HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

Fire Todd McLellan (Mod: Extended Per Dreger)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-13-2013, 08:14 PM
  #326
RainbowDash
20% Cooler
 
RainbowDash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Equestria
Posts: 2,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
The arguments on in-game adjustments are overblown. There is a simple test. If the coach doesn't do it well, the third period goal differential relative to the differential for the first two periods will be way down. There are two other reasons that may cause it, but if the coach is really bad it will definitely be observable. The other two reasons are team stamina and outstanding teams that are frequently ahead but play conservatively to preserve leads in a large majority of their games. TM has always had at least a decent third period performance.

Game to game adjustments with a single opponent are another thing. This is grad school for coaching which includes advanced line matching. Very few coaches excel at this. Off the top, the only two assuredly ahead of TM are Babcock and Carlyle. Maybe Julien. Not being a top 3 coach is a stupid reason to change out coaches, it is far beyond a problem of going from frying pan to fire. It is more like complaining about sailing under mild chop so that you can take a very good chance on sailing in the middle of a hurricane.

The issues this year point very directly at lack of forward depth. The home/road W/L differential points a big finger at the Sharks not being able to play against the slight matchup advantage on the road. This is supported by the team relative +/- scores on the team as well and the fact that TM severely upjumped the TOI for the lower lines. The lack of forward depth is not a coaching issue.

In terms of roster selection, it is not a black and white issue. They don't guarantee games played or TOI in contracts, but there can be repercussions with the team. When team leadership is shamed by lesser ice time, how do you influence the leadership structure without creating a leadership vacuum or dissension? The veteran players themselves can be protective of TOI for their fellow vets. An example might be JT possibly being upset by not having Boyle be the man backing his line, not that this specifically happens. The players have a major contribution as to how the team is run. I think it was a huge statement that the org basically disavowed specific leaders for the team and called it a collective after years of naming JT as the man. That reeks of change and seems to have been handled well judging by line combos, player performance and TOI. Accomplishing this type of change with the results posted is a major gold star for coaching. This type of result with change is usually only accomplished when a player (eg JT) is shipped elsewhere.

The other coaching gold star was finally addressing the PK.

If I have a complaint about the Sharks, it is about the pieces of their system that are conservative. But, this is a complaint that can be leveled at about 2/3 of the coaches in the league.

TM may not be the best coach but the chance of finding a better one is slim and none. And slim only is possible with coaches who haven't yet gotten their feet wet in the NHL.
The only coach I would replace TMac with is Laviolette when he becomes available. Everything else is a HUGE step in the wrong direction.

RainbowDash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 08:28 PM
  #327
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainbowDash View Post
The only coach I would replace TMac with is Laviolette when he becomes available. Everything else is a HUGE step in the wrong direction.
They would have to do a lot of changes to make Lavi work. I like Lavi's system, he isn't conservative in play style. But, the Sharks would have to have major personnel turnover to make it work. No room for slow players on the wing and a lot of embracing of risk from the blueline. Lavi also does best when he has a strong, no-nonsense player leadership group. He might push practices a lot harder than TM which could upset some veteran teams.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 08:31 PM
  #328
Evincar
Your Final Judgement
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer View Post
I think TMac deserves more credit for this year. The Sharks were so inconsistent this season putting the puck in the net (I know some will blame his system and coaching for this). Trying to do whatever he could to find goals, he made some questionable moves that paid off. Moving a D man to forward who was brought in to be the number 1 defenseman for years to come, I thought, was a ballsy move that worked out great. And pairing Burns and Galiardi (who was giving them very little) with Thornton allowed for the sharks to have 3 decent lines going for a while, even though the depth probably was not there for this. The played some inspired hockey in the playoffs and if not for suspension and injuries exploiting the lack of forward depth, the sharks may still be playing right now. I think it is on DW to give Mclellan the forward depth that this team desperately needs and see if he can get them over the hump.
Exactly. If DW doesnt go out any sign some FAs to improve the secondary scoring, then extending TMac doesnt make much sense.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 08:34 PM
  #329
Evincar
Your Final Judgement
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
They would have to do a lot of changes to make Lavi work. I like Lavi's system, he isn't conservative in play style. But, the Sharks would have to have major personnel turnover to make it work. No room for slow players on the wing and a lot of embracing of risk from the blueline. Lavi also does best when he has a strong, no-nonsense player leadership group. He might push practices a lot harder than TM which could upset some veteran teams.
Lavi is worse than TMac. He has his teams play a run and gun style which doesnt lead to Cup success. I rather stick to TMac's style since its more suited to playoff hockey.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 08:45 PM
  #330
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
Lavi is worse than TMac. He has his teams play a run and gun style which doesnt lead to Cup success. I rather stick to TMac's style since its more suited to playoff hockey.
Wrong and he has a ring to prove it as well as a finals appearance in addition to another CF appearance. He even improved the Isles performance way back when. Buffalo had its best appearances of a decade when playing run and gun. Put down the testosterone and open your eyes. Many styles can win.

