2008-09 Rink Wrap: Bruce Boudreau
by J.P. on Jun 24, 2009 7:00 AM EDT
in Rink Wraps
Email
PrintFrom Alzner to Varlamov, we took a look at and graded the 2008-09 season for every player who laced 'em up for the Caps for a significant number of games during the campaign, with an eye towards 2009-10. Now that we've covered the players, it's time to turn our attention to the man behind the bench, Bruce Boudreau.
[Since a coach's season is hard to quantify beyond the numbers above, we figured we'd have a roundtable discussion on what Dirt, err, Gabby did well and what he may not have done so well. Feel free to weigh in on any of these points in the comments.]
J.P.: Alright, guys, time to Wrap the guy behind the bench. Let's talk regular season for now - what did the reigning Jack Adams Trophy winner do that impressed you over the first 82 games of the campaign?
DMG: I thought Boudreau did a very good job of mitigating the Capitals' two most dire early season problems - Jose Theodore's slow start and injuries to the defense.
The goaltending situation could have gotten very messy with Theodore underachieving and Brent Johnson keeping the team in games early on. Yet rather than stubbornly stick with a sub-par Theo just because he was supposed to be "the guy" or make the assumption that he had flaked out on the team, Boudreau was able to use the hot hand to help the Capitals win games without shaking Theodore's confidence.
When it came to the defensive injuries, I think Boudreau did something that he doesn't always do all that well: he put players in a position to succeed. I know Gabby's said a number of times that he tries not to worry too much about matchups or whom his players are playing against but if you look at the quality of competition rating for the team's defensemen from this past season, it seems pretty clear Bruce was trying to protect the AHL callups.
Pepper: I agree on the goaltending point. While a certain legendary former Caps goalie once famously criticized Boudreau for not understanding goaltenders, Gabby seemed to have the pulse on all four (five?!) of them utilized this season, when to start them and when to rest or bench them, and that, of course, extended into the playoffs.
One could even point to the December 23rd "Miracle on 34th Street" for a microcosm of that ability which he showed this past season.
Second, his motivation of the players -- his positive, challenging messages to urge the players to tackle new challenges, push the limits of their game. Continual encouragement and second chances given. It didn't work out with all of the guys (and eventually, I fear, that sort of message will grow stale), but giving Brooks Laich a chance once ot play D, sending Alex Semin out on the PK, occasionally extending Matt Bradley's role beyond just a fourth-line grinder, are shining examples.
[Make sure to click through below the poll to read the rest of the roundtable after the jump.]
J.P.: To that second point, I think we'd agree that the mark of a good coach is that he brings out the best in his players and that he creates a "whole" that's greater than the sum of its parts. Do you think that Boudreau did that this season (again, regular season)?
Tuvan Hillbilly: I do think he has the ability to bring out the best in his players, but at times his giving of second chances as Pepper mentions could be frustrating to watch, as his belief in some players abilities was, shall we say, overly generous.
Pepper: I'm not sure that Boudreau created a "machine" that exceeded expectations. I think he got more than expected out of role players, but remained frustrated and unable to really re-direct the energies of the skilled guys (or, like Fehr, would-be skilled guys) into a more productive direction. This goes back to J.P.'s point about accountability.
Tuvan Hillbilly: Right on, Pepper. I think that some players took to Bruce's supportive, "I believe in you" coaching philosophy like a duck to water, and others were somewhat befuddled by it. Some excelled beyond expectations and others never saw the need to push themselves.
Pepper: Right, and sometimes staying positive and constantly preaching "you can do it, you've got the talent" might backfire to where players believe that they can coast until the last moment, believing that their supreme skills will carry the day, be it a dash to the end of the regular season and a playoff berth, or getting behind in a playoff series, or waiting until Game 7 to close it out (or not).
Even in the course of individual games, there seemed to be a sense of "we can dog it for 40 minutes and then commence an all-out offense assault, and still pull out the 2 points."
DMG:It's awfully hard to argue with the numbers: the team had a great season as a whole and a lot of guys on the team had great seasons individually. Yet it seems like for every Tyler Sloan or Brooks Laich - guys who aren't the most skilled but were valuable contributors because Boudreau put them in positions to succeed - it seemed like there was an Eric Fehr or Michael Nylander, guys who were juggled around in a 'throw-crap-against-the-wall-and-hope-it-sticks' way rather than a process looking at their strengths and weaknesses analytically and trying to fit the best fit for them. I don't know exactly what the solution for those guys would have been, and certianly you can say Fehr didn't step it up when he was given chances and Nylander looked lost pretty much the whole season, but I just don't feel Boudreau used all his guys as effectively as he could have.
