2009-10 Rink Wrap: Bruce Boudreau
by J.P. on Jun 14, 2010 11:10 AM EDT
in Rink Wraps
Email
PrintFrom Alzner to Varlamov, we took a look at and graded the 2009-10 season for every player who laced 'em up for the Caps for a significant number of games during the campaign, with an eye towards 2010-11. 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 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.]
JP: Let's start with the regular season. The Caps ran away with the Eastern Conference and won the Presidents' Trophy handily. How much of that do you attribute to the guy behind the bench?
Stephen Pepper: I think Coach Boudreau deverses most all of the credit typically given the bench boss of a Presidents' Trophy winning team, by getting his players to perform to their regular season abilities, and consistently.
There was no prolonged losing streak and, instead, a franchise record-shattering winning streak. It takes a careful, thoughtful, and inspirational coach to navigate that kind of run. Nick Backstrom and Alex Semin each had career seasons, and several others reached, or at least closed in on, their fullest statistical potentials.
No collection of individual skill can orchestrate such a beginning-to-end dominant season effort as did the Caps in 2009-10, without an extraordinarily sharp and tireless figure behind the bench. But we are just talking about the regular season, right?
BeccaH: It seems like the longer Boudreau remains coach of the Caps, the more we figure out about his strengths and weaknesses – and a lot of the success from this season seemed to be a result of his strengths and in spite of his weaknesses.
He has an innate ability to coach performances out of players that I’m not sure other coaches would be able to get; Mike Green’s regular season play and continued evolution is a perfect example of that, as is the performance of any player who broke out of a slump and credited Boudreau with talking him through it. As you guys mentioned, the number of career years and the high caliber of play for so much of the regular season is something for which Boudreau deserves a lot of credit. The focus during winning streaks and the refusal to accept prolonged losing streaks came directly from Boudreau, and he understands that the up-tempo, offensively potent style he uses is perfectly suited to his team.
But it also takes a team this talented to overcome some of Boudreau’s weaknesses. He played favorites, using ice time as a punishment for some while stubbornly refusing to take it away from stars who might have been struggling or were playing irresponsibly. He never really got the penalty kill to click despite having some decent penalty-killers in his stable. And while he kept them focused most of the time, he still never seemed able to convey the importance of not overlooking your opponent – although not to the degree they did last year, the team still struggled with weaker opponents throughout the season.
David M. Getz: I really don't know. On the one hand the Capitals were absolutely dominant and, as Stephen noted, consistent. But at the same time, they had an incredibly skilled team and really did beat up on weaker competition by virtue of being in the Eastern Conference and the Southeast. Plus most of the problems we thought the team had coming in to the season were never really fixed. I guess I'd just say that I think the Capitals would have been one of the best regular season teams in the NHL this year with a competent coach, but it's hard for me to believe there are too many guys who would have led them to a 121 point season.
JP: Right. On the one hand, unbelievable regular season success, but problems that were there a season earlier remained (the penalty kill still struggled, Alex Ovechkin still took obscenely long shifts, etc.). He had a great team and had 'em playing great - just look at the number of guys who had career-type seasons - and I give him a lot of credit for keeping the team focused over the course of an 82-game regular season (something I had thought the team would struggle with).
Then, of course, came the playoffs and the epic fail of not only losing to an 8-seed after winning the Presidents' Trophy, but doing so after holding a 3-1 series lead. How culpable is Bruce Boudreau for the loss?
[Ed. Note: Be sure to keep reading after the jump, beneath the poll]
DMG:Very, though not as culpable as people might want to think.
At the risk of sounding like a sore loser or an apologist, the Capitals did encounter some incredibly bad luck in their first round series and were, as a whole, the better team. You can be the better team and still be undone by a hot goalie, bad luck, or, in the case of the Capitals, both.
That said, there's always going to be some element of chance involved in sports, especially in a seven game series format, and what a good team does is make sure they excel in the portions of the game they can control, so that the impact of the portions they can't control is minimal. I think you'd have a hard case arguing the Capitals, with their mediocre-at-best special teams play, questionable lineup decisions, bad shot selection, and refusal to get the puck deep and chase it down, did that. That's a failure that has to come back to Boudreau. You might not be able to make the players do exactly what you want at all times, but when they make the same mistakes game after game, you have to look at the coach.
Plus, and I hate to sound like I'm scapegoating or engaging in hyperbole, the decision to stick with Tomas Fleischmann for six games could have cost Washington the series.
Tuvanhillbilly: I have to admit, I’m really torn here. The Russophile side of me wants to apply Tolstoyan (aka "Russian to the core") philosophy to the situation—which believes that the outcome of any event is not governed by the plans or actions of a leader, but rather by the sum total of the individual actions of the participants, and the end results of said actions are selected not so much by the will of the participant, but by fate alone. While Tolstoy was talking about war and politics, I think a sporting team is a fair enough analogy. BTW, we’ve all actually seen this philosophy reflected in comments by some of the Russian players (Semin comes to mine right away), when he says things like "I did all I could but I just didn’t get any luck" or "things just didn’t go my way".
On the other hand, being ex-military myself, I remember one phrase drummed into my head at NCO school—"you can delegate authority but you can’t delegate responsibility". Meaning that whatever the outcome of the actions of those who serve under you, you are ultimately responsible for the outcome of their actions. They are only doing what YOU told trained them to do—and if they show a propensity or inability to not follow your directives, it is your responsibility to either get them to the level they need to be at or move them to a less critical position.
So ultimately I do think Bruce should be responsible to some degree for not fixing things that needed to be fixed, but I also think that some of the players are at fault for not being introspective enough about their own game, instead relying up the "fate" crutch to explain their shortcomings. Maybe Bruce should buy them all a copy of "The Power of Your Subconscious Mind".
BeccaH: Right after the loss to Montreal, I was ready to completely blame Bruce for the loss – now that I’ve had time and distance and seen many other playoff series, I’m more inclined to say that while Bruce definitely shoulders some of the blame, some of it has to fall on the team and some of it, like David said, comes down to a bad match-up, a hot goalie and a bit of luck. Most of us knew that Montreal was probably the worst draw the Caps could have gotten. Montreal came into the series knowing exactly how to shut down (or at least minimize) the offensive threat from the Caps. They had a frustrating penalty kill, the ability to clog the neutral zone and disrupt both flow and shot angles and a red hot goalie who provided the final push they needed.
Still, the Caps had the talent to overcome that and they didn’t. They had a chance to finish off the Canadiens – three times – and couldn’t. The fault lies with both the team and the coaching staff; obviously we don’t know what Boudreau and his staff told the team to do, but it’s hard to believe Boudreau would watch the same series we were watching and not at least try to get his team to adjust. But it’s also his job to keep them focused while in a position to eliminate their opponent, to instill in them a killer instinct, and for whatever reason he wasn’t able to do that.
Some of the decisions Boudreau made during the series were also somewhat strange. Flash getting consistent ice time until the end of the series is baffling, and benching Walker until Game 7 when it was clear the Caps needed a bit more grit and a bit less, er, flash is equally so. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome; that the power play unit remained (mostly) intact throughout the series despite scoring just one goal is a pretty good demonstration of that.
JP: What about accountability, a point we've harped on - admittedly from a distance - a bit in the past? Has anything changed there?
DMG: Maybe a little. He seemed more willing to speak frankly, even harshly about his players than in past seasons, and he did reduce Fleischmann's ice time and eventually scratch him in the postseason. But he also seemed unwilling to hold certain guys accountable. His attitude on his best offensive players skating long shifts has always been "yeah, well, what are you gonna do?" and that didn't really change this year, and it was very rare to see any of his favored player see their ice reduced, even when they perhaps needed it.
That sort of brings me to my bigger issue with accountability, which is that I'd like to see some more of it out of Boudreau. When he was asked about the playoffs series his response was that Montreal was the one team that he didn't want to face and they were a rough matchup for the Capitals. He's defended his style by saying that he was playing the players he was given, and excused the team's weak penalty killing performance the same way. He responded to an inquiry about Fehr's ice time by setting up a straw man about whether he should have take time from Knuble or Semin and ignored a question about whether he gave Flash too long a leash in the postseason. He complained about having the team's flight from Montreal being delayed by fog.
I understand that he's going to defend his tactics, his players, and his staff. I understand no one likes having their decision making or tactics questioned by the media. I understand that what Boudreau puts out for public consumption may be very different from what he's really thinking and may not be indicative of what goes on behind closed doors. But I also wish he'd respond to the criticism and questioning more, and dismiss it out of hand less.
BeccaH: I don’t see much of a change, either, and that’s frustrating. It’s great that he wants the players to be themselves and play to their strengths, but I can’t help but think he doesn’t rein them in as much not because he doesn’t want to but because he can’t. He seems unable to control Alexander Semin – not that many can – and hardly has more control over Ovechkin, Green and Fleischmann.
He has his favorites for sure, and they simply get a longer leash; we all remember Brian Pothier getting benched for a game or two when his play was subpar, or Eric Fehr getting stapled to the bench in the third if he struggled early in a game. The accountability is being instilled for those guys, where is that same response if Green or Ovechkin struggle? I understand that in theory, benching your best players would be detrimental to the team in the short term; even in a bad game those guys are capable of pulling off something big. But I can’t help but think that, long term, making an example out of those guys along with the "lesser" players would be beneficial – both to the individuals and the team as a whole.
And the excuses that D mentioned are getting pretty old, too. Boudreau has the ability to call out his team after a poor performance but he’s still just as quick to blame outside factors or couch the harsh criticism with excuses. As much as I hate to compare the Caps to the Penguins, or Boudreau to Bylsma, I know I wasn’t alone in being impressed with how the latter responded to tough travel conditions – tougher than a little fog and a flight delay – when the Pens had to play in DC during a snowstorm. No excuses, before or after the Penguins lost.
Hell, even then, Boudreau talked pre-game about how his guys were probably more fatigued after shoveling themselves out, as if to preemptively excuse a loss.
JP: To that travel point, it's kind of ironic that Boudreau even dismissed the Pens' snow travel as an excuse for them - "Other than a few of their players, they’ve played in the American (Hockey) League before. A bus ride has never hurt anybody." - and then used the travel excuse himself.
