinx :)
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 15, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m multi-tasking but I think it was this one.
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 15, 2011 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
All the way to March 11th (Game 68 if I counted right) against a hot Washington Capitals in the Verizon Center. Jay Harrison’s late tying goal disallowed because the refs said the whistle was blown. And the winning goal was the one where Gleason and Harrison forgot to clear that rebound. Video
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 15, 2011 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for these stats Carolyn. This point was one that I didn’t understand when it was brought up by Mo’s critics this season. Admittedly the defense first third period mindset is not nearly as entertaining as the run and gun style other teams have. But I’d much rather take the win than have another scoring chance.
And I’m sure you saw this, but I’m adding it here for people who aren’t able to check out the entire link: according to the NHL stats, Philly only won 86% of the games where they led after 2. I find that interesting considering so many people seem to view Lavi’s go for the kill mentality as a better style of play. Perhaps the grass isn’t always greener.
"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."
You are correct – must have been some game I was at where we lost the lead in the 3rd and lost in OT — don’t know why I thought this was something that occurred – maybe I was just thinking the defense first third periods where we played 12 – 15 minutes in our end and Cam had to stand on his head in the 3rd to prevent the opposing team from tying and winning the game. My grade still stands…….
by livingthelife59 on Aug 15, 2011 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice digging, CC.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I really didn’t have to dig – I knew that off the top of my head, and I knew where the stats were immediately. But I’m glad you liked it.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 15, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, I generally recalled it myself. But it’s important to get the raw numbers so people don’t let facts get in the way of their arguments.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
After a lead, any lead...
HM2 – great job on the stats mining. However my question would be how many times did we lose after getting the lead…at any time in the game. My argument is that I sometimes witnessed the foot coming off of the gas as soon as we either tied or took a lead…period. It seemed there were games where we had “jump” and momentum, only to feel it stifled. Or am I just letting my emotions rule….I’m no Mo hater, but I do feel like we allowed the door to open from time to time….
All I can find is this. When the Canes were winning after the first period they had a 0.950 winning percentage, first in the league. They had the 25th best win percentage when trailing after 1, but the 13th best when trailing after two.
This still leaves the scenario of the Canes getting a lead early in a period and then losing it later, but the question is how many instances of that were there? Is it enough to have a statistically significant impact on what the stats on NHL.com tell us? I would tend to think that it would not be significant since it could only be a few games, but that’s just an assumption. However, without that data I would say the preponderance of the data leads us to the conclusion that when the Canes got a lead they kept it and they did a fairly decent job of coming back late in games.
Don't trust me. I have psychological issues.
by C-Leaguer on Aug 16, 2011 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
" how many times did we lose after getting the lead"
I don’t recall that scenario as a routine occurrence at all, during the 10-11 season. As C-Leaguer said, those numbers that tell us “lost game when they had the lead” is not a specific stat anywhere that I know of, but that they were #1 in the NHL to win games when they had the lead after 1, and #2 in the League when they had the lead after 2 periods, I think you’re reaching awfully far to suggest the Canes were some terrible chokers when in reality there were no teams better than the Canes in holding on to a lead to win a game.
It does remind me of the 09-10 season and the 14-game winless streak. They used to collapse at the least excuse.
However, if you want to compile the stats and show me how many games this happened in 10-11 by going through the game sheets, I’d be very open to reviewing that information. Until I see that, I’m gonna say that you are “just letting your emotions rule”.
Which, is kinda what it seems like a lot of those who would proudly describe themselves as Mo-haters do. Maybe not you, but it is common enough to make one look really hard at the standard oft-repeated complaints because so often they’re based on 10-yr old ingrained opinions that haven’t checked the facts since 2004. It’s personal for them.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 16, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I have this comment in a reply, but it is not to take sides one way or the other specifically. Based on comments by the various tv commentators during the 2010-2011 season, the Hurricanes were outstanding at winning games if they scored the first goal. It is not entirely one to one with the discussion; but it impressed me how often the other team’s commentators focused on that statistic when discussing the Hurricanes.
On the positive side of things, I personally give Maurice credit for having a team that can play with a lead, as demonstrated by the various statistics being discussed. On the negative side, Maurice did not seem to be able to harness the team’s energy at the start of games as well as I had hoped; and against Tampa Bay in the last game that slow start was disastrous.
But if you're citing Tampa, that's an INCREDIBLE disservice to rational analysis.
Was that game important? Yes, certainly. Had we won, we would have been able to get into the tournament. But there were 41 other nights when we left points on the board last season. The loss in October is no less important than the loss on the last night of the season when it comes to your point total.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
per Carolyn's point about "Mo-haters"
“…so often they’re based on 10-yr old ingrained opinions that haven’t checked the facts since 2004.” Really? Do you, who seems to love stats/proof, have any specific facts to back this up? Or are you just “letting your emotions rule” like you said about another poster.
Please don’t lump all of us who happen to think Coach Mo did not do a good job last year as “Mo-haters”. I do not hate the man; I want him to win. The fact that he has guided his team two straight years into non-playoff situations should open him up to critical review, not emotional praise.
Of Maurice, Karmanos said: "I’m happy Paul is back but he’s going to be judged the same way as any other coach. We need to win more consistently."
by Sergeant Stinky on Aug 16, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
curious
If there was a coaching change—do you like the idea of Lewis as a replacement, someone within the system (Daniels, etc.), or someone external?
Just curious what your take on this was.
by chrisbrasfield on Aug 16, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I intentionally used the term self-described so each person could decide if they fit into that category for themselves and then understand why I am so frustrated with those discussions that describe and understand why I may seem to overreact.
My personal list of the big 4 reasons of why some believe “mo must go”:
- Mo’s system is and always will be based on an out-moded trap defense and doesn’t fit the NHL now.
- No young players have ever been or ever will be trusted and their development is stunted as a result.
- The team gives up leads because they go into defense-only shut-down mode and take their foot off the pedal whenever they have a lead. This is because Mo either 1) told them to do that or 2) he didn’t get them to snap out of it when they decided to sit back on their own.
- This team was playoff bound if Mo hadn’t messed it up because he’s comfortable with mediocrity and doesn’t have enough of competitive winning attitude/confidence to bring this team to success as would be possible with any decent NHL coach if given the same set of opportunities and constraints.
I do not think any of the above are true, have numerous sources to support my belief, and am tired (exhausted actually) of hearing them cited so often that other people have come to accept them as truth, despite the absence of supporting facts and examples. I personally feel that it constrains blog discussion and detracts from the community here.
So, SS, you’re not a Mo-hater and my comments had nothing to do with you. There are however others who it seem like really enjoy beating up on Maurice here (and elsewhere in the Caniac interwebz) and savor any opportunity to roll out the litany for humor and catharsis. And that’s to whom I was referring.
In the past, I gotta say, it’s been my observation that Coach Maurice is a powerful and frequently emotional/personal aspect of how you regard many story lines pertaining to the Hurricanes. I can not say if others share that opinion. And perhaps my view is entirely misplaced and if so I owe you an apology. I will certainly look for examples when you prove me wrong. You care about the team, you care about what is said on this blog and that’s fabulous and appreciated. I look forward to ways we can share these together.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 16, 2011 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I generally accept that Paul Maurice is the coach and then just try to enjoy the hockey in front of me, but I would say that most simple way to describe the people who feel “mo must go” is that….he is not successful enough.
The rest of the banter goes on (sometimes endlessly) to any number of things that all lead to the same result…not successful enough.
Clearly coaching a professional sport is not easy. There is no clear formula for success (there’s always that pesky opponent). But many feel his leash is too long. The rest is just permutations of things they they don’t like about him. But if he were more successful, those things would just be occasional discussions as opposed to repeated over and over.
In the end, results matter. A “good” coach that isn’t successful isn’t really worth a lot more than a “crappy” coach that isn’t successful, is he?
I would put that as the 4th bullet point. He’s comfortable w/mediocrity So because Peter Laviolette got this team a Stanley Cup (ignoring he failed to make the playoffs in Raleigh any other season) and Mo has only made the playoff 3 times, Mo’s clearly not “________(please fill in the blank)” enough.
Or is it dissatisfaction with Rutherford or Karmanos having too much confidence in Maurice? That always seems secondary when I hear it. The Luke DeCock article from 9:45pm on April 9th cast the perceived failure of last season as Mo’s responsibility.
I wish there were more than 2 coaches in the history of the Carolina franchise to compare; maybe that would give us a better apples-to-apples comparisons. The budget constraints here are more akin to Atlanta or Dallas or Phoenix in the last 2 years. Or the Islanders or Columbus. I guess you could look to Nashville – and we know how they play – so that their level of talent can make the playoffs every year.
I sincerely enjoy a good conversation on this – which I feel like this is – but it’s the quick kneejerk reaction where people so clearly revel in Mo bashing that wears me down. I liken it to someone who needs to vindictively trash an ex-spouse after an ugly divorce at every possible opening, like they’re on a mission. That I don’t get.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 16, 2011 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
what mo bashing?
saying coach mo is not doing a good job, that’s bashing?
coach mo has had the team out of the playoffs two straight years. that ain’t good.
Of Maurice, Karmanos said: "I’m happy Paul is back but he’s going to be judged the same way as any other coach. We need to win more consistently."
by Sergeant Stinky on Aug 16, 2011 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
And our payroll, average age (objective facts), and talent level (subjective) ranked well below playoff level.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think “not successful enough” is the same as point #4.
I don’t see how anyone could know how comfortable Mo is with mediocrity, but that’s beside the point.
Paul Maurice would never be considered a highly successful coach, by most people’s definitions. I’m sure there are a lot of admirable qualities about Mo, but that doesn’t change the fact that his post-season appearances since 2002 total 1. I’m not sure what sources would dispute that.