I also think you have to look at what this team did as compared to what it looked like it would do in paper and, in some ways unfortunately, it was exactly what you would expect: the team was great on offensive, great on the powerplay, mediocre on the penalty, and sometimes was guilty of lazy play (i.e. not showing up for sixty minutes and taking lazy restraining infractions or stupid retaliatory penalties, particularly among forwards). I feel like a great coach is going to find a way to mitigate his player's weaknesses and Boudreau didn't do that all that effectively. I was starting to wonder if it was just that the players were too stubborn or that their bad habits were too deeply ingrained, but Boudreau's attitude towards the whole thing, more or less saying, "If the guys don't want to do what they need to do, what can I do about?" is making me think a lot of the onus is on him.
J.P.: That segues nicely into the next question - what's the regular season formula for post-season success? Here's a team that scrambled like hell a year ago to make the playoffs and was spent when they got there. Then this year they were on cruise control after the All-Star break and had trouble flipping the switch back to "on" once the post-season rolled around.
What type of team you're going to be in the playoffs is, to a large extent, formed in the regular season when it's easy to develop habits both good and bad, but when you see the Eastern Conference Finals pitting two teams that dogged it for half the season before canning their coach and making a run, how does Bruce keep his guys focused enough in games in November against Atlanta and still keep them fresh for when the games start to mean something?
Tuvan Hillbilly: I think the key word here is consistency during the regular season, and while Bruce knows this he hasn't effectively figured out a way to get the boys to buy into it. It was pretty obvious his "you can't turn it on and off like a water spigot" speech didn't strike a nerve. The carrot is a great motivator but sometimes you gotta use the stick.
DMG: I think you can keep the team focused by providing them with increasingly specific "game within the game" tasks to focus on and improve upon, both in games and in practices. The team has gone from losing to winning despite their bad habits; they should now look to go from losing to winning with bad habits to winning without bad habits. Don't get me wrong, like all Caps fans I'm thrilled the team is winning and love watching the exciting brand of hockey they play. But if they can play the way they've been playing only with fewer bad penalties and bad decisions they're going to become even more difficult to beat.
I think Tuvan Hillbilly is completely right about needing to be willing to use the stick in that type of situation. It seemed to me that most of 08-09 was a honeymoon period for Boudreau; like he was happy to let the team do what they wanted as long as they were winning regularly. That's a pretty stark contrast to a lot of what he said and what was said about him when he first arrived from Hershey. He was really big on constantly striving to get better regardless of what you'd already achieved and setting seemingly impossible goals for yourself. Hopefully he brings some of that type of attitude back next season because if he doesn't, this team is destined for another disappointing playoff exit.
J.P.: Alright, I think we're at a point where people have stopped reading and skipped directly to the vote and comments, so it's time for us to join 'em. Nice work, fellas.
The Vote: Rate Boudreau below on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the best) based on his performance for the season - if he was perfect, give him a 10; if he was average, give him a 5 or a 6; if he was terrible, give him a 1. Note: This is a different rating system than our normal "relative to expectations" system.
The Discussion: What would you like to see Boudreau improve upon in 2009-10? Is there any chance he doesn't finish the season in Washington? What would it take for him to earn a 10 next season?
62 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
170? I’m 172, and 5’11". 170? 170ish? What is the definition of “ish”? Man do I have a thing for Gabby, you might even call it odd or even disturbing. He has been exactly what this team has needed once he took over. He obviously had some very nice pieces of the puzzle here to match his high octane offense scheme. I agree with everything JR has said on his good. The only thing I could say that might be considered a knock would be his constant changing of the lines. No more evident by breaking up the “F-Street” line Flash/Fedorov/Fehr, but we won 50 and had 108 points and so how do you criticize that?
The playoff gamble of benching Theo for Varly was brilliant in hindsight, at the time I was questioning it. That move could’ve shaken the confidence of both goalies had Varly lost 0-5. But this is why I’m not the coach of your Washington Capitals, now if they only let me be GM for a couple of weeks, I’d have so much fun.
BB gets a 9 from me.
170? I’m 172, and 5’11". 170? 170ish? What is the definition of "ish"?
It was a joke, based on his listed playing weight.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Harder to imagine Bruce at 170 or with hair?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
but we won 50 and had 108 points and so how do you criticize that?
“If you’re ever satisfied with where you are, then you’re not good enough.” – Bruce Boudreau
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Sure. But I do think there’s plenty to criticize – sticking with Green and piling on the minutes in the playoffs, shift length, etc. – most of which I touched on here.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
[Note: The scoring system is a little different than the one we’ve been going with – it’s not expectations-based, but rather a raw “how good was he?”]