Tuvanhillbilly: From my point of view, I haven't seen much change in the accountability issue. I think is has to do with him still having some Hershey mindset. There, he was expected to divine the inner talents of really good players and train them and allow them to develop the self confidence to transform into great players. And he was a hella good "training" coach, with two Calder cup finals appearances and one win. This atmosphere of trust and faith also created a strong bond with his players, which also transferred over with his new role- which is a good thing. But he still seems to retain some of that "mentor" mindset, trying to bring out some hidden internal quality he sees in some of the players (Flash, I'm looking at you), when he needs to be more accepting of the shortcomings that some of these players have and react accordingly.
JP: OK, final question(s). I think we all agree that Bruce Boudreau is in no danger of losing his job any time too soon, but if things next year end somewhat similarly to how they did this past spring (i.e. without any progress when it mattered most - in the post-season), or if the team stumbles during the regular season, will - or should - Gabby be relieved of his duties? Can Bruce Boudreau lead this team to the promised land?
DMG: I certainly agree with that. I think it'd be awfully hard for Boudreau to lose his job during next year's regular season; I can only see it if the Caps completely tank, and I can't see the Caps completely tanking. But if they go out in the first round next year, I think he's gone (barring, of course, extenuating circumstances like six top six forwards/top four defensemen being injured and out of the lineup or something). And I think if they go out in such an inglorious fashion, the team should move on, no matter what they do in the regular season. This team has so much talent - including developing talent - that to make no progress in terms of postseason success over a four year period means something has to change.
Do I think Boudreau can lead the team to the promised land? I do, because I think he's smart enough, hard working enough, a guy who can get the most out of his players, and a guy who legitimately eats, sleeps, breathes, and loves hockey with every fiber of his being.
Will he? That I'm less optimistic about. I can't imagine it happening without Boudreau making some changes to way he does things, both in terms of tactics and overall approach, and so far we haven't seen a ton of that out of Gabby. If he's willing to sit down and honestly evaluate the strengths and weakness of his team - himself included - I have no doubt he's good enough to get the job done. If not, I don't see it happening because, to put it bluntly, I can't imagine a team that has the failings the 2008-09 and 2009-10 Capitals have had winning the Stanley Cup.
JP: Here's an uncomfortable truth: in his eleven seasons as a head coach in the AHL and NHL, Boudreau has lost in the first round of the playoffs seven times, and in five of those series, his was the higher-seeded team (there's also a second-round loss to a lower seed - the Penguins last year - and a Finals loss to a lower seed back in 2007 in the AHL). There are mitigating factors in lots of those series and varying degrees of "upsets," but it's certainly not a stat that gives Caps fans the warm n' fuzzies. Not many NHL coaches get to hang around long enough to get bounced three-straight times by lower-seeded teams, much less stay employed thereafter - if it happens for a fourth-straight year, it's hard to envision Gabby returning.
Tuvanhillbilly: I don't know that I would want anyone else besides Bruce behind the bench now. Why? He inspires confidence, he respects his players, and most importantly, the players respect him. If we were talking about regular season alone, we (and a lot of fans) wouldn't even be having this conversation -- yes, there were some maddening bouts of inconsistency, but c'mon-- you can't bitch too much about the Presidents' Trophy and 121 points. The Baby Ruth in the Punchbowl here is, as Stephen alluded to, the post season. And looking solely at that, I have to agree wholeheartedly with David that sometimes you can't overcome a team even when you beat them in every statistical category. Except scoring.
In other words, I can't think of any other team in the league that could have beat Montreal in the first two rounds, so I'm not ready to throw Bruce under the bus for this.
As for what might happen next season if there is another choke-- well, I have to say I really hate ifs-- if frogs had wings; if wishes were fishes; if ands and buts were candy and nuts---hate 'em, hate 'em hate 'em. The reason is that the team is a dynamic organism and is necessarily going to change over the next year-- so any analysis of fault in the future would have to analyze the team as a whole at that point, not just the single question of who is behind the bench. And if all things are somehow equal then to now, I would have to ask why GMGM didn't make changes in the offseason/trade deadline. That's not to say that an analysis at that point wouldn't point to a breakdown behind the bench-- it very well could, and if that were the case then you have to take emotion out of the question and seriously consider if you've got the right man for the job.
Of course, even an off goalie usually gets to let in three before he's yanked.
SP: Tuvan nailed it. The playoffs require a much greater attention to detail for both players and coaches. We all know that Boudreau likes to roll lines and doesn't often play match-ups. In this way, I'd offer that he often delegated too much responsibility to certain players who either couldn't complete the task at hand or weren't capable of doing so for that many shifts, that many minutes that many ferociously contested games. This is certainly a good strategy to keep all of your players' motivation, confidence, and morale high (which it seemed to accomplish during the 82-game stretch), but it doesn't account for the difference in individuals' styles and skills which, either significant or subtle, have such a profound effect in a short series. In other words, the team brought regular season tactics to the playoffs, where the landscape changes considerably.
BeccaH: If they don’t have some playoff success or stumble dramatically in the regular season…absolutely he should be gone. There’s been a lot of talk about how small a window can be for a team to win the Cup nowadays; this is a very talented team with a lot of potential, and if Boudreau isn’t able to get it done there’s just not a lot of time to wait around for him to continue to try. The first year they weren’t even supposed to make the playoffs, the next they fell to the eventual Champs. After going out in the first round again to a lesser team, there HAS to be improvement next year – no excuse for there not to be.
By next year Bruce will have been behind the bench for three and a half seasons, a long time in today’s NHL, and if he can’t get it done with the talent he’s been given – or at least make significant strides toward doing so – they need to find someone who can.
That being said, yes, I think he can lead this team to a Cup. They’ve proven his system works in the regular season, whether it’s blowing out the other team in a lopsided offensive explosion or buckling down for a tight, defensively-sound game. In my mind they didn’t lose in the playoffs this year or any of the last three years because they were playing the wrong way or coached particularly badly. There just needs to be a complete team buy-in to the system at both ends of the ice, and I think Bruce’s system is a good one – that system, combined with what (we hope) will be a lot of anger over how this year ended, should be able to get the Caps there.
DMG: You don't think they lost in the playoffs because of the coaching? I mean, I don't think it was the sole factor by any stretch, but I also think better coaching could have certainly led them to beat Montreal, would have made them more competitive in the Pittsburgh series, and would have let them get out of the Rangers series more quickly (which obviously would have helped against the Penguins). In all three cases I thought the Capitals were far too complacent playing their flashy style and wound up turning the puck over or taking bad shots far too often, rather than getting it deep and trying to keep possession in the opposing team's end.
I also think you can make the case they were hurt by their regular season both this spring and last spring. When Ovechkin comes out and says he doesn't feel power in his legs or Mike Green reveals he picked up an injury late in the season, it doesn't make sense to look back and see how much they played in meaningless (or virtually meaningless) games. The same can be said of the tendency to play 20 or 30 minute games, or have poor play excused during the regular season.
All I've wanted to see the last two years was progress being made in the regular season; treating it as an 82 game warmup to the postseason, and I haven't seen it. It seems silly to assume, from a coaching standpoint, that you're going to let the guys do whatever they want for six months and then try and change their style of play and eliminate their weaknesses in a week in April.
BeccaH: I suppose so. I certainly don’t excuse his role in any of those series, but I don’t consider it the biggest factor. At the end of the day regardless of the system or the coach, the team needs to carry out the plan and it looked to me like they didn’t. Obviously he needs to find a way to get them to do it, which is why I think one more year of the same crap won’t fly.
I think that just as it sometimes takes a player a few years to make the adjustment from AHL to NHL, it sometimes takes coaches a few years to do the same. Perhaps Boudreau’s been able to keep his adjustment under the radar because of the talent he’s been given to work with, but there’s still a lot for him to learn – as you pointed out, using the regular season as a tune-up for the playoffs and not as a separate entity would probably fall into that area. NHL playoffs are much more of a grind than AHL, if for no other reason than the level of skill and strength in the NHL is higher. Not relying so much on your stars, even in meaningless games, would fall into that "AHL to NHL" category as well, because I’m sure the temptation is to throw Ovechkin and friends out on every other shift regardless of the circumstances. I think he’s even mentioned that at times.
I guess I just like the system – I think it fits the players – and it feels like they’re always so close to making it work. If we get to three years of that not happening, it’s time to be done with Bruce.
JP: Alright, I think it's time to turn it over to the readers for their votes and thoughts. Thanks, all.
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 2010-11? Is there any chance he doesn't finish the season in Washington? What would it take for him to earn a 10 next season?
193 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
3
Had expectations of him doing a better job managing shifts and time on ice — did an abysmal job of it.
Still refuses to change up tactics apparently or did a poor job of impressing upon how important it is not to try to finesse your way through a trap.
Poor job of managing goalies as well, though I had little hope of that improving.
Did a better job of maintaining conditioning — chubby cheeks weren’t all too present this year for the Caps.
Overall though, you expect more from a team of this caliber. I lay the blame at the feet of Boudreau there.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again
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.
I never travel far....without a little Big Star...
Ron and Fez 11 to 3
by YvonLabresMoustache on Jun 14, 2010 11:28 AM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Like him, don’t love him. Not sure he’s the guy to take us where we want/need to go.
His outward stubborness in the face of questions about “playoff hockey” before the playoffs started was pretty telling. He said he wanted to prove the Caps’ way of playing was the right way to play and could succeed in the playoffs. Point to other things all you want, but he was wrong. 1-for-33 on the power play isn’t only bad luck or only a hot goalie. That’s trying to ram the square peg into the round hole. Over and over and over again.
Bruce needed to be better then and he needs to be better next year. As much as we expect players to grow and be better over time, I hope Bruce is doing the same.
I go with 3. Doesn’t manage the ice time well, has his “guys”, and made some pretty questionable decisions throughout the season.
That being said, I don’t think he should get the hook, but if this team doesn’t at least make the conference finals next year, some very difficult questions are going to be asked about him AND GMGM.
I never travel far....without a little Big Star...
Ron and Fez 11 to 3
by YvonLabresMoustache on Jun 14, 2010 11:30 AM EDT reply actions
I think GMGM has a longer leash. He made moves to make the team better and can’t be blamed nearly as much for the failure as BB.
I waited all year for this?
He’s been here since 1997, and he built this team personally with his own stamp in the aftermath of the Great Fire Sale. He has as much accountability as anyone, and deserves some criticism for a lot of key failures. The team whiffed at the deadline, and never really addressed some glaring issues it had going into the season. But I agree, Boudreau would go a lot sooner than GMGM would.
I never travel far....without a little Big Star...