Run and gun has worked with Tampa, Carolina, Chicago and possibly Chicago again. Back in the day, Colorado and Detroit were not conservative. And the dynasties of the Isles and Oilers were both relatively high risk teams.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 08:48 PM
  #331
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,355
vCash: 500
I love Lavi and his system but the team would need a total overhaul to make it work. Not that I would mind but it's unrealistic.

Kitten Mittons is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 08:51 PM
  #332
TheJuxtaposer
Lost a bet
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,004
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
They would have to do a lot of changes to make Lavi work. I like Lavi's system, he isn't conservative in play style. But, the Sharks would have to have major personnel turnover to make it work. No room for slow players on the wing and a lot of embracing of risk from the blueline. Lavi also does best when he has a strong, no-nonsense player leadership group. He might push practices a lot harder than TM which could upset some veteran teams.
But the Sharks actually have decent speed on the wings right now. Marleau and Havlat. Burns and Galiardi. Torres and Wingels.

I like Laviolette, I'd definitely be in favor of bringing him in, in part just because his run-and-gun style is so fun.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 09:15 PM
  #333
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 14,436
vCash: 999
Just wait a couple years and we can hire Phil Housley.

magic school bus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 09:21 PM
  #334
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
But the Sharks actually have decent speed on the wings right now. Marleau and Havlat. Burns and Galiardi. Torres and Wingels.

I like Laviolette, I'd definitely be in favor of bringing him in, in part just because his run-and-gun style is so fun.
IMO, TJ would be the least of the six. Sheppard would be toast. Lavi is also heavy duty on keeping off-ice under control. Kennedy would be far ahead of Kearns on Lavi's list.

I like run and gun for the same reason as well. It's just more fun to watch. We're getting a taste of style vs. style in this finals at least. From the looks of it, Chicago uses Crawford's lack of rebound control to start up their offense. They also have an interesting d-zone checking system that feeds fast exits along with flying wingers that are not risk averse. Boston's wings are far more risk averse. I'd love to see takeaway/giveaway team stats for the opposition versus Chicago. It looks like Chicago plays for takeaways and giveaways by opponents in all zones; very limited physicality.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 09:54 PM
  #335
Evincar
Your Final Judgement
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Wrong and he has a ring to prove it as well as a finals appearance in addition to another CF appearance. He even improved the Isles performance way back when. Buffalo had its best appearances of a decade when playing run and gun. Put down the testosterone and open your eyes. Many styles can win.

Run and gun has worked with Tampa, Carolina, Chicago and possibly Chicago again. Back in the day, Colorado and Detroit were not conservative. And the dynasties of the Isles and Oilers were both relatively high risk teams.
It worked with Carolina because run and gun was a good style to use the first year after the lockout with all the new rule changes. Teams adjusted quickly, scoring went down again. Carolina missed the playoffs 2 straight years after they won the Cup, which is unheard of even in the modern era.

Philly made the Cup final but that was mostly due to matchup luck and a dominant performance by Pronger.

As for your examples. I wouldnt really call Tampa Bay (Tortorella coached team) run and gun. The Detroit teams of old were definitely conservative. Thats why they won Cups. Run and Gun wasnt working for them so they changed their style. Colorado played a more up tempo game but they could afford to with arguably the greatest goalie ever in between the pipes.

Im not sure why youre mentioning the Isles and Oiler dynasties. This isnt the 80s and early 90s anymore.

As for today, Chicago is not run and gun. They are ridiculously balanced. Capable of playing any style and they are just as good as the Bruins defensively.

The only team that has had success with run and gun is Pittsburgh. Even then it took a 7 game series vs a Detroit team whose best players were battling severe injuries to win. And not many teams can say they have the 2 best players in the world down the middle.

Look at the final 4 this year and last year. Defensive hockey is the style that gives you the best chance to win.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 10:10 PM
  #336
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
It worked with Carolina because run and gun was a good style to use the first year after the lockout with all the new rule changes. Teams adjusted quickly, scoring went down again. Carolina missed the playoffs 2 straight years after they won the Cup, which is unheard of even in the modern era.

Philly made the Cup final but that was mostly due to matchup luck and a dominant performance by Pronger.

As for your examples. I wouldnt really call Tampa Bay (Tortorella coached team) run and gun. The Detroit teams of old were definitely conservative. Thats why they won Cups. Run and Gun wasnt working for them so they changed their style. Colorado played a more up tempo game but they could afford to with arguably the greatest goalie ever in between the pipes.