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
ugh now you tell me. i gave him a 6 based on the players’ scale. i almost think the team got as far as it did in the playoffs despite him. but going with varly was a brave move. sadly, so was sticking with green. and flash over fehr, etc.
next season i’m hoping c-bo and a couple others from the bears will get a chance early on. if it doesn’t work, there’s the deadline and a few vets in the press box. that’s where the coaching will come in, not with managing guys like helmer and sloan. though i agree that no one looked too out of water, and that’s a credit to bruce.
Well he did a good job managing the callups and (hopefully) not breaking the ones that have some degree of viability, but DMG’s comment:
It seemed to me that most of 08-09 was a honeymoon period for Boudreau; like he was happy to let the team do what they wanted as long as they were winning regularly.
Kind of reminded me about something that kept getting tossed out there at the end of last season. I think the team was on a 105(ish) point pace if he was there the whole of 07-08. So now he’s here the whole year, keeps that stride, but stumbled in the postseason. There’s still a hot stove to actually go through, but he knows what he’s got, he’s even getting someone he’s got great familiarity with in the staff. Time for the rubber to meet the road.
There was an odd similarity in Boudreau’s year this year to the line about the duck on a pond. From the surface, he’s just gliding along, but below the surface, his feet are paddling away. If you look at the Caps’ points earned in ten-game segments, they went 11-13-12-18-11-15-11-14. That fourth one is an odd one and might have been his high point of the year — he had to scramble, and he did it successfully (even if some of the competition wasn’t the stiffest). The Caps went 9-1 in that stretch, and in their one loss might have played their best single period of hockey in a decade (unfortunately, it was the first period of a 7-1 loss to the Flyers in which they pounded the Flyer net for 25 shots and didn’t get a goal). And in that stretch… Varlamov had his NHL debut (a win)… the Caps came back from a 4-0 deficit to beat the Rangers… they went 5-0 in one-goal games… the outscored the opposition 36-21 in the nine wins… got ten goals out of Alex Ovechkin (tying his best 10-game segement)… did it with Sean Collins (9 games), Karl Alzner (8), Tyler Sloan (4), and Bryan Helmer (2) playing defense… and getting game-winning goals from six different players in nine wins.
And that’s the problem, too. That was from December 13th through January 3rd. After that, the Caps were good — very good in fact — but not great. And bad habits seemed to creep into individuals’ games. Those blemishes were revealed in the playoffs.
All in all, Boudreau set a high standard for himself with the 2007-2008 season. This one was a bit under that bar.
8
If you've read this far...seek help.
I just don’t see how a coach who won one playoff round (and even that, perhaps, the luck of catching lightning in a bottle in goal) after his team finished with the fourth-best record in hockey can be getting 9’s and 10’s.
This team had major disciplinary problems all year, had motivation issues from around February through March, and a couple of it’s young former first-rounders (Fehr and Schultz) failed to really progress (to be sure, not entirely on the coach). Also, the team couldn’t find a way to squeeze much of anything out of a skilled and expensive Michael Nylander (again, not entirely on the coach).
Of course, there was an awful lot of “good” – Mike Green, the PP and so on – but there’s too much “bad” there for me to give him any more than an 8, and I’m leaning 7.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 24, 2009 8:22 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I think this post by JP could be taken as too negative, but I think its exactly right. I had kind of the same reaction, in a more positive way:
My expectations for Boudreau were extremely high. Coming off last year, I think he’s a great motivational coach. But there are some players he doesn’t “get” and there are some tactical situations where he routinely gets out-coached. I’m willing to live with that because the results have been so good. I’m convinced that Boudreau gets more out of his stars than almost any other coach. And that’s what matters most.
My expectations were very high, so all Boudreau did was meet them. I could give him a 5 for matching my ridiculous expectations, but I don’t think that’s fair. So I’m violating the rules and giving him a 7. Because we shouldn’t take excellence for granted. The Caps have had a lot of teams with lots of “paper” talent that accomplished nothing. This team won the Southeast again, had 108 points, took the Stanley Cup champs to game 7. All with the normal amount of adversity. I think at times they made it look almost too easy, so it’s easy for some to criticize, but we have to recognize what really was a great year.
But from now on Boudreau doesn’t ever get a 10 from me unless he really breaks out of himself, becomes a tactical genius, and figures out what to do with players like Nylander. In other words, he (like Ovechkin) would have to be virtually perfect to get that 10. Because I’m already on to the fact that he’s very good at what he does.
Honestly, who out there would anyone prefer to have? Scotty Bowman’s retired, and even he wasn’t perfect.
by Gould Old Days on Jun 24, 2009 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I weighed those factors in my review of his performance and landed on a 7. Again, lots of good there, but significant room for improvement, especially in making those key adjustments on the fly to adapt to another team. Watching how deftly Babcock and Bylsma did this in the SCF really highlighted that for me.