Ron and Fez 11 to 3
by YvonLabresMoustache on Jun 14, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Well it’s a bit of a red herring to say “he’s been here since 1997.” While true, it overlooks the fact that, with ownership approval, the first team building strategy he went with was to sign/acquire high priced FAs/veterans. That obviously failed and then he got round 2 with the rebuild. I don’t think the book is closed on the rebuild yet, and I don’t think he’s done anything to hamper the progress of the rebuild. He got a legitimate top 3 C, a top 4 D, and a great depth checker at the deadline this year. I’m not sure what else you could ask. They may not have been the guys we wanted, but you don’t know what the other asking prices were (for guys like Hammer or Kubina). In hindsight you can say he should have gotten Seidenberg instead, but that didn’t exactly work out great for BOS either.
I waited all year for this?
Seidenberg worked out fine for BOS up until his wrist tendon was destroyed in early April and he was done for the season. The Bruins just re-signed him so they must’ve been happy with what little they saw of him.
George gets Wrapped tomorrow, FYI.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 14, 2010 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
3
Lose in game 7 at home in the playoffs for the third year in a row.
I didn’t score him lower because of the regular season success, but at the end of the day the playoffs are what matters and he has been an utter failure in the playoffs for three straight years. Obviously expectations were different for the two prior seasons, but there is a disturbing trend with BB coached Caps teams and I honestly can’t say I would be surprised to see another early round game 7 elimination at home again.
by freakinandpeakin on Jun 14, 2010 11:31 AM EDT reply actions
And, for the love of Mary….I’d give him a 10 if we could just have one playoff series that doesn’t go 7 games.
I never travel far....without a little Big Star...
Ron and Fez 11 to 3
by YvonLabresMoustache on Jun 14, 2010 11:32 AM EDT reply actions
I think one thing that some of the contributors didn’t consider when analyzing Boudreau was the Caps pp against Montreal in the playoffs. The Penguins succeeded at a much higher rate with an inferior unit. That Boudreau wasn’t able to get the WAS pp to score more than 1 goal in 7 games has to be a huge knock against him. Adjustments to a pp in a 7-game series might be one of the best pure illustrations of coaching ability.
As to the general series, I can identify you all because my team got beat by virtue of not adjusting to the system MTL wanted to play. Simply shooting for the sake shooting was not going to get the job done against a team that was willing to shot block like crazy and force shooters to the perimeter. Philly was able to dominate the Habs because they got close to Halak. Had the Pens or Caps had a line (or even a player) that caused chaos in Halak’s crease, things would have turned out quite differently.
Author at Pensburgh.com
...
Had the Pens or Caps had a line (or even a player) that caused chaos in Halak’s crease, things would have turned out quite differently.
Like this?
I never travel far....without a little Big Star...
Ron and Fez 11 to 3
by YvonLabresMoustache on Jun 14, 2010 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Was this the disallowed goal in game 7? I’m not sure one instance in a 7 game series qualifies as consistent over that time.
Author at Pensburgh.com
Well, to me it didn’t seem like getting someone to the net to disrupt Halak was a problem – the problem was that shots weren’t even getting to the net, so the net presence by guys like Laich and Knuble was pretty ineffective. We had 2 or 3 guys willing to pay the price but not having to because the rest of the team failed to adjust to the shot-blockers, both at even strength and on the PP.
Simply shooting for the sake shooting was not going to get the job done against a team that was willing to shot block like crazy and force shooters to the perimeter.
Truth. It’s funny, I was emailing with a friend of mine who is a Pens fan and every complaint she had about the Pens sounded eerily similar to what I’d been saying 2 weeks earlier.
Was this the disallowed goal in game 7? I’m not sure one instance in a 7 game series qualifies as consistent over that time.
Well, if that goal doesn’t get disallowed, “things turn out differently”
I never travel far....without a little Big Star...
Ron and Fez 11 to 3
by YvonLabresMoustache on Jun 14, 2010 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
BOGUS CALL
that one stung
by Mikko Leinonen's opposite on Jun 15, 2010 1:12 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The epidemic of blocked shots is an issue the league needs to address. The NHL wants more offense, yet they allow defenseman to wear pads that would have made medieval knights jealous. You want to allow quality teams to get more shots on net, mandate smaller shin pads. Then see if the Hal Gills of the world are as fearless about stepping in front of a Chara slapshot.
Ehhhhh…that’s a two way street though because then you start dealing with really awful injuries.
I never travel far....without a little Big Star...
Ron and Fez 11 to 3
by YvonLabresMoustache on Jun 14, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Not really. Defenseman played for decades with smaller shin pads and there wasn’t any epidemic of bad injuries. Take away those ridiculously oversized pads and they won’t be stepping in front of shots they have no business trying to block anyway. The league cut down on the size of goalie pads. You watch, the next move will be to limit the size of the equipment skaters can wear. Blocking shots has become the equivalent of the trap.
You forget the new composite sticks as compared to the old wooden sticks.
by freakinandpeakin on Jun 14, 2010 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Not to mention the curves on the sticks are bigger, and the players are much more athletic and stronger than they were even 10 years ago.
I never travel far....without a little Big Star...
Ron and Fez 11 to 3
by YvonLabresMoustache on Jun 14, 2010 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not a fan of reducing the padding defensemen are allowed to wear. Even if they’re not shot blocking, that stuff is there to protect them from errant pucks or a re-directed shot. Without that stuff, we’re talking about lots of careers suddenly ending.
Author at Pensburgh.com
And it hurts the bottom line and overall quality of play as guys start breaking down earlier and earlier, and you keep having to fill up teams with AHL-quality guys.
I never travel far....without a little Big Star...
Ron and Fez 11 to 3
by YvonLabresMoustache on Jun 14, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Becca – I think neither the Pens nor the Caps were as committed to getting guys in Halak’s crease as Philly was. In my estimation, that was a big reason for their success.
And of course shots not getting through was a problem, but it seemed like both teams just let Halak get comfortable and not have to worry about seeing around different bodies in front.
Author at Pensburgh.com
I guess that’s fair – I don’t think the Caps sailed through without making an effort to get people in front of Halak, but the Flyers did do a better job. Halak deserves a lot of credit but neither the Caps nor the Pens tested him as much as they should have.
…of course he never came out to play a puck and got run over by his own D in either of our series, either. Lucky Philly bastards.
Kyle Wilson: “We knew after the first two games that we had to change up the game plan a little bit and went back to the drawing board, and we knew we had to get more pucks to the net and crash instead of playing a skill game.”
If French realized that they needed to change things up and crash the net against a team that plays a similar style to the Habs, I don’t understand why BB couldn’t have figured that one out, too.
Forward for the Hershey Bears.
This is the second quote from a Hershey player I’ve seen in the comments, and both seem to be preaching things the Caps should have been doing in the playoffs. Troubling that minor league players can figure out what NHLers/NHL coaches seemed to be overlooking, isn’t it?
Wilson and Gordon are both NCAA prospects. Stay in school, kids!
I waited all year for this?
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2010 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hershey Bear, and one of the smartest players you’ll ever come across.
I waited all year for this?
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2010 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because BB is not a very good coach.
I'm gonna pain you dearly Woodhouse, when I peel all your skin off with a flensing knife, sew it into Woodhouse pajamas, and then set those pajamas on fire.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jun 14, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Just curious – does anyone have the overhead on the goal the Flyers scored on the Hawks when Hartnell was taking up half the crease? Just for comparison.
by Gin and Tonic on Jun 14, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Half the crease?
Hartnell was in the goal!
by Direction 87 on Jun 14, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
It is a little bit of causing havoc in front of Halak, but MTL also ran out of steam in the Conference Finals.
by freakinandpeakin on Jun 14, 2010 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree. I was pretty angry watching that performance too. I hate it when some low seed gets enough juice to beat a better team in a series or two and then just collapses and lets a 7th seeded Flyers team advance to the Stanley Cup Final.
Author at Pensburgh.com
force shooters to the perimeter
You’re around BtN enough to know that this simply wasn’t the case. The Caps (I don’t know about the Pens) were taking shots from the same areas that they did during the regular season and getting as many rebound shots as they were during the regular season, at least according to the data scraped from nhl.com and analyzed by Hawerchuck.
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Jun 14, 2010 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t read all of the stuff, but in particular I didn’t buy the argument that Hawerchuck was making about Semin getting the same quality chances based on shot distance. Not only are those stats shady, but shot distance isn’t everything. Semin scored on long range shots in the regular season when he had space at the top of the circles to wind up and let go of his deadly wrister. In the playoffs his long range shots were more often the result of gaining the zone and whipping the puck on net without the same accuracy or speed. Those are not the same quality chances despite the shot distance data.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 14, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed – shot distance doesn’t take into account, for example, whether or not the shooter is being harrassed by a defender.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I didn’t buy the argument that Hawerchuck was making about Semin getting the same quality chances based on shot distance.
I don’t buy that all shots from the same area are created equal and neither does he – he explicitly states that this doesn’t takes screens into account, or puck movement prior to the shot, just where the shot is taken from. Obviously not all shots (or shooters) are created equal and they don’t all make the same scoring chances.
What I was responding to is the assertion that the Caps were kept to the perimeter, which is something that shot location data can tell us. The shots were taken from pretty much the same places (according to the data we have) in the playoffs as they were in the regular season, which is to say not the perimeter. However sketchy the transcription of the data is, it was done by the same people during the season as it was during the post season – I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect any biases in the data collection to be consistent in this case, which is what makes it useful for that specific point.
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Jun 14, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll agree with that conclusion from the shot distances. But from what I have read from Hawerchuck I got the sense that he was making a much stronger connection between shot distance and shot quality than I am willing to make.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 14, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
The data is pretty convincing in the aggregate, but individual games aren’t played in the aggregate. Over the course of a season, it’s harder to repeat the kind of performance that makes a shot from the slot less dangerous on command than it is to make it happen for one play or even one series.
So as a guide to expected medium-to-long term performance, his quantity and distance measures are good, but as the number of games in the prediction gets smaller, the results get less predictable because of all those factors, like ability to block shots or clean up passing lanes, or the goalie getting hot. I don’t think either of you are wrong in this particular instance, given the time frames you’re discussing.
It’s been tossed around on that site that even with the best modeling come up with so far, only about 60% of a team’s success or failure is readily explainable (Corsi/Fenwick, Penalty Differential, Shot Location et cetera) and the rest is as yet unquantifiable. That’s in the long term, it’s even less able to predict in the near term. So betting on a lot of games and series probably yields better results with the methods talked about than throwing a dart at the wall, the shorter the time span, the better comparative results the dart-thrower is going to get.