Im not sure why youre mentioning the Isles and Oiler dynasties. This isnt the 80s and early 90s anymore.

As for today, Chicago is not run and gun. They are ridiculously balanced. Capable of playing any style and they are just as good as the Bruins defensively.

The only team that has had success with run and gun is Pittsburgh. Even then it took a 7 game series vs a Detroit team whose best players were battling severe injuries to win. And not many teams can say they have the 2 best players in the world down the middle.

Look at the final 4 this year and last year. Defensive hockey is the style that gives you the best chance to win.
Chicago may be balanced but they are playing very high risk hockey. Again, open your eyes. Don't fit the narrative to make your argument. You are fitting the narrative when you make the excuse regarding matchups for Philly. Philly had success with run and gun, period. How quick are the wingers to blow the zone? How many wingers release when a change of possession is anticipated? How freely do they allow dmen to rush the puck outside of line changes? How low in the zone are the dmen allowed to rotate and how fast do they return to the blueline on offense? How many of the blueliners on a team are allowed to take risks?

I left out Detroit on being high risk because it wasn't (we agree here). It wasn't a standard style either. Effectively, they played keep away but they weren't particularly effective in pure defense.

I realize styles change over the years and rules can affect it, but the argument is more than that. They had defensive teams in the Isles era. The Isles played good, not great, defense, but they were overwhelming in the attack zone and it started with beating the other team up the ice.

And BTW, the change that the Kings made last year that prompted their run to the cup was a change to make them less conservative . Specifically, Sutter encouraged them to make area passes for outlets in their dzone. It was the responsibility of the receiver to get into position. He wasn't encouraging up the wall to be quicker and he didn't want them waiting to survey the ice before moving the puck. He wanted it moved upon receipt of the puck. It wasn't run and gun, but it was risk taking. The year that Pitt won, the numbers indicated that they weren't entirely run and gun. They were the only cup winner in the last decade to finish in the top half of the league in hits.


Last edited by SJeasy: 06-13-2013 at 10:20 PM.
SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 11:12 PM
  #337
TheJuxtaposer
Lost a bet
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,004
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
IMO, TJ would be the least of the six. Sheppard would be toast. Lavi is also heavy duty on keeping off-ice under control. Kennedy would be far ahead of Kearns on Lavi's list.

I like run and gun for the same reason as well. It's just more fun to watch. We're getting a taste of style vs. style in this finals at least. From the looks of it, Chicago uses Crawford's lack of rebound control to start up their offense. They also have an interesting d-zone checking system that feeds fast exits along with flying wingers that are not risk averse. Boston's wings are far more risk averse. I'd love to see takeaway/giveaway team stats for the opposition versus Chicago. It looks like Chicago plays for takeaways and giveaways by opponents in all zones; very limited physicality.
I'm 50/50 on keeping Shep. And are you meaning to imply that Kearns has off-ice issues? Kearns isn't someone who should stop you keeping a coach. He may not even re-sign in the Sharks org, and hopefully he never plays for the Sharks again. And I don't think there are significant off-ice issues on this Sharks team right now (although I have nothing to back this up, I always felt that Murray, Clowe, Heatley, and Setoguchi were the party-goers of this team).

Chicago's D is so fast. I love it, I wish we played more like Chicago. Less emphasis on physicality, more on speed, crisp passing, etc.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2013, 11:56 PM
  #338
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
I'm 50/50 on keeping Shep. And are you meaning to imply that Kearns has off-ice issues? Kearns isn't someone who should stop you keeping a coach. He may not even re-sign in the Sharks org, and hopefully he never plays for the Sharks again. And I don't think there are significant off-ice issues on this Sharks team right now (although I have nothing to back this up, I always felt that Murray, Clowe, Heatley, and Setoguchi were the party-goers of this team).

Chicago's D is so fast. I love it, I wish we played more like Chicago. Less emphasis on physicality, more on speed, crisp passing, etc.
No implication for Kearns except for speed vs speed of Kennedy. The example was the speed thing. It has more to do with the type of AHL vets that they might try to sign (skip Giroux/Mancari types, more Kennedy/Vesce types). I agree that they have already tried to clean up off-ice for the Sharks which is a plus if they did get Lavi.

