Grigorenko

[bunomatic]

I had this debate with Deluca a couple years back. The numbers don't back your contention. Sure they all have a certain amount of grit and as Lindy always said, players have to play out of their normal confort zones. Chicago and Detroit traditionally rank near the bottom in hits and blocked shots, to give two examples.

I suppose its a mix of different elements and for some its more and for some its less. I just feel those aspects are important to success in the playoffs. Boston certainly comes to mind. As does L.A. but I do agree its not all you need. 

[X. Benedict]

I had this debate with Deluca a couple years back. The numbers don't back your contention. Sure they all have a certain amount of grit and as Lindy always said, players have to play out of their normal confort zones. Chicago and Detroit traditionally rank near the bottom in hits and blocked shots, to give two examples.

 

I'm with Tom on this. 

[tom webster]

I suppose its a mix of different elements and for some its more and for some its less. I just feel those aspects are important to success in the playoffs. Boston certainly comes to mind. As does L.A. but I do agree its not all you need.

I'm not somewhere I can check but in pretty sure even LA's numbers surprised me.

[JJFIVEOH]

Obvious mis-use of players in game situations is probably the single biggest thing he's done to convince me he's not an NHL caliber coach any more.  That is this season.

 

He's coaching one of the worst teams in NHL history, with a bunch of non-NHL caliber players that has gone through one of the biggest roster turnovers in NHL history. When he doesn't have the same team to work with from week to week, and he has some players that he doesn't know what roles they can fill...................... what more is he supposed to do at this point until he can work with a full roster? Will you agree with me that Ennis, Myers and Stewart are different players under Nolan and Risto, Girgs, Larsson, Deslauriers have progressed nicely? I keep making this point that should be obvious to most yet nobody has backed me up on it. Yet nobody can legitimately say I'm wrong. How you not look at the positives that Nolan brings to the team? Most of the negatives of this season are beyond his control, I know you know that. 

[Hoss]

A lot of people have questioned why Murray has refused to try and get Nolan in on the tank... But maybe it's because Murray already knows that Nolan is bad enough as a coach that it doesn't matter whether Murray steps in or not.

 

Or one of the following assumptions that also look bad:

-Nolan and Murray has a horrible line of communication and don't like each other which means Nolan is gone anyways.

-Nolan has refused which likely brings us back to the assumption above. Same ending.

-Nolan actually is on the tank and his bad coaching is a result of that. This may be the only thing that saves his job if true.

[JJFIVEOH]

A lot of people have questioned why Murray has refused to try and get Nolan in on the tank... But maybe it's because Murray already knows that Nolan is bad enough as a coach that it doesn't matter whether Murray steps in or not.

 

Or one of the following assumptions that also look bad:

-Nolan and Murray has a horrible line of communication and don't like each other which means Nolan is gone anyways.

-Nolan has refused which likely brings us back to the assumption above. Same ending.

-Nolan actually is on the tank and his bad coaching is a result of that. This may be the only thing that saves his job if true.

Or maybe it's all speculation and all Murray has done is given Nolan absolutely nothing to work with to try and ensure a 30th place finish. And maybe Murray really does mean he doesn't get involved with Nolan's decisions when he says he doesn't get involved with Nolan's decisions. Is there any possibility that some people read way too much into it?

[Weave]

He's coaching one of the worst teams in NHL history, with a bunch of non-NHL caliber players that has gone through one of the biggest roster turnovers in NHL history. When he doesn't have the same team to work with from week to week, and he has some players that he doesn't know what roles they can fill...................... what more is he supposed to do at this point until he can work with a full roster? Will you agree with me that Ennis, Myers and Stewart are different players under Nolan and Risto, Girgs, Larsson, Deslauriers have progressed nicely? I keep making this point that should be obvious to most yet nobody has backed me up on it. Yet nobody can legitimately say I'm wrong. How you not look at the positives that Nolan brings to the team? Most of the negatives of this season are beyond his control, I know you know that. 