Rockin' the Red in Section 412
Interesting discussion, but more negative than I expected. I guess I’m more glass-half-full, about sports teams in particular where there can only be 1 champ but that doesn’t make the other 30+ teams failures.
I just don’t see how a coach who won one playoff round (and even that, perhaps, the luck of catching lightning in a bottle in goal) after his team finished with the fourth-best record in hockey can be getting 9’s and 10’s.
I gave him an 8 but can more readily defend the 9s and 10s than I could defend this quoted view, which I think frames the question very oddly. Bruce took a team that started last year terribly and turned it around to get it barely into the playoffs.
This year, he got that team to play winning hockey on a consistent enough basis that they finished 4th, as you point out, with less than average goaltending. There’s strong quantitative evidence that goaltending is (and goaltenders are) the most valuable part of the game, so that’s no small feat (and here’s a tip of the cap to Detroit, who built a dynasty w/o ever having great goaltending).
He made great use of the team’s assets (the Young Guns), which before you assume that’s inevitable, recall what a lousy job his predecessor did with them. He made do with a couple of really old forwards playing an awful lot of minutes and he continued to develop players like Stecks and Laich. On the backline, he basically had one superstar and a crop of 5 or 6 mediocrities.
And in the playoffs, he took the eventual SC champs (and last year’s runners up) to 7 games, something achieved by only the Caps and the Wings. The Pens are absolutely stacked, and there’s no shame in losing to them.
I found the overall discussion of Boudreau to be more negative than balanced. Yes, I come to this site for the critiques and insights, but I think a more balanced view would have been that he had a terrific year, that the team still has plenty of things it could do better and it follows that there’s probably more than Bruce could do better.
Generally, however, I think all of us would be well served to show a bit of humility in our assessments of coaches in all sports. We have absolutely no idea how good the coaches are at most of the things that are (probably) most important in their jobs. All we can do is see lineup and playing time choices, some tactical in game decisions and of course the outcomes (in wins and losses). There’s a heck of lot more to the job (and outcomes) than that. Managing a locker room with talents as disparate as we have is a daunting leadership task. I always thought the baseball prospectus guys had it right: it’s (relatively) easy to assess player performance. It’s incredibly difficult to assess manager/coach performance, so we can make some observations and form hypotheses, but we ought to be humble about taking that all the way to forming judgments, except in the most extreme cases of sustained dominance or inferiority where it’s hard to argue with the results.
I gave him a 7.
He did better than what I was expecting, but failed to deliver on some key points for me.
It seemed all year he was trying to chase that “special” combination of forwards for each line. You look across the league and you see most teams have fairly static lines, yet BB would utilize a different 2nd and 3rd line combo just about every week and a different first line combo if the game dictated Semin needing more ice time.
This team needed to develop a killer instinct this season. I have yet to see this team play real playoff hockey, the kind that inspires confidence in the viewer. To get a 10 from me next season, we need that killer instinct, and a cup.
Infact, anything short of eastern conference finals and we may see some major changes in 10-11.
One last thing to add. The hottest teams at the end of the year play the best playoff hockey. Some could say that the Caps schedule in the last month+1/2 of the season doomed them to failure… I tend to agree. But what is missing in this is that the Caps went just about wire to wire as the top team in the SE. They held strong in that position all year, and where did it get them?
Detroit excluded, teams making it the furthest in the playoffs seem to do so with a late-regular-season surge, using that momentum to propel them into a lot of extra games. Maybe it’s worth penning in the boys early in the season only to unleash them down the stretch. Maybe that’s what Hanlon was trying to do two seasons ago… ducks to avoid the onslaught
Maybe that’s what Hanlon was trying to do two seasons ago
Ha! That made me laugh outloud.
I think the one thing that you are missing is that the teams that finished hot and went deep (Carolina, Pitt) have a number of players that know how to win in May & June. I don’t know if they were taking it easy for the first half and that was part of the winning formula, or if they were actually struggling and managed to pull all the pieces together. My guess is that they were really having trouble.
I think the one thing that you are missing is that the teams that finished hot and went deep (Carolina, Pitt) have a number of players that know how to win in May & June.
The other thing that those teams had was new coaches mid-season. Just sayin’.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
But what is missing in this is that the Caps went just about wire to wire as the top team in the SE. They held strong in that position all year, and where did it get them?