I have no idea what Laviolette has to do with this.
Having said all that, I find the Mo ‘bashing’ that tends to be an ongoing narrative all season, every season as tiresome as you.
In the end, results are about FAR more than coaching.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
CC...
My comments on your four reasons, and why I feel the way I do about Mo:
1. Mo’s system is similar to most of the rest of the NHL…. However, he in his comments about players, about games, the messages he sends is he wants defensive responsibility first, second and third—and by such he stifles some of the offensive creativity of the team. Players on his past teams (including Staal the first time Mo left). This mindset often results in safer more hesitant play. At the same time, often reducing forechecking pressure. You can look at your own statistics above to make a key point: If we were so damned good with a lead, why didn’t we make the playoffs???? Obviously we showed we have the skill and combination of offensive firepower and defensive soundness if used properly. So given our record, the conclusion is easy—-We didn’t have a lead often enough—because we notoriously come out flat, slow, seemingly uninterested—Until some of the defensive mindset and tactics have to be changed to allow the team to play and come from behind….Wish the cuffs would come off much sooner. Also at issue in his system is his special team play—specifically the PP. Whether Mo gives the responsibility to asst or not, he is ultimately responsible. Mo had never had good PP results. That costs us games as well. Lower 10 in the league in PK isn’t impressing many either given Mo is supposed to be better at defensive coaching…
2. No one said No young players, but history each and every years shows the same thing—players sat, given little chance to showcase the skils they were drafter for if they show lack of defense first, hitting, etc. We all see prospects sat for mistakes which should be expected, coached, but let the player learn to play. Not done very often by Mo. I disagree with the Posters who thought McBain developed nicely this year. His offense took a step back from what he demonstrated last year. Sutter has years of family coaching and self motivation, and Skinner as well as demonstrated again this summer is making his own way. I don;t see any evidence Mo has improved, developed, or made any player better. Again, you ask for stats from the con side, yet you provide none that shows Mo helped any prospect. Do you honestly think Skinner wouldn’t have done just as well on any other team in the NHL?? I think he would have done the same anywhere—he showed the drive and desire and work before he even showed up here
3. Until this post, I’ve rarely heard Mo bashers say he gives up leads, only he does and has had the team reduce offensive pressure, send fewere forecheckers into the offensive zone, and holds forwards back at the blue line. Because of that we’ve had tons of shots against piled up on us in the third period, we’ve had Cam save our bacon too many times—but that’s his job. Be nice if we could sometimes keep up the pressure on the other end. But worse than the idea of dialing back the offensive pressure is the slow start this team and previous Mo teams make each game. Why?? players have come and gone. Total team change with Toronto. Yet his teams come out slow and flat—Which I would attrivute to his defense first mindset. Find the statistics for how many games we scored firt in…. It isnt the majority-if it were, given the stats you like to point as being indicators of Mo’s greatness, we wouldn;t have missed the playoffs. Look at our OT record. Look at our shoot out record, look at our Shots against, look at our special team rsults. Running players into the ground, pulling back on the attack, whatever, there are serious issues with the coaching of this team given: No playoffs, poor special teams, poor OT record yet if we had the lead we tended to win…So there’s a disconnect in the stats.
4. Most didn’t think we were playoff bound to start the season. But after clawing into contention, JR said we were a playoff team, and he made moves to give us a better chance. But Mo pulled back the offense post ASG—Acknowledged by coaches, John and trip, CH.com. he wanted to go more defensively responsible. We went from a high flying offense that got us into playoff contention to a less than .500 record in a key playoff push time…we never recovered. We missed the playoffs. A top GM in the league JR said we were now a playoff team. Mo changed his tactice, the team suffered we didn;t make the playoffs. Was that wise? It didn’t get us in. I’d call that idea a fail. Bad move. So I believe Mo did mess it up.
Before the season started JR said we’d be rebuilding. Getting the prospect in Charlotte a lot of playing time. Rotating them in and out to get time. Mo didn;t leave them in a position to learn adn see what they will bring at the NHL level. As others have mentioned elsewhere, Bowman only got his shot way at the end—only after he put aside his offensive flair to demonstrate he could be a sound defensive forward—he did what he had to do under Mo. Will he develop his offense later? I dunno—who has under Mo?
So while you don’t think any of the above are true, if stated differently they certainly seem to be valid and have support. I have cited numerous occasions evidence from coaches quotes, players quotes and statistics that there are certainly some coaching issues with this team. Mo’s long term record certainly doesn’t argue in his favor.
That said, as a guy, as a commentator, as a knowledgeable hockey guy I think Mo is very good. In maintaining and even keel, communicating, not throwing players under the bus he has the loyalty of the team. That said, team members have said some players never bought into Mo’s system until the end—oddly enough, when he went back to a more aggressive mindset and more offensive tactics in forecheck, defensive pinching, releasing the high forward, etc. Our offense came back from the self imposed drought of the post ASG period. Yet we fell short.
I do not think Mo is a bad coach. But given his preferences, mindset, etc, I just feel he’s not the right coach for a young team. i feel an older, veteran team with sound defense (predators?) Mo woudl do better than here. I believe 60% of the other coaches around the league would have done better than Mo with this team last year and next year…
Okay – I genuinely appreciate the detail and thought and sincerity this response has, Squeaky. Specificity is so helpful. It does sound to me a little like you’re basing some on long time history (references to Toronto) not just this year, but beyond that I still have some follow up questions:
Under # 4 where you said
But Mo pulled back the offense post ASG—Acknowledged by coaches, John and trip, CH.com. he wanted to go more defensively responsible.
Can you get me links on that at CH.com – or if Bob or the N&O have those quotes from the coaches? And are we talking about the 5 game roadtrip that started and ended in NJ in February – that seemed to be a really worrisome event for Maurice? I was particularly busy with my kids hockey seasons in Feb, but I don’t remember “he wanted to go more defensively responsible” being said at all.
And for #3 – here’s the way you can crunch the numbers on scoring first etc to answer some of your hypotheses. Canes scored 1st 37 out of 82 times (or 45% of the games) and went on to win 75.7 percent of time, 4th best in the NHL behind Vancouver, Minnesota and Dallas. (weird trio of clubs). They were 21st best in winning when the other team scored first. I can’t say if those support your ideas or not. (re: coming out flat).
Also – in #3 you said: .
Look at our OT record. Look at our shoot out record,
but then you didn’t provide it so I went and looked it up. Canes were 11-11 in OT and Shootouts combined. Here’s the whole League. FWIW Boston was last at 3-11. Are those the OT W/L numbers you were thinking they were? Of those 11W-11L, the shootout record was 5-5. (only 3 teams were better in the East in the shootout – Buffalo, Pittsburgh and the Rangers). What does that tell us? Is11-11 such a poor OT record indicative of a defense first unmotivated team? By % that was 8th in the east. I was expecting to see them much worse based on your description and before I looked it up.
Special teams was an issue. Was for Boston too, so it’s not insurmountable. I’ll refer to comments on the inability for him to sit high paid veterans and rotate the kids. That’s money, that’s Rutherford.
Also, to clear something up, I have never said Maurice is a great coach (“given the stats you like to point as being indicators of Mo’s greatness”). I think the jury’s out on Mo 2.0. 2008-09 was awesome. 2009-10 was a roller coaster. 10-11 was such a transitional year as far as the roster goes; I also thought he was constrained horribly by the schedule and the barebones budget (a drastic change from the previous year – not an every year thing) that clouds a lot of what was on him and what were external circumstances.
So what’s my motivation for spending so much time in the comments? I am troubled by what sometimes seems like knee-jerk scapegoating and broad general statements that may or may not be supported by the facts. So for the general blog reader who lurks here reading through the comments, I’m trying to flesh out some of this, while we have so much time in August so we can all better understand and each form our own opinions on what is likely the most highly charged issue among the Canes fanbase.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 17, 2011 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Carolyn, your comments are well thought out and backed up by many good statistics. I think the rub with the coaching staff is that it “felt” like we went through a period of playing more conservatively and that led to games lost that we should have/could have won (Columbus and Toronto late in the season, for example). It “felt” like we had younger players that were either ready or on the cusp of being ready and they were held back (fully aware of the McBain and Skinner arguments). So, as a fan and an untrained eye, those types of things seem to shine through. Indeed they might not be accurate and they might not always be fair. They may also be the result of the chorus reinforcing those views and/or opinions. Yet that is what is often heard above the din. I’m wondering, given the facts of your stats, how that can be? And, even more importantly, how can we change some perceptions. As I’ve said, I believe that Paul Maurice is a pretty good coach. I’ve seen him utilize a system that I would characterize as an “aggressive defensive system” that highlights turnovers and taking advantage of them. I’m not really educated enough in the nuances of hockey to truly understand his total approach, but I’ve seen him be the coach of a very exciting Hurricanes team. In the end, I believe that is what this fanbase wants to see again.
Thanks CC
My point was—if the team was so good with a lead, then why not be more aggressive in trying to get one—why didn’t they come out in OT with a more offensive tactic, then a defensively repsonsible first tactic. At least two OT games I can remember we lost with Staal on the ice after being left out there for well over a minute TOI. I guess you can call that aggressive in one sense, but when you have other players available, pushing players past normal TOI in a 4 on 4 situation will lead to disaster. Our 50-50 record is in OT+ is right there with Mo’s histori averages… His coaching, whether it’s running players into the ground, overusing the same people, restricting the tactics of a team crafted to be more offensive vs defensive by the GM keeps resulting in a .500 record.
