[GT] 2018 IIHF World Championships (May 4 - 20)

[Fire]

Brouwer should have enough common sense to give up his letter. Better yet would be for the team to buy him out anyway.

[Party Elephant]

I haven't been following the WHC and I just clicked on this thread out of boredom. Glad I got to witness AO72's last post!

[Jimdon]

Happy for backlund, hope this gives him some momentum coming into next year. Makes me wonder where this was when the flames needed it though.

The fact that he completely disappeared in the last 20 some games of the year was one of the reasons why the flames struggled so bad down the stretch and now to see him have this kind of success in the WC makes me think there really was some fundamental problems with either the systems or the strategy of the coaching staff.

Here's hoping he can really step up next year.

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by Locke

You're asking a guy to come in cold and turn over the the whole structure, I dont think its going to happen.

Pretty sure that is the point of firing one coach and hiring another is it not?

If a new coach can't change the structure of the team what is the point of changing coaches?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jimdon

Pretty sure that is the point of firing one coach and hiring another is it not?

If a new coach can't change the structure of the team what is the point of changing coaches?

I think you forgot to read the word at the end of the post: 'Instantly.'

Nothing happens instantly. There will be change, bu its not going to be like flicking a light-switch.

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by Locke

I think you forgot to read the word at the end of the post: 'Instantly.'

Nothing happens instantly. There will be change, bu its not going to be like flicking a light-switch.

It's not like this is a mid season change. He has this offseason and all of training camp and preseason to institute his plan. That's not "flicking a light switch", that's starting next season with a new approach. Will there be hiccups, yeah most likely, but starting next season the way last season ended and then gradually adopting a new approach probably isn't what management had in mind...

[CliffFletcher]

When the guys on 960 interviewed Peters, they brought up the question of the transition, and how long it will take the team to adopt a new system. Peters just snorted and said if it takes more than a few games, there's something wrong. Something like 'that's what the pre-season is for.'

This notion that players need a quarter of a season to a adjust to a new coach and system is just a CP meme.

[mile]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This notion that players need a quarter of a season to a adjust to a new coach and system is just a CP meme.

It's not entirely unfounded... I remember Haynes writing a couple seasons ago about how he found that more than 75% of teams struggle for a stretch of games after a coaching change. Perhaps not a quarter of a season, but close.

http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2016/...r-new-nhl.html

The teams that do get off to a good start are in the minority.

Mike Sullivan, Pittsburgh, 2015-16*
- First 17 gm, 6-7-4, .471 PT%
- Final 37 gm, 27-9-1, .743 PT% (+.272 PT%)

Dave Hakstol, Philadelphia, 2015-16
- First 16 gm, 5-8-3, .406 PT%
- Final 66 gm, 36-19-11, .629 PT% (+.223 PT%)

Jon Cooper, Tampa Bay, 2012-13*
- First 16 gm, 5-8-3, .406 PT% (also the final 16 gm of regular season)
- Next season, 82 gm, 46-27-9, .616 PT% (+.210 PT%)

Peter De Boer, San Jose, 2015-16
- First 15 gm, 7-8-0, .467 PT%
- Final 67 gm, 39-22-6, .627 PT% (+.160 PT%)

Alain Vigneault, NY Rangers, 2013-14
- First 21 gm, 10-11-0, .476 PT%
- Final 61 gm, 35-20-6, .623 PT% (+.147 PT%)

Barry Trotz, Washington, 2014-15
- First 17 gm, 7-7-3, .500 PT%
- Final 65 gm, 38-19-8, .646 PT% (+.146 PT%)

Todd McLellan, Edmonton, 2015-16
- First 22 gm, 7-14-1, .341 PT%
- Final 60 gm, 24-29-7, .458 PT% (+.117 PT%)

Dan Bylsma, Buffalo, 2015-16
- First 22 gm, 8-12-2, .409 PT%
- Final 60 gm, 27-24-9, ,525 PT% (+.116 PT%)

Mike Babcock, Toronto, 2015-16
- First 14 gm, 2-8-4, .286 PT%
- Final 68 gm, 27-34-7, .397 PY% (+.111 PT%)

Lindy Ruff, Dallas, 2013-14
- First 13 gm, 5-6-2, .462 PT%
- Final 69 gm, 35-25-9, .572 PT% (+.110 PT%)

Bill Peters, Carolina, 2014-15
- First 21 gm, 6-12-3, .357 PT%
- Final 61 gm, 24-29-8, .459 PT% (+.102 PT%)

Jeff Blashill, Detroit, 2015-16
- First 17 gm, 8-8-1, .500 PT%
- Final 65 gm, 33-22-10, .587 PT% (+.087 PT%)

Gerard Gallant, Florida, 2014-15
- First 12 gm, 4-4-4, .500 PT%
- Final 70 gm, 34-25-11, .564 PT% (+.064 PT%)

That being said, I believe Peters when he says he expects a quicker start. Really emphasized the importance first 20 games in the press conference IIRC.