I think a stronger challenge from Carolina next year would help the team keep its focus during the loooong regular season.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I don’t think that can be said enough. That November game kept them in a funk until Maurice came back and took them on a 102 point pace the rest of the way.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 24, 2009 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions
The Good: Masterfully handling all those injuries in November/December/January, leading the team to one of the best seasons in franchise history, handling some extremely talented players without a hint of dissension or infighting, believing in Dave Steckel when others didn’t , keeping his team focused when they went down 3-1 to the Rangers and, most importantly, pulling the plug on Theo after Game 1 when his goalie coach told him not to.
The Bad: His disinterest in the defensive side of the game, not being able to get something out of Nylander, his uber-belief in Flash, allowing his star players to skate extended shifts, not getting past the second round and, most importantly, allowing his team to come out so incredibly flat for game 7 against the Pens.
If this were Bruce’s first season, he’d have got a nine maybe a ten. However, the bar has been raised and just being good isn’t good enough any longer. I gave him an 8, taking one point off for each round he didn’t reach.
yes, except for the two "allowing" items . .
I say okay to all your Bads except:
- “allowing his star players to skate extended shifts” + Remarkably hard to change this habit, particularly when in order to do so he’d have to become what he ain’t, a hard ass disciplinarian. Okay yeah, maybe he ought to become a hard ass disciplinarian on occasion. Granted.
- “allowing his team to come out so incredibly flat for game 7 against the Pens” + What was he supposed to do? Forfeit? Smack them all upside the head and scream imprecations in their faces on their way out onto the ice? Serve espresso laced with Red Bull after the 1st period? What can the coach do, really DO, in a situation like that once it has unfolded? Just asking!
Not making any excuses, just asking.
What was he supposed to do? Forfeit? Smack them all upside the head and scream imprecations in their faces on their way out onto the ice? Serve espresso laced with Red Bull after the 1st period?
strangely, I can see Bruce trying all these things. Except the forfeiting part.
Well, why did they come out flat for two game 7s? Was it because, both times, they finally felt that they had made it to the point where the other team was on the verge of elimination, not realizing that they themselves were too?
by red army line on Jun 24, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
What can the coach do, really DO, in a situation like that once it has unfolded?
If I knew the answer, I’d quit my day job. All I know is that the game 7 debacle wasn’t all Pittsburgh’s doing, some of the blame has to come on the Caps end and, to paraphrase Harry Truman, the buck stops at Bruce’s desk. Maybe you call an earlier timeout, maybe you switch up lines, maybe you yank Varly after two goals and not four. I don’t know what if anything would have worked, but I do know what he tried didn’t. So he gets a demerit for that game.
not being able to get something out of Nylander
I agree whole-heartedly. We’ve spent so much time griping about Nylander’s cap space, but some of the blame has to be on Bruce (as much as I love him). While he obviously doesn’t fit into BB’s system, to consistantly sit a guy as talented at Nylander seems to me a total waste. Part of a coach’s job is to work with the team you have, and I think the Nylander situation is a glaring mark against BB.
But seriously, how can you not love the guy? A personal favorite BB moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjf1XI6uoH0 (10 sec in)
by SeattleCapsFan on Jun 26, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Gave him a nine because I love the guy – plain and simple.
I misunderestimated his ability to get his guys up for Game 6 1/3 (they only played one period of game 7) and it really crushed me. But I look at the players’ being at fault for most of that.
Next year, I think the Cup Final beckons – I will be severely disappointed with anything other than an appearance in the Finals.
1) Gave him a 6. Yes, the team had a great record considering their injury issues(This is where he excelled) BUT the issues that plagued the team(PK/undisciplined penalties, etc never improved from day 1)
2) The coach has to take a good deal of the blame for special teams and the team’s discipline. Bruce would always say the right things, but in the end nothing seemed to change.
3) To get a 10 next season the team would have to win the conference/and win 3 rounds in the post season. Yes, very high/lofty goals, but the team has the talent to do it. Do they have the right coach to lead them there?
I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else
Come ON, Faux!
With all due respect but
A 6. A bloody 6??!!!!!!???
Unvarnished criticism is good but this blog takes it new a new level – yeesh!
The guy had the balls to shelve a goalie with proven playoff experience for a raw rookie – and was right. Give him some props – he outdid himself over last season, and yes, there were some discipline problems but that is the responsibility of the players. What’s he going to to do – bench Semin and Feds for HHT’s? And put who on their place?
And there are some awfully good teams with shitty PK records – most notably the Red Wings.
by S h a g g y on Jun 24, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Give him some props – he outdid himself over last season, and yes, there were some discipline problems but that is the responsibility of the players.
And if the players aren’t fulfilling their responsibility, whose responsibility does it become? The coach’s. At the end of the day Boudreau is these guys’ boss and if they’re not doing their job it’s his responsibility to get them to do their job. How – yelling, closed door meetings, drills, benchings, whatever, is for him to figure out. That’s his job.
