Krueger on WGR 10/1/19

[TrueBlueGED]

Scenario: Okposo spends most of this year on the 4th line and puts up 20 points the next two seasons. Everybody is fired. New coach comes in and puts him back in the top-6 because he thinks it was the last coach who made him a poor offensive player. Completely ignoring the consistent decline through 3 coaches (Bylsma to Housley to Krueger) and the tape showing a significant skill decline on top of production. Are you really okay with a coach thinking that way? I have a huge problem with it. 

There is absolutely some wiggle room for coaches to say "I'm going to put this player in a position to succeed." But to use that reasoning to wave a hand to all decisions, to say nothing of the obviously egregious mistakes, is just way more leeway than is justifiable. 

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Sobotka. Again. ?

Why does it always have to come back to Sobotka?

?

Because there simply isn't a strong counterargument ?

[Doohicksie]

5 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

You can feel it in your gut that it's happening,

Yeah, like when they control the puck in the offensive zone for an entire shift.

[Ho-Chi-Sock]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

I swear I've seen this damn GIF more times this month than I've seen my parents all year...

[Broken Ankles]

27 minutes ago, Ho-Chi-Sock said:

I swear I've seen this damn GIF more times this month than I've seen my parents all year...

sounds like someone needs to pick up the phone. 

[Broken Ankles]

41 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Scenario: Okposo spends most of this year on the 4th line and puts up 20 points the next two seasons. Everybody is fired. New coach comes in and puts him back in the top-6 because he thinks it was the last coach who made him a poor offensive player. Completely ignoring the consistent decline through 3 coaches (Bylsma to Housley to Krueger) and the tape showing a significant skill decline on top of production. Are you really okay with a coach thinking that way? I have a huge problem with it. 

There is absolutely some wiggle room for coaches to say "I'm going to put this player in a position to succeed." But to use that reasoning to wave a hand to all decisions, to say nothing of the obviously egregious mistakes, is just way more leeway than is justifiable. 

Because there simply isn't a strong counterargument ?

+1 on this take.   Excellent analogy using Okposo.    Below is who Vladdy played with in 2017/18 in STL.   Arguably better centers, or wingers that season.  So his absolute ceiling is 31 points when he is 30 years old playing 17.5M/game with a line up like this....and Ralph can somehow manufacturer more with less, and two years older?  

I too believe in putting players in positions to succeed.  But within reason. 

[dudacek]

11 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Scenario: Okposo spends most of this year on the 4th line and puts up 20 points the next two seasons. Everybody is fired. New coach comes in and puts him back in the top-6 because he thinks it was the last coach who made him a poor offensive player. Completely ignoring the consistent decline through 3 coaches (Bylsma to Housley to Krueger) and the tape showing a significant skill decline on top of production. Are you really okay with a coach thinking that way? I have a huge problem with it. 

There is absolutely some wiggle room for coaches to say "I'm going to put this player in a position to succeed." But to use that reasoning to wave a hand to all decisions, to say nothing of the obviously egregious mistakes, is just way more leeway than is justifiable. 

This is sound. Fully agree.

But if we have to talk about Sobotka, I don’t know that he fits your scenario of 5 years of steady decline. I know he’s being portrayed as awful in St. Louis, but he had 10 goals, 31 points and an OK 49.4% Corsi with just 45% offensive zone starts. Those are mediocre stats, not “worst player in hockey.”

Scenario: New coach looks at the roster he’s handed. Sees two top guys and one secondary guy he fully trusts at both ends, and one top guy and four secondary guys he’s worried about in their own zone. For his 9th forward, he figures he absolutely needs somebody he can trust to play sound defence and win some face offs to balance the rest of them off. He’s got a small kid who gives his all and has some surprising creativity, but also has some physical limitations in that he gets knocked off the puck easily and he’s prone to coughing it up at inopportune moments. And he’s got a veteran who was god-awful offensively last year, but was OK the year before and was exactly the type of player he is looking for earlier in his career, as well as probably being the best face-off man on the team. So he challenges the kid to be safer and better on draws, and the vet to be less of an offensive black hole. And he watches and sees how they respond, all the while remembering what he needs most in this role.