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Jun 14, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
What I was responding to is the assertion that the Caps were kept to the perimeter, which is something that shot location data can tell us.
One thing that is important to note is that shot location data is only measuring shots on goal. My thinking was that Montreal did do a good job of keeping a lot of shots to the perimeter, thus allowing more of those shots to be missed or blocked, as opposed to shots on goal. By my count, Washington out-attempted Montreal 576 – 381. Had Montreal not kept as many shots as they did to the outside or perimeter, it would have been very difficult for the defensemen to make as many blocks as they did, and it would have allowed Washington to hit the net much more often.
Yes the % of chances were the same for both teams, and Washington did outplay Montreal in this series, as Gabe points out. But all of Montreal’s hard work in preventing shots by keeping them along the perimeter is ignored by not looking at the aggregate number of shot attempts.
Author at Pensburgh.com
Interesting idea, but here’s the issue – the Caps still got a lot of actual shots off, as well as attempts. Those actual shots were from roughly the same locations that they were taken from during the season, in addition to all the posited missed shots from the perimeter, based on the Expected Goals from the article you linked.
The other scenario is that Gabe has the data for the location of shot attempts, not just shots, and the original conclusion holds. Did MTL lay down in front of a metric load of shots? Yeah. Were the shots as high-quality as they should have been? Probably not, looking at the data – either the Caps were colossally unlucky or they were somewhat unlucky and taking lower quality shots for whatever reason, but I’m pretty sure looking at Gabe’s data that it wasn’t because they were held to the perimeter.
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Jun 14, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
By my count, using shots attempted for each team, the Caps controlled about 60% of the play in this series, which is ridiculous. Yet half of the time they spent in the o-zone netted shots that were either missed or blocked. Chances were in the Caps favor and Washington controlled the series territorally, but the sheer fact that Washington attempted an extra 200 shots over 7 games means that Montreal had to be keeping at least a majority of those shots to the outside. There’s no way that a substantial portion of the missed and blocked shots were also given up in the chance area, because I’m not sure one team could be so unlucky.
Author at Pensburgh.com
but the sheer fact that Washington attempted an extra 200 shots over 7 games means that Montreal had to be keeping at least a majority of those shots to the outside.
Logic fail. Your conclusion is in no way the only one supported by your evidence. Halak being out of his mind might be a tiny factor also.
Did you see the glove save on Joe Corvo? Did you see the non-glove save on Danny Briere (game 2)? Halak just wasn’t the same goalie against PHI that he was against PIT and WAS. Both teams essentially dominated MON and should have won the series. You can point to things they could have done better, but in reality both played well enough to have won. If Halak wasn’t on a ridiculous hot streak MON doesn’t make it out of the first round.
I waited all year for this?
Logic fail. Your conclusion is in no way the only one supported by your evidence. Halak being out of his mind might be a tiny factor also.
I didn’t say that it was the only possible scenario, but rather the most likely one. I think everyone agrees that Halak was a beast in the first two series; he was way below his performance level when he played Philly. But part of the success Montreal had in the first two series rested in part on keeping a better percentage of shots to the perimeter than their opponent.
Author at Pensburgh.com
Anyone know if that data exists somewhere query-able? I know when I used to have game center, there was a little chart of the rink next to the video that used to show where all the shots, hits, goals came from.
Would be kinda cool to see all 7 game shots “mapped out” on a rink diagram.
I think you’re right though. I’ll bet most of those shots came from the outside.. then again.. I bet most shots during a game come from there. I’d like to see what % of shots came from the outside during that series as opposed to the league average
This is the Game Center report on game 7. I don’t know how to copy the shot charts from Adobe Flash 10 to Firefox, but it’s in the middle column below the picture.
Thats awesome thanks. Just from game 7 it looks like the caps kept getting stuck firing from the outside during period 1.. then they closed it a little more period 2.. then period 3.. they just dug in and went for all the dirty stuff.
Let me see if there are any more patterns from the rest of the games they lost
Game 6:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/gamecenter.htm?id=2009030116
Looks like mostly outside which goes along with with GoPens said.
Game 5
http://www.nhl.com/ice/gamecenter.htm?id=2009030115
not so much
Game 1
http://www.nhl.com/ice/gamecenter.htm?id=2009030111
We started getting forced more and more to the outside as the game went on.
SO I think GoPens is on to something. It looks like that’s how Montreal realized they were going to win so that’s at least what they tried to do.
I guess it was just a combination of the two.. Halak’s insanity and Montreal getting smarter and smarter and knowing what they had to do.
Which in the end.. is how they won.. They learned how to adjust and we didn’t.
And yet the Caps played a much better game 6 than game 5 and deserved to win that game more than game 5.
I waited all year for this?
Brainnumbc, I appreciate you putting in that time to see what it looked like the trend was.
Author at Pensburgh.com
That’s not what you said in the quote I blocked, and that doesn’t seem to be the argument you were advancing with Knee the whole time.
I waited all year for this?
I was taking Halak being on as a given; I don’t think there’s a debate as to whether he was playing out of his mind.
I do think that most of the missed and blocked shots the Caps took were from the perimeter.
Author at Pensburgh.com
Fehr.. I guess the question is.. do you really think it was ALL Halak? Sure he made a lot of awesome saves but do you really think it was 100% because he was a beast .. do you really not think that MTL kept forcing WSH to take so many shots to the outside? Or are you arguing with GoPens just for the sake of arguing?
Fehr.. I guess the question is.. do you really think it was ALL Halak? Sure he made a lot of awesome saves but do you really think it was 100% because he was a beast .. do you really not think that MTL kept forcing WSH to take so many shots to the outside? Or are you arguing with GoPens just for the sake of arguing?Because I know you love to argue :)
I think the Caps could have done some things better, but at the end of the day the single reason the Caps lost was Halak. Did the trap frustrate us? Sure, at times. But teams that trap well don’t give up 40+ shots. Were the blocked shots a pain in the ass? Sure, but we still got 40+ on net and many of them from quality scoring areas. We also had much more net traffic than anyone is giving credit for. We can find our weaknesses, but ultimately we still should have won that series. We weren’t neutralized or turned into a perimeter team.
I think the Caps could have done some things better, but at the end of the day the single reason the Caps lost was Halak. Did the trap frustrate us? Sure, at times. But teams that trap well don’t give up 40+ shots. Were the blocked shots a pain in the ass? Sure, but we still got 40+ on net and many of them from quality scoring areas. We also had much more net traffic than anyone is giving credit for. We can find our weaknesses, but ultimately we still should have won that series. We weren’t neutralized or turned into a perimeter team.
I waited all year for this?
We weren’t neutralized or turned into a perimeter team.
I think the Caps should have won this series. They got very unlucky and ran into a very hot goaltender. But I have a hard time believing that a team which went from 3.82 goals a game and a 25.2% power play in the regular season to 3.14 goals a game and a 3% power play in the playoffs wasn’t neutralized or forced to the perimeter more often.
Author at Pensburgh.com
Here’s another interesting stat I want to look up tomorrow..
Shooting PERCENTAGE, not just against Halak but for the whole season. Maybe we just beefed up Halak’s stats because we have one of the lesser team shooting %’s..
Just a theory though.. not even sure I believe it., but it would be something to look into. Sure 40+ shots is good even if they’re on goal, but if they’re showing a trend of being stopped by most goalies then maybe we need to take better shots..
I dunno.. just rambling
Did you sort by the right column? You sorted by SV%. Are yous ure that’s SV% against and not sv% for?
I sorted by the column that said “PCT” after shots on goal and it says we’re 8.0 which is middle of the pack… but I don’t think this is right because if you divide goals (313) by SOG (2535), you get 12.347% which isn’t anywhere on that grid.
I think maybe Yahoo’s stats are a little wonky?
Did you sort by the right column? You sorted by SV%. Are yous ure that’s SV% against and not sv% for?
Should be – it’s under the “opposing team stats”. So Capitals’ opponents had lower save percentages than the opponents of any other team.
“Team stats” and “Pct” has the Caps at 11.6 – first. So that’d be consistent with the data you saw on hockey-reference.
Ahh Youre right. 88.4 sv% against = 11.6 shooting percentage for.
In fact we’re pretty far ahead. Everyone else is separated by 0.5 % of less. We’re 1.0% ahead of 2nd place.
So halak’s save percentage after our series was roughly what.. ,925.. that means we were shooting at about 7.5% that series. If those were reg season stats then we’d be in last. Even if most of our shots were from the outside that’s still pretty crazy.
I guess the moral of the story is.. you can definitely gauge talent with forwards and D men during the regular season.. but you don’t really know the true grit of a goalie until the playoffs.
Yahoo’s stats are different from hockey reference:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/WSH/2010.html
Hockey ref has us with the same # of goals but 2693 shots which is 11.6%
Knee High – I responded below as to why I think there is evidence of the Habs doing a good job of forcing the caps to the perimeter.
Author at Pensburgh.com
1
If you had to pick a person to place the blame on for the postseason loss, it’s BB.
When you have that amount of talent on the PP and for it to be struggling for so long without intervention, it’s no one’s fault but his. Not to mention getting stifled by the trap… as if it was a last minute surprise by Martin. When you feel that your team was even remotely unprepared for a postseason series… unacceptable. And the game 6 line shuffle?
As bad of a postseason as a coach could have.
by Bushwood Bushwhacker on Jun 14, 2010 11:43 AM EDT reply actions
7
I expected the Caps to have a good season, but not something like a Presidents’ Trophy. When the playoffs started, I would have given him a 10. I deducted one for each round the Caps didn’t play in the postseason, leaving a 7.
He did a very good job juggling goaltending injuries and issues and the Caps set franchise records all over the place despite having to play Tyler Sloan for half of the games, and also while hamstrung for part of the season with a nearly $5M salary cap hit sitting at home. The top player in the league missed 10 games, and on and on.. there was a lot of adversity but Boudreau helped the Caps overcome it.
The playoffs… I don’t think that was Bruce’s fault in as much as it was the fault of several players not performing to their usual levels. If any one of these players played at 60% of their regular season level: Semin, Fleischmann, Green, Corvo, then the Caps win round 1, meet up with Philly in round 2 and likely dispatch them en route to an Eastern Final match up with Pittsburgh or Boston, and then the eventual meeting with Chicago. Considering the Flyers had to yank their goaltender in 2 games in the Finals (the first time they met a team that didn’t have offense issues!) the Caps would have dispatched them quickly enough.