Yet, it appears if the players are allowed to work for with their skill sets, when they are less restricted, we are more aggressive offensively we seem to pl;ay better. Your stats are what I use to show that. Yet Mo pulls back from the offensive mindset, tries to play more defensive and conservative when we really didn’t have the assetts to play that way.. (prior to the trades, Gleason was our only true shutdown guy, and he didn’t look his old self). We routinely gave up hottific shots against. Yet when we played more aggressively offensively, we could do so and win.
That’s my beef. Not that Mo’s a bad coach, but his coaching decisions and overall philosphy didn’t mesh with the team his GM created. I do not like Mo’s tactics during games—overusing top players, line mumbo jumbo, pushing/riding Staal and Ward instead of keeping them fresh, playing top paid vets over others—even when the others (4th line… Kids) showed they were having the better game and deserved more time. Any wonder Staal wound up with a groin injury down the stretch when we needed him most? Bad tactical in game decisions.
Really?
So cap floor teams should be expected to make the playoffs regularly?
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks HM2
I readily stand corrected…clearly it was emotions over fact. Perhaps, because I feel much more enthused about a team that consistently “goes for it” and less so about the conservative, albeit safe, “protect the lead” process, I’m blinded to the real facts. Thanks for the info.
D
Missing the playoffs yet again. This was a team with enough talent that a good coach should have been able to get into the playoffs in a league that over half the teams make the playoffs. He grinds players into the ice with too many minutes.
C
Plusses…the team got better as the season went on, and honestly should have made the playoffs. Playoff miss is on the players.
Minus: Too much TOI for joni, cam. Not enough TOI for some youngsters to get in there and be put in a posiiton to succeed, and the PK sucked.
had to give him an f
because there is nothing lower. living and super pretty much nailed it with their observations, so i wont beat that dead horse furhter. his style has never changed and probably will never change. the prevent offense absolutely drives me nuts. lavi may not have been the best of coaches but at least he had a killer instinct. the only good thing about maurice is that he is in the last(hopefully) year of his contract. i have been a whaler/canes fan since i was a kid and with this much talent on the team .500 hockey should not be acceptable.
your turn stinky sic em!
C-/D+
He wasn’t completely horrible, but he wasted a decent team with uninspired hockey that never stuck to a system. Faceoffs, special teams, back to backs, our defense in general – the coaching was absolutely awful and it cost us the playoffs.
the first time I say something smart, I'm putting it here.
D for a rebuilding team, better for a vet team
There are two big issues with Mo. First is the apparent mismatch between his coaching preferences and the team’s proclaimed decision to get younger and at a rock-bottom budget. The second issue is losing too much and especially making the playoffs well under half the time.
If the Canes are really going to compete on a perpetual low budget they’re going to have to compete with home-grown talent. They’re not going to be able to afford a lot of top free agents or hold onto all of their own stars. Therefore, they’re going to have to draft talented players and develop them rapidly into successful NHL players. Some teams and coaches can do that, notably the Sabres and Lindy Ruff. The Canes have never done it and neither has Mo. I don’t think we’ve seen anything suggesting that Mo will ever even be comfortable with the idea of drafting and developing your own talent and getting it to produce quickly at the NHL level.
As I’ve noted before, there are more ex-Mo-vets on this team than Canes’ draftees. I think the vets fill needs, especially for size, but they also reinforce the impression that Mo wants players that he’s previously coached in the NHL. Canes’ prospects that can be sent down will be sent down as soon and as often as possible.
I do wonder if JR is blowing smoke about rebuilding because it creates hope and fan interest. It wouldn’t surprise me if JR really thinks of almost all the prospects as trading chips for Mo-style vets. If that’s the reality, then Mo may be an OK coach for the Canes. It’s just that the Canes may not be an OK NHL team.
JR and PK obviously love Mo. They’ve sacrificed a lot of fan interest to keep him around. You can’t expect many fans to get excited when you bring back a lifetime .500 coach who has had lots of chances, usually missed the playoffs, and never won a Stanley Cup. It looks to me as though he’s made the playoffs 4 times and missed the playoffs nine times, including 6 of the last 7 seasons. When he’s made the playoffs, he’s lost twice in the quarterfinals, once in the conference finals, and once in the Stanley Cup finals. It’s a testament to Mo’s great character and personality that he has the number of supporters he does given his record.
If Mo made the playoffs 9 times in 13 years like Lindy Ruff, everybody would love Mo.
Did anybody seriously see any change last year that makes you think the Mo of the future will be different from the Mo of the past?
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 15, 2011 11:54 AM EDT reply actions
We also never HAD any home-grown talent before the last few years.
That issue goes far deeper and further back than Maurice. It wasn’t until, what, 2008 that we had our own exclusive AHL team? Let the kids continue to grow and develop, and let’s give it a full five years or so of giving a damn about prospects and the draft.
And to answer your question, some times the coach doesn’t need to change. The players on his roster will be better.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
91 "A" votes already?
The whole Maurice family and friends network must be voting. He’s a funny guy, but an “A”?
It’s spam/trolling, as I’m sure you well know. About 80 votes occurred within about a 5-minute time period.
It’s a shame, because it dilutes an otherwise effective and useful gauge of opinion.
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 15, 2011 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I just shut down the poll, hopefully for a short time, to stop the spamming.
Editing Manager of Canes Country.com
poll is back up. you’ll have to disregard most of the “A” votes.
Editing Manager of Canes Country.com
Maybe C+, given the fewer man games lost to injury year over year; better discussion is how long is Mo’s leash ?
And/or is Dave Lewis the heir apparent?
by oldskoolwhalercane on Aug 15, 2011 1:15 PM EDT reply actions
No Playoffs = C
We missed the Playoffs by only one game.
But that statistic ( and you know they say Stats are for Losers) is deceptive. The ’Canes seemingly spent the first half of the season in a win-one lose-one mode. Clearly out of the Playoffs. The Team stats in the main article for the very important PK and PP are well below average.
Finishing close to the Playoffs may be due to other teams choking, and the ’Canes penchant for putting it all together the last two months, more than any local coaching talent.
I like Maurice, but if your team finishes 24th on PP and 20th on PK and you start your #1 golaie 74 games, the team has issues.
C
Average. I hope the new coaching on defense, along with the FA and Rookie additions, will make a difference. Let’s see if he uses Boucher to the team’s advantage. I would like to see young players get bigger chances and time. All in all, Mo is a servicable coach. He is reported to be loved by the players. There has to be something to that. As much as I love to blame Mo, I am rooting for his and the Canes’ success.
2 years to the Cup
agree with everything you said. I hope Dave Lewis really helps the defense this year and Rod can do something to help the power ply.
by livingthelife59 on Aug 15, 2011 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
power ply
I know that was a typo, but I though, yeah cleaning up the Power Play from last year is like cleaning up something else that is gauged in terms of ply………
Just remember they’re are 29 losing coaches each season and one winner. He’s doing great with what he’s got. Not many coaches can do what he does with no/low budget. Sometimes you got to work with what you got.
I'm trying to be positive here, so if you're not go PUCK yourself.
by canescup on Aug 15, 2011 2:28 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
He is the Dave Odom of hockey coaches
nice guy, respectable, knows his craft as well as anyone, you’d love to have him as a neighbor, leads his team to a remarkably consistent record of mediocrity.
Mike Milbury is a douche.
lol, great new moniker for mo, the dave odum of hockey coaches, excellent
as for mo’s season, well anybody could’ve coached that team last year and gotten the same result. he did not make lemonade out of lemons, nothing spectacular, and guided the team to underachieve and miss the playoffs yet again.
a slow start in his first two dozen games this season, he has got to go.
for now, hoping he goes 24-0.
Of Maurice, Karmanos said: "I’m happy Paul is back but he’s going to be judged the same way as any other coach. We need to win more consistently."
by Sergeant Stinky on Aug 15, 2011 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
LOL...I love that unprovable hyperbole.
Any idiot off the street could have taken a young team with almost no returning veteran leadership within two points of the playoffs. Yeah.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
well, i'm not so sure there were almost no returning veteran leadership
returning vets:
staal
ward
ruutu
jokinen
gleason
pitkanen
cole
allen
harrison
etc. etc. etc.
Of Maurice, Karmanos said: "I’m happy Paul is back but he’s going to be judged the same way as any other coach. We need to win more consistently."
by Sergeant Stinky on Aug 15, 2011 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Staal was in a new role as the captain. Totally different environment for him, as well as Sutter and Gleasno in their role as alternates. Harrison is a fringe player; Allen was brand new; Cole, Pitkanen and Jokinen have never been top-caliber leaders, and the idea of Cole pouting about not getting an ‘A’ has certainly been bandied about. You’re basically looking at Ward and Ruutu as returning vets who were able to offer consistent leadership in the ways they were used to.
Oh, wait!
etc. etc. etc.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with your suggestion that last year was certainly a transition. Players like Brind’Amour (despite his poor final year) and Whitney leaving can’t be overlooked when discussing new emerging leadership.
I do disagree with the suggestion that Cole isn’t a top-caliber leader. Forslund said it over and over and over again last season. Also don’t know where the “pouting” suggestion comes from. Cole probably DID deserve an “A”, but I’m unfamiliar with any suggestion that he did anything other than act as an alternate captain and leader without one. Have we already forgotten his influence on Skinner?