Now I don’t even consider this process because based on last year, I think Sobotka is finished. But understand what Ralph’s process was and why he made the decision he did.

And I curse JBot for not acquiring an Erik Haula, with my fingers crossed that Ralph is smarter than me, or at least quick to recognize the mistake he has made.

[Randall Flagg]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This is sound. Fully agree.

But if we have to talk about Sobotka, I don’t know that he fits your scenario of 5 years of steady decline. I know he’s being portrayed as awful in St. Louis, but he had 10 goals, 31 points and an OK 49.4% Corsi with just 45% offensive zone starts. Those are mediocre stats, not “worst player in hockey.”

Scenario: New coach looks at the roster he’s handed. Sees two top guys and one secondary guy he fully trusts at both ends, and one top guy and four secondary guys he’s worried about in their own zone. For his 9th forward, he figures he absolutely needs somebody he can trust to play sound defence and win some face offs to balance the rest of them off. He’s got a small kid who gives his all and has some surprising creativity, but also has some physical limitations in that he gets knocked off the puck easily and he’s prone to coughing it up at inopportune moments. And he’s got a veteran who was god-awful offensively last year, but was OK the year before and was exactly the type of player he is looking for earlier in his career, as well as probably being the best face-off man on the team. So he challenges the kid to be safer and better on draws, and the vet to be less of an offensive black hole. And he watches and sees how they respond, all the while remembering what he needs most in this role.

Now I don’t even consider this process because based on last year, I think Sobotka is finished. But understand what Ralph’s process was and why he made the decision he did.

And I curse JBot for not acquiring an Erik Haula, with my fingers crossed that Ralph is smarter than me, or at least quick to recognize the mistake he has made.

Surface stats don't tell the full story of Sobotka in St. Louis during his last year, but I know you've read me going into that enough to last a lifetime ?

[Curt]

9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 And I curse JBot for not acquiring an Erik Haula, with my fingers crossed that Ralph is smarter than me, or at least quick to recognize the mistake he has made.

Just a note on Haula.  The knee injury that he suffered and following surgery was a very devastating and major thing.  Dislocated patella and damaged bone and cartilage inside of knee joint.  It wasn’t a simple ligament repair.  It’s possible that he is never again the player he was.  That could be one logical reason to steer clear.

[LGR4GM]

I'll give Sobotka 1 period in honor of Labatt being back. 

After Sob sucks though, I'm going back to clean old fashioned hate. 

[Stoner]

26 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I'll give Sobotka 1 period in honor of Labatt being back. 

After Sob sucks though, I'm going back to clean old fashioned hate. 

I'd bet two of the last three hairs I have left that Vlad Sobotka was one of the guys ready to run through a wall for RaKru after the coach's speech to the team. You watch. You just watch.

[7+6=13]

Ralph Krueger:  "When we moved the blue lines, it changed the game.  You need to be much much more aggressive at the blue line than you used to be, so that entries become difficult.  It begins all the way up in the offensive zone - where all defense starts.  In the defensive zone itself it's about aggressiveness on the puck and the support behind that may  be less of a man focus the further away from the initial pressure you are.  It's not complicated but it's hard work."

When I heard him talking - I knew this man knows how to teach the modern game.  

Edited October 3, 2019 by 7+6=13

[Doohicksie]

5 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

When I heard him talking - I knew this man knows how to teach the modern game.

When I hear him talking he sounds like every other motivational speaker, and as a nearly 57 year old cynical guy, all I can think is what a crock.  But I remind myself that he's not coaching 57 year old guys, he's coaching guys in their teens and 20s.  I can see where he could get them to believe in themselves.  If it results in any success it could become an upward spiral.

Or not.

[7+6=13]

5 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

When I hear him talking he sounds like every other motivational speaker, and as a nearly 57 year old cynical guy, all I can think is what a crock.  But I remind myself that he's not coaching 57 year old guys, he's coaching guys in their teens and 20s.  I can see where he could get them to believe in themselves.  If it results in any success it could become an upward spiral.

Or not.