And there are some awfully good teams with shitty PK records – most notably the Red Wings.
Yes, and there are some awfully mediocre teams with good penalty killing numbers. But what I don’t think anyone can debate is that you can take any team in the NHL and, by improving their penalty kill success rate, make them a better team when it comes to winning games an notching points. To say ‘well, we’re a good team even with these flaws, so it doesn’t matter’ or ‘look, other successful teams have flaws too!’ means you’re never going to get any better.
I think a six is perfectly reasonable. Look at the team – it’s loaded with talent. Also look at some of the glaring mistakes and weaknesses the team had and had all season long (as Faux notes). To me looking at an very talented team that keeps making the same basic, dumb mistakes all season long isn’t indicative of the head coach doing a great job, especially when it’s part of a bigger picture that includes questionable personnel decisions, losing a playoff game in part from not having your bench in order, and a attitude of “well, the guys are going to do what they’re going to do and I can’t really do anything about”, it’s awfully hard for me to be completely on board with what the coach is going.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Bruce is the right coach for this team right now and I don’t want him ousted by any means. But I also think that given how much talent the Capitals have most decent NHL coaches could have had similar seasons.
The team is loaded on talent – but not defensively (and they STILL lacked a consistent pivot on the 3rd line). It is a tremendously YOUNG team as well – holy crap, Schultz, Green, Alzner, Juice even – they’re babes still.
This is not a shutdown defensive team, Poti and Pothier are capable leaders, and Erskine fills gaps. But I think they lack leadership on the blueline, and THAT killed them. Why else would teh Pens be allowed wave after wave of chances?
That’s what did them in – not Bruce, Varly, or lack of discipline.
by S h a g g y on Jun 24, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, when you’re spending half a period or more each game killing penalties, that could be an even-strength or PP goal lost and one against.
by red army line on Jun 24, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Whether or Gordon or Steckel winds up being the third line center, the team will have someone who is more than capable of playing good defense in that spot.
But the team’s defense as a whole was actually not bad and the aggregate numbers get bogged down by the high number of restraining fouls (primarily committed by forwards) and Theodore’s bad start.
This is not a shutdown defensive team, Poti and Pothier are capable leaders, and Erskine fills gaps. But I think they lack leadership on the blueline, and THAT killed them. Why else would teh Pens be allowed wave after wave of chances?
A combination of the defense corps being hurt, Boudreau deciding to give Jay Beagle three minutes a night instead of dressing Sloan, and Boudreau not getting his guys to do what they needed to do to win. If a guy or even a team makes a mistake once or for a period or even a game, it’s on them. When they make the same mistakes over and over and over it’s gets more difficult to say “that’s the player’s responsibility, the coach can’t do anything”.
No one’s saying the Capitals are or should be a great defensive team. What we’re saying is that there were a number of pretty noticeable problems with the team that didn’t seem to get any better and a large part of a coach’s job is to get his team to improve in its weakest areas.
To expand on that some:
I think going in to the season you would have looked at the Capitals and said “Skill-wise: elite offensive talent, good depth up front, some guys on ‘D’ playing bigger roles than they should, some questions in net, should have a good powerplay and might struggle on the penalty kill” and what we got was an elite offensive and powerplay, an average defense and penalty kill, and guys who kept playing to their bad habits rather than fixing them. The Capitals were exactly who they looked like they’d be on paper and to me that suggests the coach more of less did a decent, solid, middle-of-the-road type job.
This is not a shutdown defensive team
This doesn’t have to be a “shutdown defensive team.” New Jersey, the Dallas of a few years back — they were “shutdown” teams. They suffocated you. The Caps, on the other hand, need to be more responsible with the puck. It’s one thing to be a fast-break offense, it’s quite another to throw the puck around without apparent purpose, and there looked to be some of that. Those are the things that create the odd-man breaks that goalies spend sleepless nights worrying about.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 24, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
7 for Gabby. I did not expect 50 wins and 108 points, nor did I expect him to keep up with his (roughly) 2 wins for every loss. He did a fine job this year, certainly no drop off from his inaugural partial year. That said, I think he was outcoached for stretches in the playoffs—both Bylsma and Torts figured out how to shut down our transition game and clog the neutral zone in each round—and, as others have stated, he waits an awful long time to pull the plug on an underperforming player.