 

Ennis, Myers, and Stewart have all played at high levels before Nolan.  Not the season before, but before.  Granted, it's been a few seasons since all three of them played as well as they played this season.  I agree that they bought in to what Nolan was saying.  Credit given.  That doesn't lead me to believe he is an NHL coach though.  And I don't think anything beyond ordinary happened with Girgs, Risto, or Larsson.  I'd even go so far as to say that Larsson had been misused right up until injuries left Nolan no choice.  No other NHL coach actually trying to win puts Torrey Mitchell on the powerplay over Cody Hodgsdon.  Or Brian Flyyn.  The in game roster moves have been puzzling.

Edited March 22, 2015 by weave

[inkman]

I'd even go so far as to say that Larsson had been misused right up until injuries left Nolan no choice.

 

This. I've been reading over and over by one poster in this thread how Larsson has progressed under Nolan. Ted outright refused to play him with any skill players until trades and injuries forced his hand. He had no inclination to use him as he is being used now.

[tom webster]

Ennis, Myers, and Stewart have all played at high levels before Nolan. Not the season before, but before. Granted, it's been a few seasons since all three of them played as well as they played this season. I agree that they bought in to what Nolan was saying. Credit given. That doesn't lead me to believe he is an NHL coach though. And I don't think anything beyond ordinary happened with Girgs, Risto, or Larsson. I'd even go so far as to say that Larsson had been misused right up until injuries left Nolan no choice. No other NHL coach actually trying to win puts Torrey Mitchell on the powerplay over Cody Hodgsdon. Or Brian Flyyn. The in game roster moves have been puzzling.

Thanks. You Saved me from responding.

[TrueBlueGED]

I suppose its a mix of different elements and for some its more and for some its less. I just feel those aspects are important to success in the playoffs. Boston certainly comes to mind. As does L.A. but I do agree its not all you need.

Tom is 100% correct. Take a look for yourself:

 

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/team-hit-statistics/2014/

 

Trace it back as far as you want. Look at blocked shots. There simply is no meaningful relationship between the number of hits and blocks to team success. Hit and block shots to your heart's content when you don't have the puck, but if you're among the league leaders in those categories it probably means you don't have the puck enough.

[JJFIVEOH]

Ennis, Myers, and Stewart have all played at high levels before Nolan.  Not the season before, but before.  Granted, it's been a few seasons since all three of them played as well as they played this season.  I agree that they bought in to what Nolan was saying.  Credit given.  That doesn't lead me to believe he is an NHL coach though.  And I don't think anything beyond ordinary happened with Girgs, Risto, or Larsson.  I'd even go so far as to say that Larsson had been misused right up until injuries left Nolan no choice.  No other NHL coach actually trying to win puts Torrey Mitchell on the powerplay over Cody Hodgsdon.  Or Brian Flyyn.  The in game roster moves have been puzzling.

 

 

Thanks. You Saved me from responding.

 

A player doesn't go from being your leading scorer to having 2 points in the first 25 games because of a coach, especially when it's the same coach he had when he was the leading scorer. If I were coach I probably wouldn't have put Hodgson on the power play either. Of course, if Hodgson were on the power play this place would have been bitching that he shouldn't have been there. But, I digress. 

 

Why is it when some of the young guys progress nicely it isn't 'anything beyond ordinary' but if guys like Hodgson and Grigs aren't panning out then Nolan gets all the blame? Is it that tough to think, just maybe, it's the other way around? Maybe, just maybe Nolan has had an impact on their progression and Grigs and Hodgson are lost causes? Hell, if it isn't 'anything beyond ordinary' for young kids to progress naturally without the benefit of a good coach then what difference does it make in firing Nolan to get a coach that's better with young players? 

 

Come on guys, you can't sit here and cherry pick for the benefit of your narrative. You can't sit here and say Nolan had nothing to do with the progression of the younger players but put all the blame on him for any non-progression. By implying there guys naturally progressed you're just contradicting your own points.