Allen was acquired around the trade deadline.
by Chuck Burns on Aug 15, 2011 4:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
that's right, i forget, thanks
here is the active roster for the boys at the start of last season:
G Justin Peters
G Cam Ward
D Joe Corvo
D Tim Gleason
D Jay Harrison
D Jamie McBain
D Joni Pitkanen
D Ian White
C Ryan Carter
C Tuomo Ruutu
C Jeff Skinner
C Eric Staal
C Brandon Sutter
L Erik Cole
L Jussi Jokinen
L Sergei Samsonov
L Jiri Tlusty
R Troy Bodie
R Pat Dwyer
R Chad Larose
Out of all those, I count 13 veterans, for what it’s worth…
Of Maurice, Karmanos said: "I’m happy Paul is back but he’s going to be judged the same way as any other coach. We need to win more consistently."
by Sergeant Stinky on Aug 15, 2011 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
not sure how many played on olympic teams, had stanley cup playoff experience or got their names on the cup
my original point is, with the roster above, i would hazard a guess that any NHL coach with any level of experience could have guided them through last season with pretty much the exact same results — just short of the playoffs.
HOWEVER, like a poster above said, keeping the team together during that God-awful trip around the world was impressive, kudos to Coach Odum for that.
Of Maurice, Karmanos said: "I’m happy Paul is back but he’s going to be judged the same way as any other coach. We need to win more consistently."
by Sergeant Stinky on Aug 15, 2011 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
White was acquired from Calgary in a trade with Brent Sutter for Babchuk and Kostopolous in November. Bodie was picked up off waivers just before that and Carter was acquired in a trade with Anaheim slightly afterwards.
by Chuck Burns on Aug 15, 2011 5:45 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Here’s the actual starting lineup at the start of last season:
4 D JAMIE MCBAIN
6 D TIM GLEASON (A)
8 C PATRICK O’SULLIVAN
12 C ERIC STAAL ©
15 R TUOMO RUUTU
16 C BRANDON SUTTER (A)
21 L DRAYSON BOWMAN
22 C ZAC DALPE
25 D JONI PITKANEN
26 L ERIK COLE
29 R TOM KOSTOPOULOS
33 D ANTON BABCHUK
36 L JUSSI JOKINEN
39 R PATRICK DWYER
44 D JAY HARRISON
53 C JEFF SKINNER
59 R CHAD LAROSE
77 D JOE CORVO
30 G CAM WARD
60 G JUSTIN PETERS
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 15, 2011 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
For those who don’t think there was a “youth movement”, that roster includes five rookies.
by Chuck Burns on Aug 15, 2011 6:36 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
What I liked best about the starting roster was how it morphed into the team at the end of the season. I also liked the changes in the roster that Jim Rutherford made over the off-season. I would have loved to have Cole and the new additions; but it took losing Cole for the Hurricanes to transition toward a bigger, more aggressive team, then so be it. As I see for 2011-2012, comparing rosters, Cole became Stewart; Samsonov became Ponikarovsky; O’Sullivan became Dalpe; Corvo became Kaberle; Kostopoulos became Brent; Peters became Boucher; Babchuk became Allen. It all looks good to me.
I agree.
Rutherford did a fabulous job through trades and roster pickups to reconstruct our roster.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but they never played because Maurice hates anybody under 32.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Dave Odom?
For all the reasons stated but for this number one reason alone…he’s more comparable to Herb Sendek.
The way the fanbase can treat him.
by Adam's Journey on Aug 15, 2011 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Coach Mo
I have to give Paul credit for keeping the team focused on a long road trip at the beginning of last season which could have had a different outcome. I just hope JR has talked with him about playing the younger guys more and now that we have Boucher, play Cam less and not run him into the ground.
I feel positive about all the moves JR has made that should now get us in the playoffs. We all know if we get off to a slow start Mo want be behind the bench for long!!
by skinnerthewinner on Aug 15, 2011 5:13 PM EDT reply actions
The GM shouldn't dictate playing time.
The players should earn their minutes. In the case of guys like Peters, Boychuk, and Bowman, they simply didn’t.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, Bowman did earn his minutes. In his last call-up, he started on the fourth line but then beat Tlusty out for playing time on the third line. And Maurice has known about Tlusty for a long time and obviously wants him to succeed. But, he still switched Bowman to the third line for Tlusty on the fourth line because Bowman outplayed him. And Bowman also received some time on the top two lines because he was defensively responsible, would throw his body, and earned the time.
by Chuck Burns on Aug 15, 2011 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Chuck, that’s a fair assessment of Bowman’s final call up, but I would say MP was closer with the initial call up that Bowman got.
Don't trust me. I have psychological issues.
But until his last call-up, we still had players like Samsonov on the team. While it was clear we could have waived Samsonov or sat him in the press box while bringing up Bowman or any other forward from Charlotte, that was not going to happen on this team. I think it is telling that some of that keeping a minimal team with emergency call-ups is going to at least get stretched a little because we will be carrying seven NHL defensemen rather than six.
by Chuck Burns on Aug 16, 2011 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Samsonov and Stillman; Carrying Extra Players in 2011-2012
It was really frustrating for me to watch the games and see Dalpe, Boychuk, and Bowman working very hard, if not always to exquisite perfection, but getting far fewer quality minutes than I thought they deserved. I had advocated waiving Samsonov. I felt he was done with the NHL; and the fact he is still unsigned tends to suggest despite his obvious dazzling skills, he’s not seen as a top six forward for most teams. As it turned out, Jim Rutherford got a fine return on Samsonov in trade. No surprise really. It isn’t as if Jim Rutherford is a novice. Still, I would have healthy scratched Samsonov. Similarly, I would not have taken Stillman in trade. However well Stillman played, it wasn’t good enough to make a sufficient difference for the Hurricanes to make the playoffs. I, for one, was not surprised at that. To me, there is a way the Hurricanes have to play to be successful.
It is very clear in watching 2010-2011 games now knowing the outcome of the season that the Hurricanes have an identity. When they stick to it, they are usually successful. When they stray, they almost always wind up chasing the puck around, letting in too many shots, and losing the game. I thought then and think now that neither Samsonov nor Stillman naturally fit within what is the Hurricanes best hockey. Dalpe for certain fits well. If one could meld Bowman and Boychuk into a single player, you’d have a player who unquestionably fit Hurricanes hockey. Skinner and Ruutu also are models of Hurricanes hockey.
I regret that the opportunity last season was lost to see what Dalpe, Boychuk, and Bowman could do with the Hurricanes; but I also have no doubt at all that the hard work and coaching they got in Charlotte with Daniels and Kinnear made them better hockey players. So whether they would have improved more with the Hurricanes than with Charlotte is pure speculation and unknowable.
This season Jim Rutherford has thrown down the challenge to players like Boychuk and Bowman. It seems the Hurricanes will carry extra players, if only for salary cap reasons. We can’t go back and redo January and February 2011; but the writing is on the wall. It’s sink or swim time for Maurice. For Boychuk and Bowman it is a very important training camp and season.
I would not have taken Stillman in trade.
I agree with you there Doug, but check out the Stats I posted above regarding the +/- and the TOI of Samsonov, Stillman, Boychuk, Dalpe, and Bowman. Samsonov and Stillman were the best options at the teams disposal.
Don't trust me. I have psychological issues.
Check Samsonov’s stats while with the Canes out here. About half a point a game and even on +/-. That’s not a slouch by any stretch of the imagination. His +/- was also better than or equal to any of the young kids and he had a much larger TOI (check my post above for the stats). I’m by no means advocating for the return of Samsonov, but I think the perception of Sergei doesn’t match the reality.
Don't trust me. I have psychological issues.
Especially by the coach. Sergie has a very well known skill set. And that doesn’t include, hitting, playing defense first, attacking hard on the forecheck—all thinghs Mo wants. Mo didn’t use him right because he didn’t fit Mo’s ideas of a player, he didn’t fit Mo’s system, so he fit Mo’s dog house.
Mo isn’t good with skilled offensive guys. He likes skilled two way (defense first guys). Any one else gets bumped down the roster…
I’ve enjoyed the tit-for-tat, but if that held true FOR EVERY PLAYER, Staal would have been benched. While Staal had the best overall season this past year, he still is not a true 2-way player, a defense first guy. Moreover, I don’t know if I want Staal to ever play that way.
Or am I to assume that the reality is: Mo isn’t good with 2nd tier skilled offensive guys. (3-4th liners). Or even underperforming players?
Harrumph
by ivyleager on Aug 18, 2011 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm talking about the other 90% of the season.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe Paul Maurice’s demeanor and temperament were a good fit for a team in transition. I don’t subscribe to the belief he held back younger players. I agree he relied too heavily on Cam Ward. I agree he played Eric Staal too much and the fourth line not enough. Overall I wish his style was less conservative and a little more aggressive. That all being said, I’m not certain I would have coached the team a lot differently or made substantially different decisions had I been in his shoes.
And while I’m at it… I lost a bit of respect for Luke DeCock after his "Mo Must Go" article that was published about 5 minutes after the final horn sounded on the Hurricanes season, before rigor mortis had even set in. I found it ill-timed and poor judgement on his part, and smacked of a desperate attempt to make himself look important.
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 15, 2011 5:40 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Jamie- How can the 2 statements
I don’t subscribe to the belief he held back younger players. I agree he played….. the fourth line not enough.not be contradictory? Since the 4th line was made up of at least 2 rotating rookies?
Am I to assume you mean that being assigned to the 4th line isn’t holding back younger players?
Harrumph
Zach Boychuk’s two most frequent forward linemates last season (based on TOI) were Eric Staal and Erik Cole.
Drayson Bowman’s two most frequent forward linemates were Brandon Sutter and Chad LaRose.
Zac Dalpe’s two most frequent forward linemates were Pat Dwyer and Brandon Sutter.
None of these rookies spent a majority of their NHL time on the fourth line.
Also…
Jamie McBain had the 5th most TOI for any Hurricanes player, and 4th most for a defenseman (even while missing games due to injury).