Bruce did not do that great a job in the playoffs, but at the same time, it’s not like he was lacing the skates up out there. The players have to put out, and some didn’t, plain and simple.
Washington Capitals 2009-10 = Quebec Nordiques 1994-95
--- D'ohboy
despite having to play Tyler Sloan for half of the games,
Isn’t that, to a large degree, BB’s decision? Why should he be cut slack for choosing to play TSlo over Carlznerson all year?
I waited all year for this?
George had to keep Carlson and Alzner’s minutes in the NHL down before the Olympics so they would be eligible to play in the AHL during the Olympics. Bruce didn’t have a say in it. I suspect if it wasn’t an Olympic year, Alzner and Carlson would have played more when there were troubles on the back line.
Washington Capitals 2009-10 = Quebec Nordiques 1994-95
--- D'ohboy
by MikeL-Pivonka on Jun 14, 2010 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not buying it. I don’t think either of those guys were close to the games played cut off. IIRC it was Neuvirth that was the bigger concern for reaching games played. And in any event, given that Carlznerson was on the ice for game 7 and Sloskine was in the press box, I’d forfeit the AHL time during the Olympics in favor of some experience and rest for the two guys that were more capable of helping this team.
I waited all year for this?
If the Carlznerson were both in their mid-20’s I’d agree. A 2 week break for a couple of guys who aren’t old enough to buy beer yet doesn’t make any sense. Even then, the AHL regular season has more time off than the NHL season. The regular season has 2 fewer games, yet it covers the same length of time (inluding the 2 1/2 weeks the NHL was off). They weren’t tired at all in the playoffs.
I don’t think Bruce has as much say in who gets called up as George does. Bruce has to play with the players George provides.
Erskine wasn’t a choice to play against Montreal, he couldn’t have kept up with the Habs. If there was still an issue in back vs. Philly, Erskine might have seen some ice.
Washington Capitals 2009-10 = Quebec Nordiques 1994-95
--- D'ohboy
by MikeL-Pivonka on Jun 14, 2010 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think there is any chance that BB doesn’t have a say in personnel issues. We heard about how BB endorsed Corvo and Belanger because he coached them before, so it makes sense that he has a say with our own prospects. If BB says “Alzner isn’t ready so I won’t dress him every night” then GMGM won’t keep him up; it wasn’t all GMGM’s say. And at the end of the day, both of Carlznerson were seen as better options than either of Sloskine. It wasn’t unforeseeable that such a thing would happen, and that’s precisely why some of us were so vocal about getting the rookies ice time earlier in the season.
I’d say that a guy in their mid-20s is better suited to play a long schedule than a guy in his early 20s. Neither of Carlznerson are fully physically mature yet so each game takes more out of them. Factor in several 3 games in 3 nights in the AHL and the AHL schedule doesn’t look that much lighter.
I’m at an utter loss as to why there is a pervasive notion that Erskine would be a good option against PHI. Because he’s tough? So what. He’s slow as balls and PHI has a team that can skate as well as anyone. Erskine’s toughness isn’t going to off-set that major weakness against PHI. Does everyone remember the infamous Poskine game earlier in the year? That may have been the single worst performance of any D pair in any game all season. (And I’d still like to know who thought they didn’t stink.) Honestly, NYR is the only team I like Erskine dressing against, and that’s because of how well he handles Avery.
I waited all year for this?
5
Didn’t expect the President’s Trophy, plus 1. Didn’t expect a first round exit, minus 1. Middle of the pack.
Improvements: 1) increase time for star forwards on penalty kill (it keeps ‘em sharp and focused when they play in all circumstances – especially Semin), 2) provide clear, targeted, and challenging expectations for all players, 3) rapid (but short-term) consequences in terms of playing time and line assignments for ALL those who don’t meet those expectations, 4) recognize when your being successfully trapped and show the flexibility to change the game plan when needed.
If they are below .500 in December and the players seem undermotivated, yeah he could be canned. If there’s another quick playoff exit, he WILL be canned.
He gets a 10 if he wins the Cup.
by rule56 on Jun 14, 2010 11:52 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Well put. This is where I come out
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 15, 2010 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
4
Yes, they won the President’s Trophy, but with the roster that we have, that was almost to be expected. His inability to match lines or make changes to a malfunctioning PP unit in the playoffs baffled me. Even more concerning to me was him consistently playing favorites.
#NeedsMoreBradley
He gets a 3 from me. His management of Ice time remained terrible. He couldn’t (or wouldn’t) step in to improve the PK; either way is inexcusable with the ineffectiveness of the PK. He showed an absolute inability/unwillingness to adjust in both the regular season with both personnel (certain ones at least) and system. These are all things a good coach is expected to do, and once again Boudreau failed to do them. I find myself questioning Bruce’s decisions far too often; and while I’m not privy to the information that he is, it is still not at all a good sign.
I'm gonna pain you dearly Woodhouse, when I peel all your skin off with a flensing knife, sew it into Woodhouse pajamas, and then set those pajamas on fire.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jun 14, 2010 12:15 PM EDT reply actions
4
He would have gotten a 6 under the expectations voting but now I don’t have to calibrate my disappointment. He still played favorites far too much; he still gave our most important players far too much ice in games that meant dick; he still didn’t fix the PK; and he still didn’t instill any sense of killer instinct. Game 5 is one of the biggest condemnations I have. This is the biggest game the Caps had played since G7 v. PIT, and they came out so flat. They basically gave away their first chance to close out the series. Sticking with Flash for 6 games was indefensible. I don’t care what he did in the AHL, he has been nothing more than useless in the NHL playoffs, especially against MON. The PK is obviously an on-going complaint and despite the much hoped for Woods effect, it still stunk like low tide. Ultimately, I pretty much agree with everything DMG said.
I don’t see much chance he gets fired next regular season, but another first round flame out very well may (and probably should) do it. The only tiny concern I have is that he was fired after 4 first round flame outs in Manchester and then won the Calder Cup the very next year in HER. Coincidence or learning curve? I’m not sure. But at the same time, I don’t think it’s wise to give the same head coach 5 kicks at the can with such a potent roster. There has to be some coach that can put the pieces together and at some point GMGM needs to show a little more urgency with our Cup window. CHI didn’t like what Savard was doing 4 games into last season, and they fired him. When you know you don’t have a winning hand, sometimes it’s best just to fold and start over.
I waited all year for this?
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2010 12:16 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
4
Excellent regular season record, but still showing the limitations (shift length, playing favorites, taking games/periods off, the PK, etc) that have been weaknesses throughout his tenure. I’m not seeing much improvement, which is worrisome. And of course, he once again lost to a lower-seed in the playoffs.
The Discussion: What would you like to see Boudreau improve upon in 2010-11?
He needs to improve on all the things I mentioned above. Shift length and playing favorites WRT ice time are both discipline issues…I think he’s just not enough of a disciplinarian to overcome those. Which is fine, IF he has the sense to then round out his staff with someone who can be his disciplinarian. But he needs to either become less of a “players coach”, which is unlikely, or delegate the role of “hard ass” to one of his assistants.
Is there any chance he doesn’t finish the season in Washington?
Unlikely he will get fired at any point before the season is over, but another playoff failure could VERY likely result in the end of the BB tenure in DC. Especially if the media starts critiqueing his coaching job more, which I think they are currently unwilling to do (for the most part) for a variety of reasons (such as “staying in favor” and “because he’s so likeable”).
What would it take for him to earn a 10 next season?
A strong regular season with improvements in his areas of weakness, plus a stanley cup.
One can speak of this, that or the other thing, but if the Caps don’t go 1-33 on their own power play in the Montreal series, we’re likely having an entirely different conversation here.
The Caps are just such an odd team. They are too young in some places (goaltender), too lacking in grit in others (defense), while being wildly talented in the skill portions of their portfolio. There were obvious underachievers in the playoffs (Semin, Fleischmann) and some less obvious ones (Laich, Morrison). As far as Boudreau is concerned, I just had the feeling that he never rode the guys harder or tightened the reins on them. The playoffs seemed to lack the urgency required, as if somehow it was just an extension of the regular season. It was as if, “well, they’ll work their way out of it.” If anything, one thing came into clearer focus — Boudreau might be a better practice (teaching) coach than a bench (strategy) coach.
I think Tuvan had it right, — the accountability issue seems ill developed. Who is accountable, anyway? Is it Boudreau for not finding a way to deal with Montreal’s tactics in the playoffs? Is it the players for not finding the next level (I’m still waiting for this group to have “learned” the lessons playoff losses were supposed to have taught)? Is it George McPhee for not injecting a little more grit into the roster? Is it the captain for not exercising the leadership needed to get the players to ramp up their games?
This team has too much of some things (scoring left wings, for example) and not enough of others (a player who will put the fear of God in an opponent). Whether the collection of shortcomings is something for McPhee to assemble for the roster or Boudreau to coax out of those already there is what 2010-2011 is going to be about. This is likely to be the last chance for this roster as we have come to know it (that is, if there are no big changes this summer). If the Caps go out quick and quiet in 2011’s playoffs, there will be changes, and Boudreau will be but one among them.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2010 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
GMGM added Knuble, Chimera, and Walker this season. I fail to see how GMGM should be blamed for not adding grit to the roster. It’s not GMGM’s fault that Walker played one playoff game.
I waited all year for this?
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I believe Knuble got broken to some degree as the series wore on (ie non-calls on defensive cross-checking in front of the goal) and we lost an edge in net presence responsible for one goal we were getting every game here and there. Notable exception of course being the goalie interference no-goal call.
One can speak of this, that or the other thing, but if the Caps don’t go 1-33 on their own power play in the Montreal series, we’re likely having an entirely different conversation here.
This. To me, this was Boudreau’s most glaring shortcoming. The PP units were uncharacteristiaclly stagnant and held onto the puck waaay too long. Seems to me this is an easy problem to coach out of, but from Game 1 to Game 7 it was the same plodding and overly cutesy unit.
I have no problems with the 5 on 5 coaching. If memory serves, the Caps dominated in all facets and by any metric 5 on 5, and there is something to be said for being the aggressor and imposing one’s will on an opponent. It’s the core of BB’s philosophy, and it’s a high reward type deal: when the Caps get hot, their confidence and then their play snowballs and becomes unstoppable. By all measures it worked.
I just wished he could have got the power play going, and I am baffled as to how what happened happened in that regard.