This. I've been reading over and over by one poster in this thread how Larsson has progressed under Nolan. Ted outright refused to play him with any skill players until trades and injuries forced his hand. He had no inclination to use him as he is being used now.

 

How do you know this?

[qwksndmonster]

Bad in game player usage, not letting young players play through mistakes, being completely fine with hard working players that don't get results, not working with his GM (could be just as much gmtm's fault), deploying a system that relies entirely on "skate harder."

I appreciate that he's building a culture of hard work, but there's not much else I see that inspires me. This has, of course, all been said before.

Edited March 22, 2015 by qwksndmonster

[Weave]

A player doesn't go from being your leading scorer to having 2 points in the first 25 games because of a coach, especially when it's the same coach he had when he was the leading scorer. If I were coach I probably wouldn't have put Hodgson on the power play either. Of course, if Hodgson were on the power play this place would have been bitching that he shouldn't have been there. But, I digress. 

 

Why is it when some of the young guys progress nicely it isn't 'anything beyond ordinary' but if guys like Hodgson and Grigs aren't panning out then Nolan gets all the blame? Is it that tough to think, just maybe, it's the other way around? Maybe, just maybe Nolan has had an impact on their progression and Grigs and Hodgson are lost causes? Hell, if it isn't 'anything beyond ordinary' for young kids to progress naturally without the benefit of a good coach then what difference does it make in firing Nolan to get a coach that's better with young players? 

 

Come on guys, you can't sit here and cherry pick for the benefit of your narrative. You can't sit here and say Nolan had nothing to do with the progression of the younger players but put all the blame on him for any non-progression. By implying there guys naturally progressed you're just contradicting your own points.

 

You've been cherry picking as well, overplaying the good and belittling the bad that has occurred.  "The other way around" that you are proposing is just as contradictory.  Maybe just maybe Nolan had a negative impact on Hodgson.  Given his in game usage, I think that is most likely.  And I think that Girgs and Risto were such high end propsects that they would have done well even with a dolt at the helm.

 

And I don't want Nolan fired for a coach that is better with young players.  I want a better coach overall.  One that doesn't promote grinders onto the powerplay over legit skill guys.  One that actually uses players like Larsson in positions that are likely to be successful.  

[JJFIVEOH]

You've been cherry picking as well, overplaying the good and belittling the bad that has occurred.  "The other way around" that you are proposing is just as contradictory.  Maybe just maybe Nolan had a negative impact on Hodgson.  Given his in game usage, I think that is most likely.  And I think that Girgs and Risto were such high end propsects that they would have done well even with a dolt at the helm.

 

And I don't want Nolan fired for a coach that is better with young players.  I want a better coach overall.  One that doesn't promote grinders onto the powerplay over legit skill guys.  One that actually uses players like Larsson in positions that are likely to be successful.  

 

So what is Grigos excuse? What is Hodgsons excuse? You can't pick and choose which prospect gets their own credit and which ones get to blame somebody else. If Nolan had that much of an impact on Hodgson, can you imagine how many points he could have had otherwise last year with a real coach? 

 

Ennis, Stewart and Mouson are leading the team in power play points. I hardly consider 2/3 of them grinders. Odd that Hodgson has been trashed all year for being lazy and uncoachable...... until we get a chance to belittle Nolan then it's his fault.

 

Cherry picking.........................

[tom webster]

You've been cherry picking as well, overplaying the good and belittling the bad that has occurred. "The other way around" that you are proposing is just as contradictory. Maybe just maybe Nolan had a negative impact on Hodgson. Given his in game usage, I think that is most likely. And I think that Girgs and Risto were such high end propsects that they would have done well even with a dolt at the helm.

 

And I don't want Nolan fired for a coach that is better with young players. I want a better coach overall. One that doesn't promote grinders onto the powerplay over legit skill guys. One that actually uses players like Larsson in positions that are likely to be successful.