Brandon Sutter is wearing an ‘A’.
Oh yeah and Jeff Skinner.
For starters. Does that help bring some clarity to my opinion?
TOI source came from the Behind the Net website.
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 15, 2011 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well played, ma'am.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 15, 2011 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, if my math serves me correct, you’ve now posted in this thread a whopping 14 times.
Each time it’s been to reply to someone else’s opinion, and often with a rather disparaging or snide remark.
Perhaps it’s time you posted a comment of your own regarding your evaluation of the coach.
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 15, 2011 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I realize that. I didn’t say this particular comment was disparaging.
I used this comment, which happened to be this particular poster’s 14th in a thread that at the time had about 80 comments, as the place to make my point.
My point is that it’s easy to come here and click down the comment list and tag onto everyone else’s feedback with a quick, terse, snappy remark. But after a while it starts to feel argumentative, and frankly tedious and counter-productive.
Perhaps it’s time for this poster to make his own point, and move on.
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 16, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
And there are those of us still waiting for your grade?
Lastly, who were the players most often slotted on the 4th line?
Harrumph
I’ll answer it if it’s okay, but over 82 games, Bodie, Carter, Samson and Dwyer. Matsumoto, Samsonov, Jokinen, O’Sullivan, and Tlusty also got time there. Boychuk did as well, but well over half of his shifts were either with Staal or Sutter.
Here’s the Behind the Net stats page if you want to mix and match. I started with Bodie to see who he was with because he was a steady 4th liner from Mid-November thru April. (70 games).
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 16, 2011 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
How you view Maurice’s handling of young players seems to depend on whether you like Maurice and whether you think the Canes need to develop their most talented young players rapidly to be successful on a low budget.
Let’s look at the percentage of Boychuk’s shifts with Staal. It is an interesting fact and it seems to total around 45%, which sounds like a lot because it is a substantial percentage.
The issue is that Boychuk had so little TOI and so few shifts in total. He played 23 games. His average TOI per game was 10:45. So by my rough calculation, Boychuk had a total of about 111 minutes on Staal’s line. If Boychuk were a scoring forward playing 15 minutes a night, that would be seven games on Staal’s line. But Boychuk’s time with Staal was chopped into smaller pieces so there was less continuity – hardlly enough opportunity to find out whether Boychuk can play on a scoring line in the NHL.
If, like me, you think it was important to find out whether Boychuk can adjust and play well on an NHL scoring line instead of playing LaRose a lot on scoring lines, then you probably won’t be happy about Boychuk getting what seems far too little TOI to find out what he can do. When there’s very little TOI to start with and more than half is NOT spent on a scoring line, it seems like a wasted opportunity.
On the other hand, if you think finding out whether Boychuk could adapt and play well on a scoring line didn’t matter and the important thing was to allow no opportunity for rookie mistakes, then you probably think Maurice did the Canes a service by keeping Boychuk off the ice and off Staal’s line for the equivalent of 75 games of normal shifts for a forward on a scoring line.
You may also think Boychuk proved in his limited TOI that he wasn’t ready. I disagree. I don’t think he proved that he was or wasn’t ready. He didn’t get to play enough.
I think it’s reasonable to say Boychuk was expected to be instantly ready to play at an NHL level like Skinner or it was back to the AHL. Boychuk certainly isn’t on Skinner’s level. Boychuk may or may not pan out. But here we are a year later still knowing very little about whether Boychuk could be a significant part of the Canes’ future. For some of us, that’s frustrating. You don’t, in my opinion, have to hate PM to be frustrated about that, especially since the Canes did miss the playoffs last season.
If a coach has zero tolerance for rookie mistakes, virtually no rookies are ever going to get to play. The Canes aren’t going to get a Jeff Skinner or Eric Staal in every draft. I think it’s fair to say that PM doesn’t view developing players as part of the role of an NHL head coach. He wants them ready when they arrive or shipped out. That may also be JR’s view. There are teams that take a different approach, get far more out of their young players.and win more games than the Canes. Granted, the Canes haven’t been drafting and developing players forever like the Sabres. But if the Canes are ever going to be successful based on developing their own talent, they’re going to have to bite the bullet at some point and allow some young players to learn on the job in the NHL. Detroit is not a good counterexample to that because they can wait forever on their players while they sign whatever free agents they want and pamper a slew of all-star callber players. The Canes’ situation is more like that of the low-budget Sabres of old. PM is nothing like Lindy Ruff as a coach, with a willingness and flair for working in young players in a hurry. If you don’t value that, you’re fine with PM. If you do, you worry that PM is delaying the improvement of the Canes. And either way, you don’t have to hate the man as a basis for your opinion.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 16, 2011 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Is it Boychuk in particular you’re frustrated about or is it Dalpe, Bowman or others this season who you feel might be treated differently under a coach like Lindy Ruff?
I remember reading a Boston Globe story with a lengthy blog comments section in which the Bruins fans were so upset with Claude Julien’s treatment of Tyler Seguin and wished Julien would follow Maurice’s model (watching Skinner with envy) and not bench a kid the moment the rookie made a mistake. It was from several commenters and the main thrust of the conversation, quoting stats and everything, that Julien could learn something from Maurice. Seriously. Perceptions from the outside are often so different from those who watch closely.
The Canucks fans have said the same thing about Alain Vignault too (refusing to play talented younger players). The Flyers fans were pretty dismayed by Lavi’s treatment of JVR, too. Tortorella also was chided for his handling of DelZotto this year (or Sanguinetti or Zuccarello, if you ask the right people.) Jacques Martin and his treatment of PK Subban was another big controversy.
That’s Julien, Vignault, Laviolette, Tortorella and Martin all who have made headlines for not trusting rookies enough. Big names (and a few Cups) there.
So I’d appreciate maybe some specifics on how Lindy Ruff developed a specific player – or several actually – enough to show a consistent pattern – to show me how it defines what you would like to see – ( since the Skinner/McBain references are seemingly insufficient) to better understand why Maurice’s behavior is so worthy of criticism and not up to the established and accepted norms within the NHL coaching ranks that you feel he is missing.
And if there’s someone else beside Lindy Ruff – please overwhelm me with examples so I can better understand, because I just haven’t paid close enough attention it seems.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 16, 2011 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
CCF brings up a point I have mentioned before. Your perception of how Mo performs is colored by your perception of Mo. His detractors pick thru information to confirm their beliefs, and so do his boosters. Much of the debate is fueled by personal leanings. Mo detractors will not be swayed, because their opinions are set. Did Mo do a bad job with Boychuk, or were there other young players who were felt to be more worthy of time on the Canes? Whose time would you have taken away to get Boychuk more time? Dalpe? Bowman? Tlusty? Unless a young player forces his way, he is not going to replace a veteran. I didn’t think Boychuk did that. Maybe others thought so.
It’s not Boychuk in particular I’m concerned about.
On McBain and Skinner, I’m sure you’ll disagree, but I think PM played them because he had no choice. McBain played after JR traded away Corvo, Wallin, etc., and other defensemen got hurt. Skinner couldn’t be sent to the AHL because of the NHL/CHL agreement.
I think Tortorella is a lot like Maurice. On Lavi and JVR, I think there’s a difference in not playing JVR more when you have a great lineup like the Flyers did. JVR didn’t lose time on a scoring line to Chad LaRose. And JVR stayed in the NHL a lot and kept getting some TOI.
The most striking thing about the Sabres is how many forwards on their roster they drafted, including Pominville, Stafford, Roy, Ennis, Gerbe and Vanek. When one guy got signed by another team and the Sabres couldn’t match, they always had drafted forwards to plug in. That was a totally different approach from the Canes’ – PM never had that kind of talent to draw on year after year. But now the Canes do have a lot of young talented smallish offensively gifted forwards. When will the Canes be able to take advantage of them?
I think there’s a lot of similarity between Boychuk and Tyler Ennis. Same draft year, Ennis taken later by the Sabres than Boychuk by the Canes, Ennis smaller than Boychuk, Ennis producing in the AHL at the same level as Boychuk, Ennis said to be a disaster on defense when he was called up, Ennis nevertheless continuing to get TOI and NHL coaching and turning into a productive player over the course of one NHL season. Time will tell whether Boychuk is as good as Ennis. At this point, same age, Ennis played almost 1300 minutes for the Sabres last season and scored 20 goals and 29 assists. Boychuk played something like 240 minutes for the Canes and had 4 goals and 3 assists. The Sabres have gotten a lot more out of their 2008 1st round choice at this point than the Sabres. And the Sabres know what they have in Ennis. The Canes don’t know what they have in Boychuk.
Regardless of how things work out for those two players, the difference I see is that the Sabres say, “Hey, we’ve got some talented young players, let’s get as much out of them as we can as soon as we can. Sure they’ll make mistakes, but we can coach them past those and they’ll be really productive players very soon.” The Canes say, “We’ve got some talented young players, but they’re not going to play more than a smattering of minutes until they’ve mastered PM’s system and defensive approach in the AHL and prove it from their first shift after a call-up.”
I think the Canes would be better off emulating the Sabres’ approach to player development, where the NHL team is clearly part of the development process, not just a consumer of finished products, including products that arrive from junior hockey or the NCAA finished or close to it, like Skinner and McBain.