[Strange Brew]

I’m sure there is some truth to the slower start but bugs me that he uses a different number of “first” games for each coach, giving me the impression he is trying to direct the results vs. letting the numbers speak for themselves. He does acknowledge the exceptions to his analysis, but only in passing without any data.

[Saqe]

I expect there will be an adjustment period. I think Peters just wants to emphasize that it can't take too long and doesn't want to sound like that could be used as an excuse.


Look at Florida last year, it took until December for them to start clicking under Boughner. Maybe it was expected since he's a rookie coach but that was way too long and they were never able to close the 12 point deficit and make the playoffs.



I'd say 20 games is the absolute max adjustment period if they want to make the playoffs.

[442scotty]

Given that Vegas hit the ground running with a complete new team and new coach......

Didn't look like they required much of an adjustment period. The fact that the players all bought in to the system probably made a big difference. And it looks like a simple system too

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

Will Jankowski take the next step forward this season?

[Drunk Uncle]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When the guys on 960 interviewed Peters, they brought up the question of the transition, and how long it will take the team to adopt a new system. Peters just snorted and said if it takes more than a few games, there's something wrong. Something like 'that's what the pre-season is for.'

This notion that players need a quarter of a season to a adjust to a new coach and system is just a CP meme.

I think this will be especially true when the change in the style/systems is minimal. From what I've seen, Peter's coaches a very similar style/system to Gulutzan. IMO there will be no excuse for a slow start given that the adjustments will be so minor.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Drunk Uncle

I think this will be especially true when the change in the style/systems is minimal. From what I've seen, Peter's coaches a very similar style/system to Gulutzan. IMO there will be no excuse for a slow start given that the adjustments will be so minor.

Well except the obvious - last year they did pretty poorly playing the system

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I’m sure there is some truth to the slower start but bugs me that he uses a different number of “first” games for each coach, giving me the impression he is trying to direct the results vs. letting the numbers speak for themselves...

This is quibbling. Every one of Haynes's splits occurs before the 23-game mark, which I think quite sufficiently illustrates his point. If anything, the marginal differences point to the fact that all players and coaches are different, yet despite these differences there is a pattern of adaptation.

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Given that Vegas hit the ground running with a complete new team and new coach......

Didn't look like they required much of an adjustment period. The fact that the players all bought in to the system probably made a big difference. And it looks like a simple system too

Who can say why it happened more quickly and seamlessly in VGK than elsewhere?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is quibbling. Every one of Haynes's splits occurs before the 23-game mark, which I think quite sufficiently illustrates his point. If anything, the marginal differences point to the fact that all players and coaches are different, yet despite these differences there is a pattern of adaptation.

That's also about half the teams /coaches listed. What about the other half? That's another heavy layer of cherry picking there.

I'm not saying the new coach blues doesn't exist, but those numbers are very far from convincing.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is quibbling. Every one of Haynes's splits occurs before the 23-game mark, which I think quite sufficiently illustrates his point. If anything, the marginal differences point to the fact that all players and coaches are different, yet despite these differences there is a pattern of adaptation.


Who can say why it happened more quickly and seamlessly in VGK than elsewhere?

Right - it could be any number of reasons:

The players were scouted and picked for their ability to adapt.
The players were scouted an picked for GG's system, top to bottom (which is more than most coaches get).
The players were motivated to adapt, being cast-offs and, in some cases, perhaps on their last chance if they blew it, or an opportunity to really succeed if they didn't.
The whole novelty of a brand new team motivating them.
The shooting focused everyone to try really hard off the bat.