Still, I’d rather have him than just about anyone else behind our bench right now.
from the house that Red Jesus built
Rink Teaser: We’ve got a fun Pick ‘Em that’s somewhat related to this post coming up at noon today. Be sure to be around for it.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
8 for Boudreau
The positives outweighed the negatives, but I was disappointed with Playoff results. My biggest criticism is that he didn’t sit players who were injured and a clear liability to the team in the Pitts. series when there were healthy, capable players available in Hershey. The Coach should call the shots, not the players. The responsibility also lies with the players who obviously wanted to play & made a selfish decision rather than looking at what’s best for the “team” and “outcome”. The Nylander situation is a real dilemma. Benching him hasn’t seemed to make a difference, can’t see anyone else wanting him, and obviously he doesn’t mind sitting back & collecting his salary - no effort required, no injuries … and still the money rolls in. Definitely something wrong with the system & some players have figured it out (i.e. if you don’t want to change your style, don’t like the coach, are nearing the end of your career and have a no-trade clause in your contract … you just ride it out). Or, if you’re Dany Heatley .. you demand a trade & you pick the teams you’re interested in playing for. Can’t see Bruce being able to do anything in the Nylander situation (sadly). A coach can work wonders with players who are coachable, want to play, & are “team” players …. but there will always be those who don’t give a rip or believe they call the shots (and they might be right).
The fact that the same mistakes were repeated from October through April does not reflect well on the coaching. If that doesn’t change next year, it’s realistic to see him gone. That would have sounded blasphemous a year ago, but coaching in the NHL is a joke. Dan Bylsma is really that much of a genius?
Russian Machine Never Breaks
Bylsma will be interesting to watch next year. He “let penguins be penguins” after he took over, and it paid off. That was his “genius.” If I had a vote, I’d have given it to him for the Adams. He took a team that was being overmanaged, micromanaged, browbeaten, whatever you want to call it, and loosened the reins on their style.
OK, now what does chapter 2 look like? For this, I think it will pay to see how Evgeni Malkin breaks out of the gate next year. Lots of points, finalist for two awards, winner of the Conn Smythe. If Bylsma “lets penguins be penguins,” could that be too loose a rein on a guy who now has it all? I don’t put Crosby in this discussion, because he impresses me as more self-regulating a character.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 24, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
I gave him a 6, but was voting based on expectations, not raw overall performance. I really like Boudreau, but a couple of things really bothered me that led to the lower score. As others have mentioned, he failed to address the teams weaknesses throughout the season. Granted, he only has the players he was given to work with, and it wasn’t an overwhelming defensive corps. But the team had the same problems all year long, and it’s his job to do some tweaking to fix the problems (and I think this really gets at the issue of accountability that has been brought up before).
My second problem is related to the first. I get the feeling that he is not good at adjusting his system. He has a good system, and when it works it works really well. But when it doesn’t work he doesn’t seem able to make necessary adjustments, and this has led the team to struggle against trapping teams and Boudreau getting outcoached in the playoffs. I’m not saying you should scrap everything when things aren’t going well, but good coaches need to make adjustments during a game/series, and I don’t think BB has been successful in doing that yet.
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 24, 2009 12:27 PM EDT reply actions
I rate him an 8. Looking back at the first three months of the season with injuries and a shaky #1 goaltender…I thought he managed that masterfully. The team won and was competitive and I put a lot of that on his leadership. The call ups and line shifting were also mostly positive.
Where he really disappointed me was on the discipline. Not just the long shifts, but the dumb penalties. This was highlighted in the playoffs. Teams like Detroit are winners year after year not just with great players, but with discipline. For him to get a 10 next year I want to see some clamping down on this.
Did BB manage the injury situation masterfully, or did the call-ups just simply not do all the things that the veterans were doing (undisciplined penalties, lengthy shifts)?
After reading most people’s comments, I’m starting to think that BB’s #1 offseason goal should be how he plans to run this team with an iron fist more quickly when it needs to be done. Hey, they can all be BFF’s forever after they share spirits from Lord Stanley’s Cup, until then… keep your stick blades on the ice and keep your skates churnin’, boys!
But most importantly… thank you for turning this team of ours around, Coach! Don’t let up until we’re parading down Constitution! (and whatever you do, don’t let Ovi drive any of the parade cars!)
by war_capitals on Jun 25, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
For a 10 next year, I think he has to work with the team on a defensive system. Not a shutdown system like the Devils had, but some sort of structure the players adhere to when the other team is in their zone, so the puck comes out quickly. Too many times it looked like the guys were defending as 2 defenseman and a LW, a C, and a RW instead of a five-man unit.
And the Capitals have to make the Stanley Cup Finals as long as Green, Backstrom, and Ovechkin are healthy and the goaltending is solid. That was my expectation heading into this season, and it isn’t changing because I know that 08-09 Cup finalists were worse than 07-08, while the Caps improved—they could play stifling defense via puck possession when playing inspired hockey.