Clearly we’re never going to agree about this. I respect your opinion. I do not hate PM. I think the Canes would be better off taking a different approach to player development, an approach that PM has to date never been associated with. Granted, PM has not had much of an opportunity coaching an NHL team with a system like the Sabres’, where there’s always a stream of talented prospects coming along. The only resolution of this debate will come from looking at the Canes’ roster and record over the next two or three years. Meanwhile, we’re all speculating about what would be best. Speculation is an area where there’s infinite room for disagreement and it doesn’t have to spring from malice.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 16, 2011 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
So, as ncyankee has posted at 7:16 (it’s currently the last comment), this year Rutherford has signed Ponikorovksy and Anthony Stewart, as well as Tim Brent as new veteran forwards, what is Maurice to do with Dalpe, Bowman, Boychuk next year? Is this a reason to criticize Maurice or the Hurricanes management in general that seems to take a Red Wings approach on a Nashville budget.
Are there other players that the Canes have drafted (let’s say since 06 – since those would fall under Maurice’s tenure), other than Boychuk, that you believe would have made the Hurricanes a more successful enterprise going forward if they had been given more TOI at the NHL level?
Given the budget and the veteran players Rutherford has under contract, is that because of decisions made by Paul Maurice? Is there another coach, (Ruff?) working under the established patterns of Rutherford and Karmanos, who would have put different players on the ice and benched others (veterans under contract) to come closer to the model you are recommending?
He had Samsonov and O’Sullivan to deal with at the start of last season. Then Carter and Bodie – and he did scratch Bodie often enough. I think the big issue most agree with was LaRose (who is kind of a less talented version of the home grown smallish forward you refer to the Sabres having in the pipeline.) on Staal’s line. That often seemed somewhat about injuries and budget, as much as Mo’s desire to cling to LaRose and not disturb the Cole-Skinner chemistry.
I don’t understand your comments on McBain as it pertains to 10-11 since Wallin and Corvo were traded away the previous season. Carson and Rodney were available and recalled occasionally this year. McBain did not require waivers and could easily have been sent to Charlotte. Later there was a 7-man rotation with Joslin and McBain, and Harrison was odd man out down the stretch, despite McBain’s shoulder issue.
I absolutely don’t think you’re a “Mo-hater” – though perhaps you think I implied that? You always seem more the mediator. You don’t chime in on every post to find a reason why Maurice is the scapegoat. There are those (a very vocal few I think) who do, though it has abated since the season was over. The Boychuk question is an ongoing one for you looking back over the season. Abramsdoug and I have had similar conversations about his situation. FWIW my Boychuk-fish died in January. <-attempt at levity.
I consider you one of the most articulate and thoughtful members here.
Which why I’m taking the time to read your lengthy posts and ask you to respond to my questions because to me they seem to me like a reach.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 16, 2011 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for still more good observations. A few comments:
1. The authority for personnel decisions is JR’s, but I doubt it’s coincidence that JR has been going after so many ex-PM players. I think JR’s personnel decisions show confidence in the recommendations that I speculate PM is making. (One reason I don’t think PM is in any danger of losing his job.)
2. On McBain – he got his shot at the end of the previous season when the trades and injuries happened. He played so well immediately that there was no way to keep him down on the farm afterward. In my opinion, without those trades and injuries, McBain wouldn’t have gotten a shot the previous season and would have probably spent most of last season in the AHL.
3. I don’t care any more about Boychuk than the other prospects and I don’t know if he’ll make it or not. In my opinion, since there was little chance of making the playoffs and virtually no chance of getting past the first round, last season was the time to find out as much as possible about what the prospects can do in the NHL while getting anything possible for players who didn’t seem part of the Canes’ future, like Samsonov. The Canes still don’t know what any of the prospects can do against NHL players in NHL regular season games in the roles that the Canes want the prospects to play in the long term. I think it would be better if the Canes knew more going into the offseason, but that’s just my opinion.
So why did I dig up the stats on Boychuk? Because you cited the interesting stat about the percentage of shifts he spent on Staal’s line. I suspected that that amounted to very little total playing time because Boychuk played so little on any line so I looked at total playing time and concluded Boychuk’s time with Staal didn’t amount to much, whether Boychuk should have had more time or not. We seem to be looking at the same numbers and drawing different conclusions.
The root of disagreement may be divergent opinions of the best and quickest way for the Canes to become real contenders given their budget constraints. I think the best way entails putting prospects to the test earlier than many people do and viewing the first NHL season as developmental, with the NHL staff given the mission of developing a prospect with the potential to be a first-line winger into a first-line winger as rapidly as possible. Many people on this site and certainly the Canes themselves take a different view and I can’t say they’re wrong.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 17, 2011 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
I hope the Canes Country crew posts a review for JR. If they do, most of these same arguments will pop up. The line between coach and GM responsibility gets blurred, but some points are pretty well fixed.
A budget (at least our budget) team is not going to carry extra players, and “sit them” very often.
Veteran players are rarely going to sent down, and risk waivers. (see what happened to Carson)
If the GM signs veteran players, the coach is going to play them. (Especially if there are no options)
The coach may have input (including the Charlotte coach) on call ups, but those decisions rest with the GM.
I thought that last year was going to be sacrificed to testing our young players. The combination of the veterans signed, and the lack of games lost to injury (a radical deperture from previous years) prevented that. Most of that responsibilty falls on JR (and PK for the budget) Beyond that, I thought the call ups got a chance to earn their time, andf those who did, got it.
by ncyankee on Aug 17, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good point about Carson and Rodney relative to McBain.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions
CCF, first off, in the spirit of full disclosure I need to let you know I didn’t read all of the 694 words you wrote in that last comment. I did, however, count them. :)
In your review of Boychuk, did you take into account the times he got his bell rung this season? I know at least twice watching him get hit, and HARD. At least hard enough to see limited ice time for the rest of the game. And after one of the games (think it was 2/3/11 against the Leafs) he underwent baseline concussion testing (not disclosed by the team, but disclosed by Boychuk on twitter).
Before those incidents he was getting decent ice time and playing partners and moving up the depth chart. I always wondered if there wasn’t some real concern over either his size or his ability to defend himself that kept him out of the lineup, not the fact that the coach thought he was making mistakes.
Just a thought. But again perhaps you covered it up there somewhere.
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 16, 2011 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m pretty sure that was a Devils game and he tweeted from the bus en route to Philadelphia. The perpetrator was suspended at least one game for an elbow. The name – he is a youngish player, European I believe – eludes me at the moment.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 16, 2011 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re right. I was thinking about the game on 2/3 against the Leafs where Colby Armstrong charged him and Harrison went after Armstrong. Then on 2/8 against the Devils he was hit by Volchenkov and had to leave the game and underwent baseline concussion testing. Then on 2/10 it was Carcillo that rang his bell. I was fearful for the poor kid.
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 16, 2011 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s a great point about the head injury. Maybe that did have an effect. But Boychuk played right away when he went back to the AHL.
I’m sorry you found my post too long to bother with. I thought my opinion that Boychuk hadn’t really had much of an opportunity required supporting data since HMof2 had provided strong evidence to the contrary. I then tried to draw an analogy between the situation of the Sabres before they got a new owner with big bucks and the Canes’ situation now. I didn’t think that was self-evident so I tried to support the argument.
I’ll take a hint and sign off. It’s clear that some opinions are simply not welcome here, even if you try to voice them in reasonable terms and provide what you think is supporting data.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 16, 2011 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I hope I’m not the one who hurt your feelings so you feel you’re not welcome here. I just can’t read all that typing, especially in comments. You wrote almost as much in one comment as Bob did in the original article. Then you followed it up with another long post (643 words, by the way). I just can’t wrap my head around that many words. A summary would be great. As my boss always says "I don’t have that much time – net it out!’’ But you must be a excellent typist!
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 16, 2011 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t mean to suggest that I’m never visiting Canes Country again and it’s your fault. My apologies if I gave that impression.
If you did have time and interest enough to read my posts above—and I’m not suggesting you should—you might see that I tried to consider both sides and explain why we can disagree about this stuff without anybody having to hate PM, which is an accusation that I see at least as often as I see calls that Mo must go. Both extremes make for a poisonous atmosphere that I don’t enjoy.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 16, 2011 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
For what it’s worth, I have read many of your posts, both agreeing and disagreeing in turn. (I did read all of both of your posts) I have found most of your opinions reasonable, and non-confrontational, and have seen you give credit , even to Mo, when you felt it due. This blog is where enthusiastic Canes fans can read and express. Agreement isn’t necessary, or always wanted. Even though I am not a frequent poster, I am glad to have the oportunity to disagree and debate with you, and many others.
by ncyankee on Aug 16, 2011 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I appreciate the summary and I agree with it. That better? :)
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 16, 2011 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Somewhere up there I was asked about a grade. I felt he was hovering somewhere in the B-/C+ range. When I saw a post where he was given an ‘F’ from a non-troll/spammer because there was no lower grade, I chose B.
Canes Country Phoblographer and resident Finn Aficionado
SISU
by Jamie Kellner on Aug 16, 2011 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions
My recollection of the 4th line from Nov to February was Ryan Carter, Patrick Dwyer & Troy Bodie. After Carter left, Jerome Samson was slotted there. I’m glad Jamie looked up the stats though, because it’s nice that my observations were about right.
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 15, 2011 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Luke deCock Important ??
hmmmmm…i asked him aboput that and funny thing…he never did get back to on that…time to go and get ready to watch Judge Napoltano in foxbusiness channel…Him and Stewart Varney crack me up!!
What did you do during the summer when the playoffs are over ?
Go Canes & Checkers !!
Average = C
Mo, sorry but while you did come close to the playoffs, you have to get 1 more W to get a B.
While the team did finish above .500 in one sense, given the OTL situation, most teams finish above 500 now, so it really should be to count the OTL as a regular loss when you determine a winning season. After a shootout loss or an OTL, we didn’t light the lamp as often as the other team.