[Monahammer]

IMO right at the beginning is the perfect time to perform a leadership change. Host inaugural face to faces with the players, say that every leadership position is potentially up for review as the team's vision has changed, and then roll down from there. Obviously Gio would stay captain, I think Monahan is as good a choice as any for an A but some people don't like his lack of vocal leadership. I have no idea what Brouwer brings, at all. He is lazy, overpaid, never says any of the right things publicly, and is generally useless on the ice (sometimes straight up detrimental).

Brouwer has got to go.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

IMO right at the beginning is the perfect time to perform a leadership change. Host inaugural face to faces with the players, say that every leadership position is potentially up for review as the team's vision has changed, and then roll down from there. Obviously Gio would stay captain, I think Monahan is as good a choice as any for an A but some people don't like his lack of vocal leadership. I have no idea what Brouwer brings, at all. He is lazy, overpaid, never says any of the right things publicly, and is generally useless on the ice (sometimes straight up detrimental).

Brouwer has got to go.

I am not especially convinced of the intrinsic value of letter-wearing leaders on a hockey team, although I will concede that with how much value players place on these things there is probably something there. But with regards to "whom should" and "should not" be captains and alternates, this is really a question for which we as fans have no good answers. The reason for this being—quite simply—that we only see a fraction of what the players are doing. The whole matter is entirely internal. On the surface of it, Brouwer appears to have been a bad choice for leadership, but then again, this is from a perspective that is by any measure so shallow as to be irrelevant.

Is Brouwer "lazy"? Perhaps, but how can we know without any actual access to his entire body of work both on- and off-ice? I will grant that he has often looked slow, or disinterested, but these may also be the product of other factors apart from his own work ethic.

Is Brouwer "overpaid"? Yes. But why should that matter in the context of leadership? It may, but I am not convinced it does.

Does Brouwer "never says any of the right things publicly"? There has been an occasion or perhaps two in which his comments have seemed tone-deaf, but then again, it is hard to say what sort of affect this has without gauging opinions of other players about them.

Don't get me wrong: Brouwer's place in the team leadership structure may be problematic, but I am not prepared to pontificate on this. This will ultimately be up to the new coaches and the players. I warrant the only way we can know one way or the other is if Brouwer's "A" is stripped and given to another, or if it is not.

Since his impressive performance at the WCH Backlund looks like a natural candidate. But then again, he wore a letter in Hartley's first season in Calgary, and then it was removed the following year. Why? Who can say? My point here being that while it seems to me like this is a good idea, it may not be.

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am not especially convinced of the intrinsic value of letter-wearing leaders on a hockey team, although I will concede that with how much value players place on these things there is probably something there. But with regards to "whom should" and "should not" be captains and alternates, this is really a question for which we as fans have no good answers. The reason for this being—quite simply—that we only see a fraction of what the players are doing. The whole matter is entirely internal. On the surface of it, Brouwer appears to have been a bad choice for leadership, but then again, this is from a perspective that is by any measure so shallow as to be irrelevant.

Is Brouwer "lazy"? Perhaps, but how can we know without any actual access to his entire body of work both on- and off-ice? I will grant that he has often looked slow, or disinterested, but these may also be the product of other factors apart from his own work ethic.

Is Brouwer "overpaid"? Yes. But why should that matter in the context of leadership? It may, but I am not convinced it does.

Does Brouwer "never says any of the right things publicly"? There has been an occasion or perhaps two in which his comments have seemed tone-deaf, but then again, it is hard to say what sort of affect this has without gauging opinions of other players about them.

Don't get me wrong: Brouwer's place in the team leadership structure may be problematic, but I am not prepared to pontificate on this. This will ultimately be up to the new coaches and the players. I warrant the only way we can know one way or the other is if Brouwer's "A" is stripped and given to another, or if it is not.

Since his impressive performance at the WCH Backlund looks like a natural candidate. But then again, he wore a letter in Hartley's first season in Calgary, and then it was removed the following year. Why? Who can say? My point here being that while it seems to me like this is a good idea, it may not be.

I can only speak to my experience but as someone who has worked my way up in my industry from green apprentice to managing almost 100 people I can tell you unequivocally that in a results driven industry, whether it's hockey or basket weaving, speaking softly and letting your performance speak for itself will gain you respect and loyalty from your peers while being a great guy "in the room" and letting your team fall flat or underachieve under pressure only breeds contempt.

A successful leader needs to be able to pull enough rope to inspire others to pull more themselves. Encouraging others to be better when you can't do better yourself doesn't make you a captain, it makes you a cheerleader.