My parting shot, Girgs, Risto, Larsson have only played for TN. How does anyone know how they would have developed unde anyone else. Myers and Stewart have been up and down their whole career. I will give Ted credit for playing Ennis almost exclusively at wing.

I think everyone has pretty much covered why he will be gone and JJ has pretty much admitted that there is nothing any of us can say to change his mind, so can't add much more.

[JJFIVEOH]

Bad in game player usage, not letting young players play through mistakes, being completely fine with hard working players that don't get results, not working with his GM (could be just as much gmtm's fault), deploying a system the relies entirely on "skate harder."

 

I appreciate that he's building a culture of hard work, but there's not much else I see that inspires me. This has, of course, all been said before.

You can't teach talent, you can coach hard work. Nolan did his job, there isn't much more he can do without anything to work with. All been said before but I guess it just hasn't sunk in.

 

How is he not working with his GM? Is this just more speculation like the Larsson post?

My parting shot, Girgs, Risto, Larsson have only played for TN. How does anyone know how they would have developed unde anyone else. Myers and Stewart have been up and down their whole career. I will give Ted credit for playing Ennis almost exclusively at wing.

I think everyone has pretty much covered why he will be gone and JJ has pretty much admitted that there is nothing any of us can say to change his mind, so can't add much more.

 

Funny, I've been asking the same thing to the people that said he can't coach a talented team. And still haven't gotten an answer. 

 

I'll change my mind if/when we can find out if he can coach a talented team or not. You can't expect me to think otherwise without proof. It doesn't work that way in life, why should it be any different here?

[Weave]

So what is Grigos excuse? What is Hodgsons excuse? You can't pick and choose which prospect gets their own credit and which ones get to blame somebody else. If Nolan had that much of an impact on Hodgson, can you imagine how many points he could have had otherwise last year with a real coach? 

 

Ennis, Stewart and Mouson are leading the team in power play points. I hardly consider 2/3 of them grinders. Odd that Hodgson has been trashed all year for being lazy and uncoachable...... until we get a chance to belittle Nolan then it's his fault.

 

Cherry picking.........................

 

I'm not laying Grigo at Nolans feet.  He is his own problem.  Hodgson has been poorly used.  That is on Nolan.  Nolan used him much more in PP, and offensive zone roles with offensively minded players last season, and his numbers show it. As for powerplay, the 2nd unit had grinders on it all season.  Choosing guys like Mitchell and Flynn over Hodgson and Larsson (when he was up) is laughable.  Especially when Flynn and Mitchell did not get any production out of their time in offensive roles.

[bunomatic]

Tom is 100% correct. Take a look for yourself:

 

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/team-hit-statistics/2014/

 

Trace it back as far as you want. Look at blocked shots. There simply is no meaningful relationship between the number of hits and blocks to team success. Hit and block shots to your heart's content when you don't have the puck, but if you're among the league leaders in those categories it probably means you don't have the puck enough.

I won't deny Toms right. It looks cut and dry. I still don't think you can downplay the part hitting has over a seven game series. If you don't have the puck you knock the other guy off the puck to gain or regain possession or to cause a turnover. Takeaways or turnovers probably would rarely happen without some form of hit or threat of a hit. Teams use it as a tactic when they continually throw the puck into a certain D mans corner to wear him down in a 7 game series. Injuries over the length of a series can shorten a series and many of these come from blocked shots or hits. Blocking shots may save goals but it can cause injuries to your team. :blink:

Edited March 22, 2015 by bunomatic

[tom webster]

You can't teach talent, you can coach hard work. Nolan did his job, there isn't much more he can do without anything to work with. All been said before but I guess it just hasn't sunk in.

 

How is he not working with his GM? Is this just more speculation like the Larsson post?

 

 

Funny, I've been asking the same thing to the people that said he can't coach a talented team. And still haven't gotten an answer.