I think that JR and PK are keeping an eye on Maurice, although I hope that Dave Lewis is not the answer (based on what I read about Detroit). I would really like to see the Canes send Brind’Amour to Charlotte (or bring back Tom Rowe), and bring the scoring machine (Jeff Daniels – that sign in the rafters of the ESA in the 2002 playoffs killed me) up to Raleigh.
B
Coaching the Canes is a collective effort. Ownership wants the guys on the payroll to play. That’s why we saw Samsonov night after night. The GM has a penchant for being budget conscious on the blue line, stringing together a bottom 4 of “if’s” “and’s” or “maybes”. The coach ultimately readies the team for combat. If you want to play for him, you have to play hard in your own end. It’s that simple.
B-/C+, too much gets made about coaching, this league’s more about talent than coaching. Other than using Ward too much, not fixing the PP breakout, and using the 4th line too little I thought he did a decent job.
One hopes some of those things change this year with better personnel in place to do so.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
B for better than it could have been
Lets face it, at the beginning of last season it looked really bleak, especially coming off the nightmare of the season before. The team was in transition in a lot of ways – skills, age, leadership, teammates, culture. I thought PM did a credible job with a weaker team to keep them in it.
So maybe that is PM’s greatest attribute – keeping marginal teams competitive – but this year we’ll see if he can take a better-than-marginal team and put them over the top. Based on his track-record, I have my doubts. I get the feeling he’s a little too analytical to be a great locker-room motivator. But we’ll see.
None the less, I have a really good feeling about this season. The ‘Canes have been able to take struggling players and turn them around (ie: Ruutu, Jokinen). We have three new guys that fit that bill – Poni, Stuart and Kaberle – if they “turn it around” this season, who knows where this thing could go. The ’06 cup team wasn’t that impressive on paper, but a lot of guys played either over their skill level, or played up to their expectations – and a lot of good things happened.
Go ’Canes.
From a talent perspective...
Where do you think this team falls? You say they’re “better-than-marginal,” but I still see them as a fringe playoff team unless everything breaks their way.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
When you say “breaks their way” it almost sounds like they need some random condition to happen before they succeed. The talent is there – what they need is a winning mind-set. That comes down to leadership, attitude, work ethic, etc… The only truly random factor in hockey is injuries. They are a young team so track-record is not something you can use to judge this team. Potential is what we have to look at. Just my thoughts.
I voted C
I would have said B had we not faltered down the stretch and gotten in the playoffs. Before the season started, I thought we’d be awful—so I’ve got to give him credit for exceeding my expectations. However, when all the things started falling our way (injuries, skinner, teams in front not putting it away, etc.) I think we could have and should have gotten into the dance.
Personally, I don’t have a huge opinion either way on Maurice. I do think though we need a fast start next year or its time for a change—not b/c Maurice is bad, but just b/c something needs to change in order to try something different. I don’t want to turn into one of these teams that is “rebuilding” every year…
Very excited for next year to get started, I think we’ll have a good team.
by chrisbrasfield on Aug 16, 2011 12:45 PM EDT reply actions
Disliking Mo
Those who really dislike Mo seem to do so more based on emotion than statistics or data. They justify their emotions with the same old arguments, in the face of frequent data showing otherwise. That is a reality of being a fan. Some issues are just going to polarize people. I have shown repeatedly that I like Mo. I thank all those who have done so much work to find facts to dispprove ( or at least give argument to) the same old arguments. I gave Mo a B for last year because:
At the start of the year very few (outside Canes fans) gave the Canes much of a chance at the playoffs. They were in the race right up to the last game.
They didn’t quit. After a bad post-All Star stretch they fought until the end.
The rookies were given a chance to prove themselves. They weren’t given anything, but what they earned they got.
The Charlotte Express limiting the availability of the young players, so some of them got
less exposure than in previous years. Mo never used that as an excuse.
Players reponded in practices. They weren’t grim drudges. (As a side note, I couldn’t begin to count the number of times I heard Mo and other coaches yell “SHOOT! When you’ve got the shot, SHOOT!”)
Like others, I would like to see the 4th line more, and Cam less, but other things are sometime beyond a coaches power. Overslotting players, or playing high payed vets over young players, who can be sent back to Charlotte, are decisions based on roster and payroll. If a team plays at or above it’s potential, the coach should be given some credit. Coach Mo’s team last year did. That’s only my opinion.
by ncyankee on Aug 16, 2011 3:23 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Which stats are you looking at? The ones that dissect a given season, or the one that says Paul Maurice-coached teams have made the playoffs once since 2002?
I don’t even like to Mo-bash at all, but there really IS only one stat that matters when all is said and done isn’t there?
Being a Yankee fan also, I could go one better and say the only stat that matters is championships, but I also recognize other realities. A coach is only as good as the GM (and his budget) and players. The 02-03 and 03-04 seasons teams were somewhat less than talented.I didn’t disagree that it was time for Mo to go then, but Mo seems to be able to, at least occassionally, get teams to overachieve. Just my observation and opinion.
by ncyankee on Aug 16, 2011 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think it’s clear that a team that can spend 10-12 million more than the Canes can put better talent on the ice. But that doesn’t mean changing the coach isn’t a valid option. Otherwise you are telling your fanbase that you are satisfied with the outcome. The optics become very bad, imo.
JR pulled the plug on Mo 1½ years after the SCFs. He pulled the plug on Laviolette 2½ years after the Cup win. I suspect Mo’s days are again numbered if he can’t get this team into the playoff picture. Probably a season late for some, but given the late push and falling short by 1 game, it’s not surprising to me.
If the Canes don’t make the playoffs this year, I think you are right. But keep in mind, JR an PK are both apparently comfortable with Mo. I also think they are comfortable with the style he prefers, as they have Jeff Daniels teaching a simlar style in Charlotte. It remains to be seen whether Mo can adapt the players he has, and the system he prefers to each other, and produce a winning combination.
Absolutely not.
There are a litany of factors that go into how successful a team is and whether it makes the playoffs or not. Coaching is but one of those.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Maurice is a great coach when it comes to making the most out of nothing. He’s turned Jokinen, Ruutu and Pitkanen into solid players by using their strengths to the team’s advantage. He did the same thing with Skinner and, to a lesser extent, McBain this season and it helped them have great rookie seasons. I think he deserves a lot of credit for that.
I did have a couple problems with him though. He played Ward in way too many games and I hated how he kept using him in back-to-backs. He also juggled the lines a lot and that kind of annoyed me.
Think this season will say a lot about him as a coach seeing how he has even less to work with up front than he did this season.
www.shutdownline.com
So, JR and PK are more comfortable now with 3 straight seasons out of playoffs as opposed to the idea of 2 (in 2004) with Mo or 3 (in 2009) with PL?
No GM and owner is “comfortable” with making the playoffs once out of (what would be) 6 seasons, let alone the 6 seasons following a Cup win.
There's the matter of trends.
This team, with its youth and well-stocked prospect pipeline, is trending up. Why not let the coach who’s seen them through the start of that crest finish the job?
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions
wow, over 120 replies to this string!
everyone has an opinion, i guess
Of Maurice, Karmanos said: "I’m happy Paul is back but he’s going to be judged the same way as any other coach. We need to win more consistently."
by Sergeant Stinky on Aug 16, 2011 5:01 PM EDT reply actions
Quick Regression Analysis
Bob,
It seems that there were some spam hits on the voting; but my impression is that overall the grades were in a very tight band somewhere between B to C+ if one did a quick regression analysis. Taking out the most adamant 10% pro Maurice and anti-Maurice, it seems the vast majority of the 80% felt Maurice was no worse than average as an NHL coach, but not outstanding. The consensus seems to be (1) Ward was over-worked; (2) Staal was over-worked; (3) Maurice didn’t get the breakout on the power play sorted out well or soon enough; and (4) the fourth line was not given time on the ice.
My guess is that if one asked Jim Rutherford to critique this season, he’d say looking back in hindsight, these four areas were areas where improvement or changes were needed. I suspect another area of almost uniform opinion here is that Maurice will have to reach the playoffs this season or he’ll be an ex-NHL coach. Maurice, of all people, must surely know that is the situation. He’s been fired twice before at the NHL level. He knows how things work. It all makes for interesting times with the Hurricanes.
Question: Where does the “giving up too many shots on goal” issue fit? Is that under Maurice’s responsibilities or more with the players?
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 16, 2011 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Another question I have, and to some extent it falls in with your question, is how much we grade Mo on integrating young players, and bringing them along, when JR keeps filling slots with veterans. I believe that the subtractions from the end of last year are Corvo, Cole, Bodie, Stillman, and Peters (supposedly going back to Charlotte). New additions are Kaberle, Ponikorovski (sp), Stewart, Brent, and Boucher. Status quo. No slots for newbies. I am relatively sure our budget will mean no extras on the bench again, so where do young players get their chance? How do you rate how Mo brings them along when this is the way the team is put together. To me, this is a question carried over from last year,and it also addresses the SOG issue, in that the only change on defense is a less defensive person than we lost. What do you think?
They have already talked about feeling more comfortable carrying a seventh defenseman throughout the season.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions
FWIW, I think that one is definitely more on the players. If anything matters to PM, it’s defense.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 16, 2011 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions
CCF
For what it’s worth, I read your entire comments and I appreciate your input. I’m sure many others do as well.
Editing Manager of Canes Country.com
in my opinion, giving up too many shots over the course of a few games is on the players. When it’s over the course of the full season, with little or no improvement, it’s on the coaches.