I used the players’ scale too, giving him a 5. He did an excellent job handling the injuries, but then shouldn’t the team have done better when healthy? Maybe Varly and Neuvirth have the right idea—half Hershey and half Washington seems to work best.
Using the scale I was supposed to use—7.
by red army line on Jun 24, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Couple oh questions/observations
Regular season:
According to the organization’s and ownership’s statements going into this season, making it to the playoffs this year was simply a baseline expectation. But I would rate higher than a 5 in that we didn’t sneak in under the wire, but on the other hand, like many I had questions about how prepped and focused we were heading into the playoffs and some personnel decisions.
Playoffs:
The Rangers were widely viewed as one of the weakest teams in the playoff field and they took us the distance despite Lundy being human on a number of occasions. Were we out-played or out-coached? Injuries or not, we came out better against the eventual Cup winners in round 2.
Do we shake our heads that we got booted in the 2nd round, or do we assume we’d be raising the Cup if not for a very uncharacteristic game 7 no-show on national tv?
I rated him up to a 6 because apparently I’m missing what an exceptional season (compared to expectations) Bruce had compared with everyone else and I don’t want to screw up his average for my lack of understanding.
8
-1 for failing to fix the penalties.
-1 for letting the team lose focus for 2-3 months.
-1 for Flash.
+1 for not letting the team fold against NYR.
Also an 8
Ten = Cup Parade. Nine = closer than they got. I don’t need to go into the good and the bad; it’s been pretty much dissected already.
8
Man, I wish that we could most from mobile devices. I can rarely get involved during the day.
Great regular season. This time, the Caps didn’t crumble when the injury bug hit.
The good has been covered, as has the bad. My take?
I think he needs to adapt a little better in games when the team is being outplayed. They kept to the ‘system’ sometimes when they should have adjusted. Or adjusted too late. Others mentioned this as well.
If the stars are taking liberties with ice time, its up to the Coach to reel them back in. Sit them for a few shifts, make the solution known, don’t relent. If you’re down, and you need Ovechkin or Semin to win the game for you, you aren’t deep enough. No more excuses when it comes to long shifts.
Playing some guys too much in the playoffs. Green, Poti, and Semin are my targets here. Green, for obvious reasons, Poti because his feet were too banged up to keep a crease under control, and Semin because he can’t do anything with one thumb. I know you can’t call up everyone, but they had a D in the wings. Losing Semin would be huge, but he was lost anyway. If you have to freeze a thumb, might as well be in the press box.
Also, there were a number of ‘interviews’ where Bruce alluded to not knowing exactly what his players were thinking or doing. I didn’t like the comment. Either learn to deflect questions/lie better, or get your finger back on the pulse. ( he said he doesn’t go into the locker room much; I thought maybe he should visit more).
I can’t blame him too much for switching lines all the time because he couldn’t get his 2nd line going consistently. Thats a personnel issue.
The good is fantastic. Look at his numbers! Look at those wins! Look at how he nurtures players. And, I understand his thinking. I thought Varlamov should play game 2, and when I heard BB give the exact same reasons that I gave, I felt refreshed. After all these years, finally a coach that makes sense to me, aside from the above comments. It can’t all be roses. There is a learning curve for BB too. He just happens to be a bit ahead of it. We’ll see how the Woods signing plays out. I thought they would go outside the org for an experienced (NHL) assistant. Apparently, Woods has payed enough dues and there is only so much questioning of BB that I allow myself.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
53 | 25 | 17 | 11 | 61 |
|
Washington
|
54 | 28 | 21 | 5 | 61 |
|
Winnipeg
|
56 | 26 | 24 | 6 | 58 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
53 | 23 | 24 | 6 | 52 |
|
Carolina
|
55 | 20 | 25 | 10 | 50 |
(updated 2.10.2012 at 9:27 AM EST)
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Puck Previews: Blackhawks reeling; Sabres streaking; Holmstrom’s 1000th game
- Will Teemu Selanne remain with the Anaheim Ducks through the trade deadline?
- Nikolai Zherdev takes stick to crotch, elbow drop in KHL game (Video)
- Puck Headlines: Accused coach Pravilov dead; more Tim Thomas heat; Junior team goes nuts post-shootout
- After Scott Gomez scored, other candidates for NHL goal drought obsessions
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Blue Jackets place Lebda, Methot on injured reserve, add Prout, York on emergency recalls
- Blue Jackets put Lebda, Methot on injured reserve
- Lightning's Dominic Moore fined $2,500
- Detroit goalie Howard sidelined by broken index finger, hopes to practise soon
- Howard misses 4th game because of broken finger
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