 

I'll change my mind if/when we can find out if he can coach a talented team or not. You can't expect me to think otherwise without proof. It doesn't work that way in life, why should it be any different here?

His track record with high end, offensive talent would indicate a lack of success in the future. Coaches are like every other profession, build a resume and get a chance higher up on the ladder. We all work with people that are sure they could have been the boss of only given the chance. It's always someone or something that stood in their way.

Using your argument approach, Cody Hodgson would be one of the leading scorers in the league if he played with Crosby and Ovechkin. Prove me wrong.

[JJFIVEOH]

His track record with high end, offensive talent would indicate a lack of success in the future. Coaches are like every other profession, build a resume and get a chance higher up on the ladder. We all work with people that are sure they could have been the boss of only given the chance. It's always someone or something that stood in their way.

Using your argument approach, Cody Hodgson would be one of the leading scorers in the league if he played with Crosby and Ovechkin. Prove me wrong.

 

Nolan hasn't had much high end talent to work with. What little he has had to work with hasn't been able to shine because there wasn't much of a team around them. i.e. Ennis. You work your way up and you build a resume and right now Nolan is on top. There isn't any higher to go than where he is if you consider an NHL head coaching job the pinnacle of a coach's career. At this point he can't do anything more until he is given more to work with. So yes, something is in the way and it's called time. Murray has done his part too save for some offseason deals, all we can do is wait. If Murray gives Nolan some talent to work with next year and he doesn't make a significant change, then yes Nolan is the one in the way. 

 

I can't prove you wrong because I don't know. Just like you can't say Nolan can't coach a talented team because you don't know. But if Crosby and Ovechkin were already on my team, I would most certainly put them together with Hodgson to see if ti worked. 

Edited March 22, 2015 by JJFIVEOH

[tom webster]

Nolan hasn't had much high end talent to work with. What little he has had to work with hasn't been able to shine because there wasn't much of a team around them. i.e. Ennis. You work your way up and you build a resume and right now Nolan is on top. There isn't any higher to go than where he is if you consider an NHL head coaching job the pinnacle of a coach's career. At this point he can't do anything more until he is given more to work with. So yes, something is in the way and it's called time. Murray has done his part too save for some offseason deals, all we can do is wait. If Murray gives Nolan some talent to work with next year and he doesn't make a significant change, then yes Nolan is the one in the way.

 

I can't prove you wrong because I don't know. Just like you can't say Nolan can't coach a talented team because you don't know. But if Crosby and Ovechkin were already on my team, I would most certainly put them together with Hodgson to see if ti worked.

There is the difference. Nolan would put Mitchell with Crosby and Ovechkin.

[JJFIVEOH]

There is the difference. Nolan would put Mitchell with Crosby and Ovechkin.

 

If Hodgson had 2 points in 25 games he might.  ;)

[Doohickie]

What's really hard is actually trying to formulate a legitimate list of reasons that a team should fire a coach that is 37-81-16 in his last 134 games (last one year, likely bottom two the next).

 

I guess the only other things I can think of are:

More than a 70% drop in production out of Cody Hodgson, who was once looked at as a key young piece.

A 50% drop in production out of Matt Moulson.

Mysterious player disappearances on a consistent basis for a guy who is said to get the most out of everybody and always has a team FULL of guys that work hard.

 

You don't know what his mission was; what marching orders did GMTM give him?  He may be executing exactly to plan.

[Hoss]

You don't know what his mission was; what marching orders did GMTM give him? He may be executing exactly to plan.

Neither do you or JJ. So nobody should have an opinion. Just be extremely neutral because we don't know every detail.

[Johnny DangerFace]

You don't know what his mission was; what marching orders did GMTM give him?  He may be executing exactly to plan.

 

im not sure what you are hinting at.  But there is absolutely no way a GM instructed a coach to do anything to lose on purpose.  Line meddling and so forth, sure.