Don't read yelling from a coach if it is from the bench at refs. It may be an indication for practice behavior with the team, but it isn't definitive. As example, Torts may yell and even at players, but does not get personal (except maybe goalies before NYR).
It isn't hot-headed versus cool-headed so much. TM yelling is documented. Fairly well documented that he doesn't get personal. The guys who do get personal (eg RW) are pretty much working their way out of the game. Repeated negative reinforcement is what really gets coaches in trouble. It is really hard for coaches when things aren't going well for long stretches, see Hitch and Jackets. Hitch was talking about his epiphany in terms of coaching before and after the Jackets job in terms of leaving the negative behind.
There is a huge school of thought in sports psychology that emphasizes positive reinforcement and practically bans negative. At most, negative should be directive and not personal.
More of "Do X" and almost never "Don't do Y". Bad for imaging and visualization. A recent Pollak article covers it. I do note both Woodcroft and TM using the "Do X" behind the bench and being interactive.
The reason not to go with a negative guy, even if he is successful in the short term, is that it leaves an aftermath. He represents the org to the players. Resentment and rebelliousness engendered by a coach can leave a bitter taste towards the entire org even after his departure and can act as a stumbling block in a rebuild. Hiring one of these guys can make a huge statement to the players of what the org thinks of them.
PS: There is a reason why Babcock has graduated a bunch of guys to successful HC jobs. He is effectively giving advanced courses in sports psych while they are working for him. He takes issues of reinforcement to an entirely different level.
Don't read yelling from a coach if it is from the bench at refs. It may be an indication for practice behavior with the team, but it isn't definitive. As example, Torts may yell and even at players, but does not get personal (except maybe goalies before NYR).
He was pretty personal with Gaborik and Boyle on 24/7.
It seems with the recent healthy scratches/benches, TMac is practicing extinction more than positive reinforcement.
Which ones? Handzus is awful so hopefully that isn't the scratch you had a problem with. Galiardi is better than Vandermeer and Winchester, sure, but he isn't better than any of the top nine in the roles McLellan is using them.
The fourth line has more or less zero impact on whether or not a team wins or loses - doesn't make a lot of sense to get worked up about who plays there. Not to mention we don't have all the info regarding injuries that the coaching staff does.
Which ones? Handzus is awful so hopefully that isn't the scratch you had a problem with. Galiardi is better than Vandermeer and Winchester, sure, but he isn't better than any of the top nine in the roles McLellan is using them.
He can score more but Winnik is definitely better for the role McLellan wants that line to play. They played a bunch against Dallas' first line and started the vast majority of their shifts in the defensive zone - I wouldn't want Galiardi playing those minutes.
He can score more but Winnik is definitely better for the role McLellan wants that line to play. They played a bunch against Dallas' first line and started the vast majority of their shifts in the defensive zone - I wouldn't want Galiardi playing those minutes.
Didn't Tehjuxtaposer posted a link that showed the third line sucked?
Didn't Tehjuxtaposer posted a link that showed the third line sucked?
I probably missed it. Mitchell and Winnik were both in positive territory in possession - Moore got smoked a bit. They need defensive wingers for that line and Winnik and Mitchell are both better in that role than TJ. Also they aren't so much looking for that line to dominate as to not get completely obliterated - them taking up the tough minutes and not costing the team too badly lets Couture play against crappy opponents.
I think the link mention that Moore was the worst of three. Kind of discouraging to be honest. That's why I think Moore needs offensively-capable wingers because he is not that stellar defensively and needs some offense to compensate.
I probably missed it. Mitchell and Winnik were both in positive territory in possession - Moore got smoked a bit. They need defensive wingers for that line and Winnik and Mitchell are both better in that role than TJ. Also they aren't so much looking for that line to dominate as to not get completely obliterated - them taking up the tough minutes and not costing the team too badly lets Couture play against crappy opponents.
It was the link to the FTF article about scoring chances from the Dallas game, and the third line was absolutely brutal possession-wise. Moore, Mitchell, and Winnik.
It was the link to the FTF article about scoring chances from the Dallas game, and the third line was absolutely brutal possession-wise. Moore, Mitchell, and Winnik.
The times where Niemi was at his worst were when he wasn't playing much. Not only during the road trip but also when he was spliting time with Nitty. However he is ignoring the LA series...
The times where Niemi was at his worst were when he wasn't playing much. Not only during the road trip but also when he was spliting time with Nitty. However he is ignoring the LA series...
Most goalies take a bit after time off to shake the rust. Most coaches don't do it, but my take is to give extended rests and play them harder when not resting. About 4 or 5 five game stretches during the season. You don't run into as many "shake the rust" games. It has been pretty dramatic on Greiss on that issue in his non-NHL career. I am amazed that he has done as well as he has this year considering his usage.