The keyboard is mightier.
How Boudreau approaches next season will be very telling as to what kind of coach he is and whether or not he can lead this team to where it needs to go. I actually don’t even think we’ll have to wait until the playoffs to see if that’s the case.
Will he change the PK’s style or will he just throw up his hands and let it slide? Will he cut back on his stars’ garbage minutes? Will Flash continue to get massive amounts of ice time?
I think we’d all like to see him make some minor adjustments. It’s really tough to argue that his methods were perfect last year and if he doesn’t realize that, then I wouldn’t even wait until the playoffs to let him go. Honestly, next year is this team’s last shot as currently constructed. They’ll be competitive after that but it will be without Semin, probably without Laich and Knuble and maybe even without Schultz.
by Kolzilla on Jun 14, 2010 12:36 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Part of the problem with being a Caps fan is the unrelenting sense of underachievement. In the more than 30 years of this franchise, the only years in which this club overachieved, in my opinion, were 1990, 1998, and (maybe) 2008. Coaching seems to have been a part of that.
If you've read this far...seek help.
3 from me
Regular season was nice, although a lot of warts were covered up by “just winning”.
Playoffs were a complete failure, he couldn’t find a way to stop his team from losing a third 7-game series in 3 years, all at home – and this time with a 3-1 collapse which will leave wounds festering for another generation. Too much loyalty to guys like Flash, too much tinkering with the lines and defense pairing for my taste during the last 20 games. And overall, just has the appearance of a guy who needs to realize he’s not quite as smart or great as he thinks he is (even though he’d never say that, I think he has a stubborn confidence that gets the team into trouble).
Choking since 1985.
The Insanity (of Winning) was that:
They had won the Presidents Trophy doing the same thing over and over and were expecting similar success
The Caps power play had been excellent
Good teams don’t let the other team dictate the style of play
That definitely isn’t to say changes were not in order, but these things probably made it harder for the Caps from the coaches on down to say “we need to make some changes”
As great as the Caps regular season record was, the reality is that the playoff success vs Montreal wasn’t all that different from their regular season series versus Montreal. I think that’s where you point the finger at the coaching staff.
7
Playoffs could of perhaps been handled better but we also aren’t on the team and don’t know exactly what Gabby was doing back there.
Calling for BB’s job after playoff loss is absurd however. The guy is a great coach who gets great performances from his players and while he is playoff experienced, at least at the AHL level, we still have a lot of star players who are not. I look down at the AHL level and see Mark French doing the exact same coaching style as BB and being immensely successful. But I don’t think this coaching is only suited for the minors, the run and gun is something that died out in the 90s because the trap play could beat it strategically. Perhaps BB relied on his stars skill to break through this strategic lapse. I’m no coach so I certainly don’t know how he could of changed his strategy to counter a coaching scheme which was made to specifically counter his own already. What I do know is that the Caps easily beat every team in the league except the Habs and the Devils and the last two teams still playing the trap.
What I see as his successes are limiting Ovechkin’s time, after all it did go down, and balancing offense. Outsiders will look at Ovi, Backy and Semin and say wow at their numbers. But everyone else should look at the numbers of the 2nd and 3rd liners and for some teams those numbers would make top 6 forwards. That tells me he gets his guys on his scheme so much they may be playing above their normal skill set and that’s great coaching. There’s a reason Fehr is a 3rd liner with limited time and its because his skill set isn’t quite there, but what we see from him is commitment to BB’s coaching and big pay offs he would not get if he played on any other team.
My point is winning coaches get criticized but one playoff loss and calling for his job degrades us to looking like skins fans(albeit they always have a lot of reasoning behind their head hunting). I can’t help but look back at a team with a lot of skill and a very poor record, and one man changing everything about this team and this town. I trust in Gabby. Some of you really depress me.
Bruce Boudreau when asked about Brooks Laich's return to the lineup, he said: "He just adds another dimension to our team. If it was puzzle, he just fits that thing. He completes us."
Brooks Laich completing everything from teams to tires and everything in between.
You’re talking about a team who’s either been paced at (or finished) with more than 105 points in each season he’s been here, yet the same team can’t break .500 in the playoffs, and the fans are absurd?
They're coming.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2010 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Unlike the regular season, you don’t get to play bad teams in the playoffs. Nobody in the playoffs this year was as bad as the Islanders, Blue Jackets, Oilers, Thrashers, etc…
Washington Capitals 2009-10 = Quebec Nordiques 1994-95
--- D'ohboy
by MikeL-Pivonka on Jun 14, 2010 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Right, but you need to consider a few things here.
One, the 100+ point seasons aren’t a result of playing crappy teams, because everyone plays crappy teams in the regular season.
Two, we actually have struggled with these weaker teams throughout Bruce’s tenure.
And three, Montreal was barely in the playoffs (as were the Flyers); it’s not like the gap between playoff teams and non-playoff teams was that broad, you know?
by Becca H on Jun 14, 2010 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I can’t argue.
But I will say: Patrick Roy the most winningest goalie in playoff history has 151 wins, still a record, in 19 different playoff appearances. He won the cup 4 times. 4. That’s a 21% win. With his win numbers he could of won the cup 9 times, after all we were all meme-ing “okay 1 win, now win 15 more” My point is – Its the Playoffs, No one wins.
Bruce Boudreau when asked about Brooks Laich's return to the lineup, he said: "He just adds another dimension to our team. If it was puzzle, he just fits that thing. He completes us."
Brooks Laich completing everything from teams to tires and everything in between.
I may be mistaken, but I think Roy also only appeared in the finals 5 of those 19 times. Granted he won 4 of the 5 but that doesn’t make it much better getting to the finals 26% of the time.
Bruce Boudreau when asked about Brooks Laich's return to the lineup, he said: "He just adds another dimension to our team. If it was puzzle, he just fits that thing. He completes us."
Brooks Laich completing everything from teams to tires and everything in between.
I’m not sure why that’s relevant. No one is saying BB has underachieved in the playoffs because he hasn’t made the finals. They are saying it because he has won only 1 out of 4 series with a 100+ pt team, all with home ice advantage. I don’t think winning a couple rounds is too much to ask from this team and it’s coach.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 14, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Rec’d, though I’ll amplify a touch and say the guy’s coached a 100+ point team since he came on, with has (likely) the best player in the world on his roster, and he can’t coach against two 7 seeds and an 8 in less than seven games?
They're coming.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2010 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
how quickly we forget a team with 70 points and 28th place one season, then a team looking to finish 20th again with 80ish points instead went on to win 11 of their 12 last games and finish 13th overall with 94 points instead.
Bruce Boudreau when asked about Brooks Laich's return to the lineup, he said: "He just adds another dimension to our team. If it was puzzle, he just fits that thing. He completes us."
Brooks Laich completing everything from teams to tires and everything in between.
No one is saying BB has underachieved in the playoffs because he hasn’t made the finals.
Um…yes, they are.
but if the Caps lose in the first round (and possibly if they don’t make at least the Conference finals) he needs to go.
I could go through most of the comments here and find “underacheiving, blown, fire” ect which begs the question how? If they weren’t supposed to be kicked out in the first round when is appropriate? If it was 2nd round loss would we be having this conversation? I think so. Conference Finals probably not, depending on how it went.
MY POINT – like it has been for several other player reviews is that the world isn’t ending, the team doesn’t suck, and some people are still overdramatic from the loss (which is different from criticizing the team).
Bruce Boudreau when asked about Brooks Laich's return to the lineup, he said: "He just adds another dimension to our team. If it was puzzle, he just fits that thing. He completes us."
Brooks Laich completing everything from teams to tires and everything in between.
Um…yes, they are.
Um…no they’re not, if you’ve been reading the thread.
I could go through most of the comments here and find "underacheiving, blown, fire" ect which begs the question how?
Again, read the thread. Nobody’s saying fire him now, they’re answering the question posited in the discussion.
If they weren’t supposed to be kicked out in the first round when is appropriate? If it was 2nd round loss would we be having this conversation? I think so. Conference Finals probably not, depending on how it went.
We’re having a conversation about something that’s only happened once in reality, but the larger concern is that this team, for as well as they do in October-April, can’t do the same things from May on. The core’s the same (and will be for the foreseeable future), so why can’t they close out series against inferior clubs, is it because they forget how to play, or is it because the inferior club’s coach makes the adjustments needed to move on, and the other coach doesn’t?
Or to ask you another question (and it’s been one I’ve yet to get an answer for), read J.P.‘s post on accountability last year, and the issues we talked about then. What’s changed?
They're coming.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2010 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I could go through most of the comments here and find "underacheiving, blown, fire" ect which begs the question how?
It’s not like people aren’t addressing this. There’s not a ton of “the team underachieved, ergo the coach should be fired”, it’s concern about his personnel decisions, the way he manages his players, his ability and/or willingness to make changes, the fact that he seems to make excuses, and so on.
by David Getz on Jun 14, 2010 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
but if the Caps lose in the first round (and possibly if they don’t make at least the Conference finals) he needs to go.I could go through most of the comments here and find "underacheiving, blown, fire" ect which begs the question how?
There’s a whole lot of how AND why in the rest of that post you quoted.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 15, 2010 3:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Gave him a charity 5 for the Regular Season trophy.
As to the discussion, he’s not going anywhere either during or after the season, and at this point his scoring is going to be based on his postseason coaching adjustments being considerably better than his regular season ones (assuming any postseason ones exist).
For you top box voters, I link to J.P.‘s article about BB and accountability, written a little over a year ago. I ask you; what’s changed since then?
They're coming.
I link to J.P.‘s article about BB and accountability, written a little over a year ago. I ask you; what’s changed since then?
Oddly enough, it’s a question we pondered before embarking on this roundtable, too. The consensus: not a whole hell of a lot.
Right, so unless the Semin lobby’s returned again, why all the 7+?
They're coming.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2010 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Presidents’ Trophy.
Or…
History has shown that top box votes are abundant and anonymous.
I waited all year for this?
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2010 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Yup. I have no explanation for it and I’ve given up trying – the only thing I can figure is that a lot of people had lower expectations for him and were pleasantly surprised. That’s everyone’s prerogative, I suppose.
If it was relative to expectations he’d have been getting the goose egg from this fan.
Choking since 1985.
the goose egg is lower than the 3 you gave him?
Bruce Boudreau when asked about Brooks Laich's return to the lineup, he said: "He just adds another dimension to our team. If it was puzzle, he just fits that thing. He completes us."