Editing Manager of Canes Country.com
Whose Fault Too Many Shoots Were Given Up? Short Summary to what Requires a Long Answer
Ultimately, the Canes gave up too many shots because (1) they lacked the size & strength to possess the puck in their own end consistently; (2) prior to the arrival of Allen & Joslin w Gleason’s undisclosed injury, the defense could not clear the crease without taking penalties; (3) the centers were not winning enough faceoffs; (4) there was not enough size at forward to make opposing team forwards look around (unless Ruutu was on the ice, then their heads were on swivels); (5) Samsonov was neither fast enough nor motivated enough to back check (hence a dazzling puckhandler is still unsigned); (6) LaRose caught got out of position too often especially in the top six (sorry, the question was asked, so I am answering it); (7) Staal floated back too often especially after he had his groin injury; (8) McBain, Corvo, and Pitkanen are not all world shot blockers so too many shots got through to the net; (9) with the Hurricanes approach last season there was little risk to a team flooding the zone because the Hurricanes were not fantastic at quick outlet passes and coast to coast breakouts; and (10) the Hurricanes power play was mostly wretched so there was little risk by an opposing team in taking a very aggressive approach in their offensive end, even if they had to hook or interfere if an odd man rush started to develop.
My prediction is that with the additions to the team and the revamp of the defense, the shots against will drop. If Stewart decks some opposing players as they cross the crease (along with Allen and Joslin), the shots against will decrease even more significantly. If Dave Lewis gets all the team on the same page defensively and if the centers start winning more faceoffs, we won’t be having this discussion in 2011-2012.
SOG stat is overrated. All teams pay for support staff to track where shots are actually taken and given up to determine quality scoring chances that are taken and given up. So scoring opportunites for and against is much more meaningful to focus on.
I hear that so often, and so wish “chances” were kept available somewhere – there are bloggers taking the initiative to keep these numbers for others to compare. If it’s so important (I agree that they are) why aren’t they published anywhere other than sometimes on the intermission reports on TV?
Twitter @HMof2
by Carolyn Christians on Aug 16, 2011 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
If it’s so important (I agree that they are) why aren’t they published anywhere other than sometimes on the intermission reports on TV?
My guess is because they aren’t kept officially and because they are at the discretion of the teams score keeper (which is probably why they aren’t kept officially). We could all probably agree on about 50% of the scoring chances, but the other 50% would be open to interpretation. For instance, is a tricky shot from a bad angle, say, like the one Staal used to beat Broduer in game 7 of the first round a few years back a scoring chance? I can see that both ways. Of course it is, it was a quality shot that went in. Of course it isn’t Broduer misplayed his angles because he was flustered from the previous goal a few seconds back and turned a bad shot in to a good goal.
Teams can keep this on their own because they can parse the data and decide within themselves what is and is not a scoring chance. Logistically, that can’t be done league wide on a consistent basis. No two teams would agree on the exact standards. Some teams would game the system to either get more chances, or give up fewer chances for obvious reasons. Less obvious, teams may game it to get fewer, so they appear better at converting, or give up more, so they appear better at stopping chances (say to build up the value of a goalie).
In my opinion, keeping that stat league wide would probably be less accurate than the +/- stat. On a macro scale, say season wide, it would probably be relatively accurate and more easily digestible than CORSI. On a micro scale it could be terribly misleading, just like +/- can be. Given that the home town scorer would do 41 games, and 29 other guys would do the remaining 41 games, you open up a lot of observational bias that could impact the macro level; something you don’t get from the +/- stat which is why I feel it would be less accurate than the +/- stat.
Don't trust me. I have psychological issues.
But there are plenty of subjectively determined statistics in sports.
What about an assist in basketball? Or an error vs. a hit in baseball. At some point, while, yes, there will be bias involved, you have to train your professionals and let them work.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '011: This is what we've been waiting for...we get to overpay the core of a 2-14 team!
by MichaelProcton on Aug 22, 2011 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions
There is no doubt that the quality of shots on goal went down significantly after Allen and Joslin were obtained. Once Skinner/Ruutu/Jokinen formed as a line, the scoring opportunities significantly increased.
overrated stats
I don’t think anyone said it was a life and death stat, but I would not consider a consistent high number, almost every game, to be a positive. Why bother to try to teach players to block shots then and risk injury? And when you are last in the league and were flirting with last in the league for the entire season, I would also say that is not a positive thing.
Concerning the scoring chances stat, I have a volunteer to track that this season. :-)
Editing Manager of Canes Country.com
time of possession
i think is more telling than shots on goal, etc. If other teams consistently spend more time in our end with the puck, obviously we have a tougher time scoring, even if the other team doesn’t get a shot on goal. also, keep in mind shots that get off but don’t come near the net don’t count as SOG, but there are numerous times when a player with the puck has a prime scoring chance but whiffs, and those chances aren’t counted.
Of Maurice, Karmanos said: "I’m happy Paul is back but he’s going to be judged the same way as any other coach. We need to win more consistently."
by Sergeant Stinky on Aug 17, 2011 7:37 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the SOG stat matters a lot because Cam Ward has to deal with every SOG, whether we consider it a good shot or not and whether he makes it look easy or dives across the crease.
Ward had to make a ridiculous number of saves last year. If the rest of the Canes could take some of that burden off of Ward – and I think they did, as others have noted, after Allen and Joslin came aboard—that would have to be good for the Canes.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 17, 2011 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
On vacation so did not see your reply until now. This whole topic about SOG, scoring opportunities, etc. would make for an interesting topic all in itself since it is taken very seriously by coaching staffs. In my years of playing i recall way too many film and chalkboard sessions analyzing games with the coaches. But i appreciate your scepticism about my comments.
Cam is very articulate about this. When you get a chance ask him whether he would rather face 45 shots with say 12 true quality scoring of 35 shots with 18 true chances. He will say the former. Bad angle, perimeter or long shots that he can see require small effort on his part. Tommy B will also answer what he prefers his goalies to see. And since there seems little regard for Mo’s opinion pose the question to some of the better coaches or their staffs when they are in town. I will bet they will all say that while shots are of course of relevance, their key interest is quality scoring chances created or given up since it is a true indicator of the effectiveness of the offense and they positioning, scheme and backchecking effectiveness of the D system.
Glen will also provide an interesting perspective on blocked shots. We tend to remember all the spectacular diving blocks but in truth most blocked shots are where the defender is in good positioning and close to the shooter. You hardly feel those. I killed penalties most of my career so I remember vividly those blocks where i was in poor position and took it where i didn’t want to. But those were few are far between…. just left a big mark.
Lastly, the NHL Research, Development and Orientation group has done extensive research on the correlation between shots and goals versus tracking scoring chances, etc. Shots is the only purely objective stat for tracking save percentage and goalie performance. But from a pure detailed coaching and team strategy perspective they concluded that it was not particularly worthwhile to spend too much time on. The greater indicator of team success was to track and chart quality scoring chances.
Agreed. I’d rather see Cam face low quality shots from the outside all game long. It’s the one’s where the D breaks down because they have been chasing their tail too long in their own zone and the puck gets to the slot area.
All I’m asking, from a fan perspective, is for the D-zone puck control to get figured out AND the power play to improve. Not aksing too much.
Harrumph
Sittler
I agree wholeheartedly that high quality scoring chances are more detrimental than a simple shot on goal. There is no question about that, but since the NHL doesn’t track scoring chances, it’s tough to discuss that “stat” or even know how the Canes did regarding that last season. It appeared like they didn’t do well, but that was never the question.
I have never played semi-pro or anything like it, but it just seems logical to me that it’s also better to allow fewer shots per game than more shots per game. I always thought that defenses got praised when they allowed a low shot total. Since the Canes came last in the league in that stat, I thought it was worth mentioning of what was “bad”, I never said it was of vital importance. Perhaps I should have placed that one sentence about shots allowed on the “Good” of what happened last season. :-)
Editing Manager of Canes Country.com
Too Many Shots on Goal
If a team, such as the Hurricanes, is an outlier such as last in the league, in shots on goal, the statistic is indicative that the team is having trouble winning faceoffs, possessing the puck and also is having trouble blocking shots. The fact that the Hurricanes were one win away from the playoffs was despite, not because of, allowing in general too many shots.
It is clear, however, that in considering shots on goal one has to factor in whether the shots being allowed were fantastic scoring chances or Hail Mary Prayers sent at bad angles or otherwise statistically unlikely to result in a score. Even so, I agree with Bob Wage that it is not a positive thing for the Hurricanes to be allowing so many shots on goal.
Is there no correlation between number of shots and number of scoring chances? I wouldn’t expect them to vary inversely.
by curiouscanesfan on Aug 18, 2011 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Short answer: They don’t vary inversely, but they don’t vary directly either.
Long answer
The problem with comparing shots to scoring chances is that there is no direct correlation. In the heyday of the trap the game plan against the Devils was get the puck in to the zone, fire on a quick shot, and hope for the best. This lead to shots but not many scoring chances. Conversely, the Devils would trap and trap, then wait for the most prime opportunities to score. This led to fewer shots but more scoring chances per shot.
There’s also the matter of a scoring chance occurring without a shot on goal. Remember a shot that beats the goaltender, rings off the post, and bounces out isn’t a shot on goal, but it easily could be a scoring chance.
Don't trust me. I have psychological issues.
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
- Who are the Non-Smythe candidates for the Devils, Kings?
- End is near for Rick Nash, Blue Jackets as trade discussions set to resume
- 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
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Throwing a curve: Marty McSorley hopes LA Kings straighten out the curse of his illegal stick
- Marty McSorley hopes LA Kings reverse his curse
- Driven DeBoer delivers Devils back to NHL's elite
- Driven DeBoer, fired by Panthers, delivers Devils back to the land of elite in just one year
- Bruins acquire son of Hall of Famer Ray Bourque