I agree about the offensive side of Chicago, but I concentrated on the defensive because I noticed that they used the speed on defense for even more risk taking. Very methodical for a guy to leave his cover to jump on a lane on passes on the next guy over. They rotate back quickly if they don't get the intercept. It's very impressive.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 12:07 AM
  #339
Evincar
Your Final Judgement
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Chicago may be balanced but they are playing very high risk hockey. Again, open your eyes. Don't fit the narrative to make your argument. You are fitting the narrative when you make the excuse regarding matchups for Philly. Philly had success with run and gun, period. How quick are the wingers to blow the zone? How many wingers release when a change of possession is anticipated? How freely do they allow dmen to rush the puck outside of line changes? How low in the zone are the dmen allowed to rotate and how fast do they return to the blueline on offense? How many of the blueliners on a team are allowed to take risks?

I left out Detroit on being high risk because it wasn't (we agree here). It wasn't a standard style either. Effectively, they played keep away but they weren't particularly effective in pure defense.

I realize styles change over the years and rules can affect it, but the argument is more than that. They had defensive teams in the Isles era. The Isles played good, not great, defense, but they were overwhelming in the attack zone and it started with beating the other team up the ice.

And BTW, the change that the Kings made last year that prompted their run to the cup was a change to make them less conservative . Specifically, Sutter encouraged them to make area passes for outlets in their dzone. It was the responsibility of the receiver to get into position. He wasn't encouraging up the wall to be quicker and he didn't want them waiting to survey the ice before moving the puck. He wanted it moved upon receipt of the puck. It wasn't run and gun, but it was risk taking. The year that Pitt won, the numbers indicated that they weren't entirely run and gun. They were the only cup winner in the last decade to finish in the top half of the league in hits.
I think youre overrating the value of hitting and underrating how good Chicago is at playing defense. And LA did play at bit more aggressive under Sutter but they are still definitely a team that is successful based on their defense.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 12:36 AM
  #340
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
I think youre overrating the value of hitting and underrating how good Chicago is at playing defense. And LA did play at bit more aggressive under Sutter but they are still definitely a team that is successful based on their defense.
I am the last one to overrate hitting. For me, the less hitting, the better. Hitting means a team doesn't have possession. As a corollary, hitting means less run and gun and more chip and chase. That was the point about Pitt's win.

I do agree that the bottom line for LA is defense although Sutter has also loosened the reins on dmen as well as being less risk averse on outlets.

The other issue with your hypothesis regarding defense is that the premium on defense is moving to TWDs as opposed to defensive dmen. There are more TWDs now and they get paid more. Some of the prototypes are Hamhuis and Z. Michalek. There are less Regehr's, Foote's, etc. I grant that it isn't the whole story, but teams are finding that speed of puck recovery and ability to outlet are more important that physicality/positioning.

I grant that the Boston and LA cup wins get everyone talking about defense, but I don't think it is a long-term trend.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 01:00 AM
  #341
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,351
vCash: 500
Maybe I am just an old-timer, but I find it a riot that teams like the 2010 Hawks and the 2006 'Canes are being called run-and-gun teams.

Run-and-gun teams in my book? 80s Oilers and the 91-92 Penguins.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 06:45 AM
  #342
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
Maybe I am just an old-timer, but I find it a riot that teams like the 2010 Hawks and the 2006 'Canes are being called run-and-gun teams.

Run-and-gun teams in my book? 80s Oilers and the 91-92 Penguins.
Then the 92-93 Pens got beat by the caps I think... That was also when NJ started really having success with the trap...

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 08:22 AM
  #343
SpinTheBlackCircle
Global Moderator
Life as a Sharks fan
 
SpinTheBlackCircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 32,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post

Look at the final 4 this year and last year. Defensive hockey is the style that gives you the best chance to win.
The final 4 teams were 1st, 2nd, 10th and 13th in goals scored
The final 4 teams were 1st, 3rd, 7th and 12th in goals allowed.

Very little difference.

__________________
Gots all my pertinence on it and such
SpinTheBlackCircle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 02:52 PM
  #344
Evincar
Your Final Judgement
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
Maybe I am just an old-timer, but I find it a riot that teams like the 2010 Hawks and the 2006 'Canes are being called run-and-gun teams.

Run-and-gun teams in my book? 80s Oilers and the 91-92 Penguins.
Yeah they were but that was a different era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinTheBlackCircle View Post
The final 4 teams were 1st, 2nd, 10th and 13th in goals scored
The final 4 teams were 1st, 3rd, 7th and 12th in goals allowed.

Very little difference.
I think you missed my point.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 02:53 PM
  #345
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinTheBlackCircle View Post
The final 4 teams were 1st, 2nd, 10th and 13th in goals scored
The final 4 teams were 1st, 3rd, 7th and 12th in goals allowed.

Very little difference.
What about the final 2?

Kitten Mittons is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 03:00 PM
  #346
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,072
vCash: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitten Mittons View Post
What about the final 2?
chicago #2 goals scored, boston 13th
chicago #1 goals allowed, boston 3rd.

Barrie22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.