Brooks Laich completing everything from teams to tires and everything in between.
What has changed since then? Not much other than the revelation that I can probably skip 3/4 of the regular season.
Choking since 1985.
People keep saying that. I’ll be honest, I toyed with the idea for about a second but I just don’t think I could ever do it – granted, I’ll be a little less excited about regular season achievements but I’ll still be living and dying with each game, same as always.
I get that we’re all disappointed. I do. But I guess I don’t see what the point of being a fan is if you only follow a team during the last 15-20 games of the season and whatever playoff run they go on. Obviously it’s everyone’s choice…I just feel like it’s a bit fairweather friend-y to only show up at the end.
There are fans in every sport that have had worse droughts and more heartbreaking playoff losses than we have, and they’re still there.
Re: Tuvanhillbilly
“Tuvanhillbilly: I have to admit, I’m really torn here. The Russophile side of me wants to apply Tolstoyan” I believe russofile side of you shall call himself “Tolstovetc”…
4
A regular season overachiever but a playoff underachiever thus far in his tenure. In the past few seasons I’ve been one to shift disappointment over more to GMGM and the extent to which the roster was sufficiently balanced and able to win low-scoring contests. In ‘09-10, though, I saw more changes in terms of personnel in balancing out the roster than an apparent tactical awareness from the team that playing a consistent, smart, responsible two-way hockey game was a must. (Granted, the roster wasn’t perfect but it underachieved just the same.)
I saw a regular season approach carried over to the playoffs with little realization that it was inadequate. I saw for a second time a team that rather than gear up down the stretch instead became less focused and more distracted by the coming post-season. I saw a team that had success come a little too easily in the regular season and couldn’t mount a more formidable game when circumstances dictated it. There are plenty of signs of this still being a fairly immature team while other teams (just as young if not younger) have seemingly caught on in the meantime. They remain a team whose outrageous skill is still a little too central to their game and whose hockey sense, focus and commitment have yet to progress to where it needs to be. As long as complacency remains thanks to fairly easy success thanks to their skill level then it’s hard to expect them to adopt the necessary mental toughness in order to reach their ultimate goals.
The Caps showed last year that they were an elite regular season team loaded with talent. They showed improved in the standings and got the President’s Trophy, which is nice. As was pointed out in the round table, a lot of players showed individual improvement, but I have to wonder how much of that is coaching. Did Backstrom have a career year because of BB, or because he is young and naturally improving his game? Same goes for Schultz and Fehr. Did Theo have a better season because of how BB handled him, or was it some more contract year magic? Did BB have anything to do with the helpful additions of Knuble and Chimera? I have a hard time saying BB really overachieved in the regular season.
Giving him credit for the regular season is even more difficult when you see the same pattern of problems without any improvement. Same ice time and personnel management issues, same lack of accountability, same crappy PK, same inconsistent efforts, same lack of in game or in series adjustments, and another year of struggling against an inferior first round opponent. With the lack of improvement in his biggest weaknesses from last year, I just can’t get excited from regular season success or give him anything higher than a 3.
He likely has the entire regular season, but if the Caps lose in the first round (and possibly if they don’t make at least the Conference finals) he needs to go. His player friendly style helped the young team get confidence and become a great regular season team, but I’m not sure it’s the right style to get this team to do what it needs to do to win in the playoffs. Next year he needs to stop playing favorites and manage the ice time of his stars better. I think that if he were tougher on everyone it would go a long way to addressing the other problems I mentioned – giving a more consistent effort, taking every team seriously, and getting players to adjust in game (unless he really thinks his style needs no tweaking, which is a whole other problem).
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 14, 2010 2:04 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
To add on to your first paragraph, a huge part of the reason the Caps won the Presidents’ Trophy was that 14 game winning streak. That definitely was not a result of coaching. It was mostly luck and some great individual performances at specific times. We could have lost many of those games, and by the end of the streak we were obviously picking up bad habits, something the coach is supposed to prevent.
Re: player friendly coach- is GMGM already asking Dale Hunter what it would take to get him behind an NHL bench?
I waited all year for this?
Sorry about the formatting. I don’t want to blame Gordo for my thoughts, or my forgetting to preview my post.
I’m not going to try to assign a number to Bruce’s season, because the pattern I’m seeing with the Caps playoff records covers all three.
This is from Gordo’s Take after Game 3
In my opinion, the playoffs are all about resiliency. In the American League, more often than not, the team who refuses to quit will come out on top. ‘Til the finals that is. The finals are a totally different story. As you go through the first three rounds, winning a series can happen in the first couple games. You obviously have to win four games to take the series, but many times a series is won long before the fourth game comes around. It comes down to breaking your opponents will, and outworking them mentally before they do the same to you. You have to make them believe they can’t beat you, and then their bodies will just come along for the ride. emphasis mine You have to make them want to quit. Make them see summer right around the corner. At that point, a team can be broken even though there is still hockey to be played.
While we can break down individual series and find reasons for the way each went , the fact that every playoff series since Bruce has taken over has gone to seven games makes me wonder if he can coach this team in playoff hockey. I don’t think the team needs to be something they’re not in the playoffs, but they need to be ready mentally for a setting where one game’s success means the opponent will be looking for ways to neutralize it in the next.
During the regular season, I will be looking for whether the Caps can remain disciplined in games that aren’t as much fun for them — the low scoring games against teams who’ve watched the playoff film and figured out how to frustrate the Caps. Given that we have a very talented roster, I think a lot will ride on whether Bruce makes some changes in how he approaches in game tactics, (particularly special teams) accountability for his players, and so on and so forth. And if we flame out in the post season again — we need someone else behind the bench.
by miseenjeu on Jun 14, 2010 2:33 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
The problem with showing BB the door is, who are you going to get to coach that is better? Seems to me that the good coaches have jobs in the NHL already, so unless Scotty Bowman is bored with being a special assistant to the Blackhawks and is eager to get back behind the bench, this is a case of be careful what you wish for?
Except that assumes that the set of good coaches is already known. That obviously isn’t true. Guys come out of nowhere all the time to demonstrate their coaching skills. Bylsma, Clouston, Boudreau, there are plenty of unheard of guys that can do the job.
I waited all year for this?
coughkeepaneeyeonMarkFrenchcough and for gawd’s sake don’t let another team poach him away.
by EmilyB on Jun 14, 2010 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
And Bruce Cassidy, right? I kid. Maybe the better question is whether GMGM can identify what the team needs, in terms of players as well as coaching, to get over the hump, and, more importantly, to add the right people to address those needs.
One could say that GMGM got a serviceable center, Top 4 D and wing depth (without giving up sizable franchise assets) this year.
They're coming.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Good coaches can be had. Quenville was fired from STL and COL.
Laviolette did a decent job after being picked off the scrap heap, eh?
Choking since 1985.
Sorry, I meant for my question to be directed towards the here and now rather than rhetorical in nature. Quenville and Laviolette are fine coaches who are currently employed. Who is available as a coach, right now, that you’d want to take over?
I think he’s more ready to jump someone from behind
by Brainumbc on Jun 14, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Who is that? And why would we want a guy that has literally zero coaching experience, despite his high hockey IQ? I’d rather see Sergei Fedorov coach another team for a year or three before trying to bring him to the NHL. Just ask Tony Granato.
I waited all year for this?
I wish the Caps could fire Boudreau and then hire him back again. I think it would do him a world of good.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 15, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, it worked for the Atlanta Braves baseball team. Bobby Cox had been their manager from 1978-1981 and was fired. He managed elsewhere (Toronto). They brought him back in 1990 and the following year, the Braves did their Worst to First thing. (He’s still there.)
Rocking the Red since 1975
There’s plenty of examples like that. I just don’t want to wait 12 years. Can he just be fired for a month or so, go through whatever good that will do him, and then come back a different coach?
I’m convinced that if the Caps fire Boudreau, all they’ll do is give some competitor a much better coach than the Caps will have.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 16, 2010 8:27 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not familiar enough with the coaching market (or up and coming ranks) but the idea that BB’s the best that’s out there right now seems like a stretch to me, especially when it comes to wanting a tactical coach who can get more done in the playoffs (IMO).
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
4- i love BB. great coach, great instincts…BUT
-1 series win in three years against an inferior team in seven games having to come back from down 3-1…
-1 series loss after being up 3-1.
- failure to show up in game 7 against your biggest rival with a chance to go to the conference finals.
- trouble motivaing your team down the stretch in 09 leading to that 7 gamer against the rags
- playing your top players 25 minutes down the stretch in 10 for nothing more than personal stats
speaks for itself. i believe bruce can be the guy to lead the team to playoff success, but for whatever reason he has not been able to do so to date. i had higher expecations for the team this year and they failed. he gets some credit for regular season success….
Just trying to capture the spirit of the thing...
Gave him a 5, wish I had given him a 4. Yeah, the regular season was great, but I didn’t like how anything went in the playoffs. Nothing. Didn’t like the line-ups (think Flash situation), didn’t like how the goalies were handled, blowing a 3-1 series lead, not being able to adjust, losing yet another game 7, etc. A first round playoff exit is inexcusable, even if your regular season was fantastic. Writing this I wish I had given him a 3. I was advocating for him to be gone at the end of the playoffs, but I think I was overreacting. Another failure in the playoffs and he should be gone, IMO.
Rink Rabbit & newest member of TySlo's fan club.
9
I actually thought BB might choke.. but hey… if you can break a club record in points … that’s gotta be worst something even if I thought he would have done better
9
When you have the #1 PP going into the playoffs, and it fails as miserably as it did in the series against the Habs, it’s kinda hard for me to blame coaching. Why? Because it was obvious to me that what they had put together had been proven time and time again during the season to WORK, and work well at that. To me, the complete collapse of the PP (which I believe was the difference maker) appeared to be the result of the players on the ice not executing as prescribed.
The ice time given to Flash (and lack of ice time given to Fehr) was a head scratcher for me by the end of the series, and for that, I do blame Gabby — the starting lineups and amount of ice time given to individual players is obviously the 1 thing the coach has full control over. I have trouble blaming him, however, for Semin’s “bad luck”.
"I am ready for his provocations"
by PaintDrinkingPete on Jun 14, 2010 4:02 PM EDT reply actions
The PP worked well in the regular season against other teams. It was also feast or famine for a large part of the season with some insane streaks of 30+ and some cold spurts. The need for adjustments was foreseeable before the series, and blatantly obvious only a few games into the series. That’s exactly the kind of thing that falls on the coach.