I can see why you would think that but when he starts talking hockey - it changes for me.  I think he really knows what he wants the team to do and that for me is more than we've had in Bylsma and Housley.  

[spndnchz]

3 hours ago, Curt said:

This is exactly correct.  They are preseason games for a reason.  They don’t count in the standings for a reason.  They are equal parts tryouts, practice, and fan exhibition.  I think they have little value in player evaluation.  Even if a given player looks good/bad, how often in the regular season does a good player look bad for 3-4 games in a row?  Happens all the time, but if it happens in preseason I’m supposed to think it’s a big deal?  

I think RK handled it pretty well for his first NHL preseason. 

[Curt]

18 minutes ago, spndnchz said:

I think RK handled it pretty well for his first NHL preseason. 

Handled what pretty well?  I didn’t say anything bad about him.  Also, it’s his 4th NHL preseason, 2nd as a HC.

[Drunkard]

On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 1:20 PM, SDS said:

Something of note that he said is that he doesn't think he is fair to judge a player when you don't know what he was asked to do. 

I've been a big fan of this line of thinking for a long time.

This sounds an awful lot like the "clean slate" and "we won't watch film from previous seasons" that Housley said when he got here. If they aren't going to take past performance into account this may turn into another one of those evaluation years fans have got to be tired of paying good money to see.

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, Drunkard said:

This sounds an awful lot like the "clean slate" and "we won't watch film from previous seasons" that Housley said when he got here. If they aren't going to take past performance into account this may turn into another one of those evaluation years fans have got to be tired of paying good money to see.

This is what I thought too at first, but I think it's supposed to be more of a quote about "outsiders". Ie. we aren't privy as fans to what the parameters were on their evaluation process so therefore can't opine on it one way or the other. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Thorny

[spndnchz]

20 hours ago, Curt said:

Handled what pretty well?  I didn’t say anything bad about him.  Also, it’s his 4th NHL preseason, 2nd as a HC.

You count those? I won’t. 

[Eleven]

22 hours ago, Curt said:

Handled what pretty well?  I didn’t say anything bad about him.  Also, it’s his 4th NHL preseason, 2nd as a HC.

There’s really no need to be so curt about it.

[pi2000]

On 10/3/2019 at 1:59 PM, Drunkard said:

This sounds an awful lot like the "clean slate" and "we won't watch film from previous seasons" that Housley said when he got here. If they aren't going to take past performance into account this may turn into another one of those evaluation years fans have got to be tired of paying good money to see.

RK mentioned that he's watched plenty of film from past games.  His objective was to figure out what each player does well so he's not trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

That said, I don't think his system is any better or any worse than Housley's or Bylsma's for that matter.    As a coach you need to be a good salesman, and RK has that ability to sell.... at least it appears that way early one.   The players just didn't completely buy into what Housley or Bylsma were selling.

Edited October 5, 2019 by pi2000

[French Collection]

9 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

RK mentioned that he's watched plenty of film from past games.  His objective was to figure out what each player does well so he's not trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

That said, I don't think his system is any better or any worse than Housley's or Bylsma's for that matter.    As a coach you need to be a good salesman, and RK has that ability to sell.... at least it appears that way early one.   The players just didn't completely buy into what Housley or Bylsma were selling.

You’re right on the sales part of the process.

I think most coaches at this level have a good grasp of strategy and tactics, motivating the players to play hard and to buy into the plan is a big part of it. I think that is where RK’s strength is. By getting to truly know his players they have more trust in him and they can have honest conversations about expectations.

[LGR4GM]

HCRK will have his first test when someone he's already picked fails and he has to hold them accountable. That's been a major problem on this team for years. You can screw up consistently without consequences. 

[SDS]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

HCRK will have his first test when someone he's already picked fails and he has to hold them accountable. That's been a major problem on this team for years. You can screw up consistently without consequences. 

What should the consequences be?

[LGR4GM]

16 minutes ago, SDS said:

What should the consequences be?

That's up to HCRK

[SDS]

15 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

That's up to HCRK

What if a player is not performing well, but the replacement is not performing any better?