I waited all year for this?
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2010 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Holy paint drinking, Pete. 9?
The issue is that when confronted with “bad luck” the Caps had no answer. When your PP implodes and you can’t find a new wrinkle to get out of that funk, but rather rely on the “we’re due!” theory, that’s a coaching deficiency.
When you can’t figure out a way to have at least average penalty killing, that’s a coaching deficiency.
When you say the same things over and over and your players don’t listen often enough, if at all, that’s a coaching deficiency.
And doesn’t recent history of under-performing against inferior opponents make the fact that it happened, again and in the playoffs, worse?
Choking since 1985.
I agree. If shit works and gets you 120+ points.. why question it? I chalk it up to lack of experience. Sure.. you can say that they have yet to advance past the first round three straight seasons, but that’s the problem. They’ve got all kinds of experience playing different styles of teams during the regular season, but they never had to play a hardcore shutdown D team in the playoffs.
People also keep emphasizing that we lost three game 7’s on home ice.. last that should be considered in the ratings more than if it was an away game 7
Because 120+ points isn’t the goal. 16 playoff wins is.
I waited all year for this?
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2010 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I totally agree… :)
I’m not saying the Caps were perfect. We knew they had penalty kill problems… But I’m just saying if you rack up that many points that should tell you that you’re doing something right. I mean.. the regular season is really just an 82 game practice for the playoffs. And if someone seems to work in practice you might as well go with what works.
Not being able to figure out how to adjust to montreal the 2nd half of the series is why I didn’t give Bruce a 10. But I think he did a good job. I think he’ll learn form it
I mean.. the regular season is really just an 82 game practice for the playoffs. And if someone seems to work in practice you might as well go with what works.
Yes and no. Some thing – say, a method of powerplay organization – may carry over. Others may not. For example, Semin can probably skate with his head down in practice a lot more than in games because his teammates aren’t going to light him up. Doesn’t mean it’s a good habit to be in.
Well… I guess we all should have known that you better have your s#it perfected before you get into the playoffs. We all should have known that there were power play problems. I guess some of us could have predicted issues but hell…. I don’t think anyone could have predicted a problem with the OFFENSIVE part of the power play.
I agree that a good regular season tells us they’re doing some things right. The issue with the playoffs is that you’re playing up to seven games against the same team, so the things that are wrong are likely to be exposed and exploited.
I keep going back to Gordo’s Take and finding insights that seem to make a lot of sense. And it seriously troubles me that a minor league player is able to clearly articulate things our coaches have either overlooked or not gotten across.
Today was a different beast than game one. On Thursday we went through the feeling-out process of a new team, and learned a bit about what we were up against. The Stars are a strong defensive team with good goaltending, and they take a lot of pride in blocking shots. That’s a tough combination for a team like us who plays a high-octane, offensive style. After watching tape the coaches made a few alterations to our game plan, and we set off into game two with a different outlook. I had no doubt that we would win tonight’s game.
Somewhere along the line, we let things slip. We played a very uncharacteristic game in my opinion. Each time we captured the momentum, we would shoot ourselves in the foot and go back to square one. Although the effort was there, it seemed like we let our emotions take control at times, and at this point in the season too much raw emotion can hurt you.
Well.. after watching Fehr and Balanced & GoPens argue about MTL’s defense and looking at where the Caps scored from against a shut down team… it seems a lot of their goals game from right in front of the net.
Well.. after watching Fehr and Balanced & GoPens argue about MTL’s defense and looking at where the Caps scored from against a shut down team… it seems a lot of their goals game from right in front of the net.Lesson learned. I think the caps would have breezed against most of the eastern teams this year.. but when playing a shut down D…. GET THE PUCK IN CLOSE… get some dirty goals.
Well.. after watching Fehr and Balanced & GoPens argue about MTL’s defense and looking at where the Caps scored from against a shut down team… it seems a lot of their goals game from right in front of the net.Lesson learned. I think the caps would have breezed against most of the eastern teams this year.. but when playing a shut down D…. GET THE PUCK IN CLOSE… get some dirty goals.We need more Knubles ! :P Rubles for Knubles!
It’s not that they’ve lost three Game 7’s, it’s that they’ve gotten to Game 7’s against two 7 seeds and an 8 seed with little (or no) adjustments by the guy who helped get them to 120+ points.
They're coming.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2010 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Well to be fair… The first year we were #3 and we didn’t really deserve to be. There’s a slight fault in rating teams when a team has to squeak out a win their very last game and they’re still a #3.
To be fair. I keep rating people highly because I can still buy the “need more experience” excuse … up until the end of this season. Next seasons there IS no excuse. Even someone as generous as me is gonna give straight 1’s if we don’t make it to at least the conference finals
OK, toss out year one, there’s still year two, against a 7 seed that was worse and dysfunctional than the one we played before that. And the same thing happened.
He’s had almost two decades in the role, making adjustments, evolving strategies, etc., and at the highest level, where’s that being done?
They're coming.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2010 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know if Bruce is totally to blame. I think there’s plenty to go around…I think it’s just crazy; the number of 1’s and 2’s BB is getting… I mean we thought for sure Varly would step up this year but he didn’t.. wasn’t Bruce’s fault. The goatender situation wasn’t bad this year but it wasn’t particularly good either… I don’t think you can blame that on Bruce.
So what can you blame him for? (This is the point where I link to the Accountability post and note how much of it sounds the same from last year, but I’ve done that already).
They're coming.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2010 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions
The Caps were only a 3 seed his first year, but that was because of the awful start under Hanlon. They played at over a 100 pt pace under BB that year, I believe. He gets some slack for that loss since the team was so inexperienced and had just fought so hard to get to the playoffs. But BB doesn’t get the same benefit of the doubt for the next two years.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 14, 2010 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, I got slammed at work yesterday and didn’t get a chance to reply (or really finish my original comment, to be honest).
I guess my point was that some responsibility HAS to be put on the players. It has to. Based on what I saw watching the series against the Habs, I wasn’t sitting there blaming the coach, so I guess that was the bottom line for me.
"I am ready for his provocations"
by PaintDrinkingPete on Jun 15, 2010 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
6
Didn’t expect presidents trophy. Would have been higher with a 2nd round exit or if the first round exit could have been more squarely placed on the players. I probably could have gone to 5 or 4, but I was feeling optimistic when I voted. If I could give him a regular season vote, I might actually go with the 6 for there and a 2 or 3 for the playoffs.
Next year a higher score will be far easier for him because I don’t expect anything to change, management/style/coahching-wise. I want it to, but don’t expect it, so if it does, he’ll get a much higher bump. If I had to rate my expectations for next year, I’d say it is about a 3 or 4 on this year’s scale.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → b a (select) start
Plus most of the problems we thought the team had coming in to the season were never really fixed.
Bingo.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Relative to expectations? 2
We knew the Caps could play during the regular season, that much wasn’t up for question. The playoffs were, and he failed, plain and simple. I love Bruce as much as any Caps fan, he’s a fantastic, great guy. But he’s not the one to take this team to the holy land, and he let us down this year. Sorry.
2
He does seem to be able to keep his charges playing hard, which is at least something. But he’s a bad technical coach, refuses to adjust an iota of his system, and he’s simply a bad, bad, bad playoff coach. And the playoffs are what it’s all about.
I don’t guess they’ll fire him, but I would not complain if they did.
"You want to start being part of the Rink? Fine, but more’s expected of you than John/Jane Cap Fan. Carry the cause of informed discussion to the unwashed masses and don’t crap in the yards of other SBN sites if you decide to go over there. They’re passionate about their teams too, no need to troll elsewhere and/or be a sore winner." --BP
3
BB’s negatives just seem to outweigh his positives, IMO.
He is a good motivator and can get career years out of Green and Semin, but when it comes to winning in the playoffs, that doesn’t get us very far (as we can plainly see).
This team has a ton of talent, especially to win in the regular season. I’m not going to say it’s easy to win the president’s trophy, but finding a lot of regular season success with this roster isn’t exactly a legendary achievement, IMO.
The way the team is built now, the stars it has, and the talent (open style offense) and deficiencies (grinding out goals) requires good tactics, strategy and discipline in a system.
And I don’t think Bruce can bring that to our team. Another coach may not get 70 points out of Mike Green, but he might get us to the ECF or SCF.
Bruce is a decent coach – meaning we can probably find someone better. If not this year, then next year if we crash out early again.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
3
Pres trophy was a nice thing over my high expectations. First round collapse way below my expectations. I ding BB for:
1. Passive, poor PK
2. Guys gripping sticks too tightly in the playoffs (Semin, Greenie)
3. Flash
4. Starting Theo when he had no confidence in him. Start the guy you believe in!! You’re the f’ing coach!
5. Failure to adjust to trapping teams
6. Failure to get Ovie out of his increasingly predictable and selfish play in the last couple playoff games.
I like BB. Seems like an incredibly decent guy. Obviously a players coach, but he’s got to get better at tactics or better at getting guys to raise their games in the playoffs. Both would make him a HOF worthy coach. One would make him a SC champ.
by CarlosLA on Jun 14, 2010 11:24 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
8
Without Boudreau, we’re the Blue Jackets with Rick Nash.
And with him we’re living in 1986 again.
They're coming.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 15, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Except both the Caps’ star player and supporting cast are far better than Nash and the Blue Jackets. The team rosters aren’t even close to comparable.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 15, 2010 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Shhhhhhhhhh… wires don’t talk.
I waited all year for this?
by Rob Parker on Jun 15, 2010 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Right. I mean, who’s Columbus’ equivalent of Mike Green? Of Nicklas Backstrom? Knuble or Fehr even? Is Gabby’s style of play what’s keeping Theo, Neuvirth, and Varlamov from putting up Steve Mason (circa 2009-2010) numbers?
Even if that were true, he’s so talented he can take a non-playoff team and turn them in to the best team in the league, yet he hasn’t found any real measure of playoff success? Is that even possible?
by David Getz on Jun 15, 2010 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Even if that were true, he’s so talented he can take a non-playoff team and turn them in to the best team in the league, yet he hasn’t found any real measure of playoff success? Is that even possible?
I rec’d it for that. This team is positively loaded – not 121 points loaded, we got lucky this year, but contending for the Presidents’ Trophy for the next couple years is absolutely not out of the question. This team is a legitimate threat for the Cup for the next few years – Bruce has plenty to work with. If he can’t get out a series in less than seven games, he’s not the coach for this team.
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Jun 15, 2010 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
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.
