Counting stats aside, what’s frustrating to me as a lifelong fan (and college/beer leaguer) is that Jake prefers to glide rather than stride - there’s an aloof quality that crept into his game and gradually, for me at any rate, came to define it. I’m fully prepared for him to break out elsewhere with a clean slate but I find him tough to watch. He can also be sneaky dirty, and all these traits taken together mean I’m okay with his departure.
I like a lot of your posts but I am going to respectfully disagree with this one. What wins hockey games is good players who play hard the whole 200 feet of the rink, not good players who‘ve got a great shot but spend too much time floating when the puck isn’t on their stick.
Who is scoring the 6 goals in this hypothetical? Because it sure as shit ain’t DeBrusk.
I’d argue that his elite players are why he makes the playoffs every year. He gets credit from me for deploying them correctly and maximizing their effect, but I don’t think his inability to adapt to offensive players is really a strength of his. It's certainly not the reason they make the playoffs. I'm not saying Debrusk is without blame. He's not. Effort is the one thing you can always control and he's sometimes not shown that. My point is just that this coach has not put him in a position to succeed for a very long time and I don't think that is really debatable. He's also not the first player he's done that to and they are almost always young players who some offensive acumen. I'd love if every player played hard all 200 feet but the truth is, he usually trades the Debrusks for Kuhlmans, and they both play 100 feet, just on the opposite sides of the rink.
He scored 5 fucking goals last season, sucks on defense, and can’t be bothered to give effort off the puck for games at a time. This isn’t like he’s benching Kessel because he doesn’t play defense.
I'm not absolving him of blame, Ive specifically stated many times that he shares a lot of blame for his effort but you're absolving the coaching staff. I don't think looking critically at the situation is lazy. I think saying "this player is to blame" and anyone who disagrees with that is making a tired argument is lazy.
Yeah man - I wasn’t responding to you. Once you used Stamkos as a comp for DeBrusk I moved right along to chatting with Nap here.
They’ve neutered him the last two years to the tune of 66% and 58% OZone starts while riding shotgun to David Krejci until he sucked for a long enough time where he had to be moved in the hopes of actually getting the top six scoring that he wasn’t providing.
The real issues are that this is all non-falsifiable, and at least somewhat contradictory. DeBrusk is simultaneously not as bad defensively as Cassidy says he is and as his effort seems to show—and he gets credit for that, rather than Cassidy’s system—while also being roughly average or a bit below offensively—and he also gets credit for that while Cassidy’s coaching is materially to blame for him not being better?
STL is interesting. Wonder if something larger could be worked out with Tarasenko involved. I'm not really sure if his trade request is still in place, but IIRC, Boston was one of his preferred destinations. He's off to a pretty good start to the year, 19 points in 22 games. It'd have to be a larger deal and the Bruins would have to add and balance salary, but IDK. Unhappy winger for unhappy winger might make some sense.
That's really not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that there is some shared blame here. That is a point Cassidy acknowledged in his end of the year press conference. It's not just a player is lazy. It's that a coach has some responsibility to get the most of his players and he clearly failed here with Jake. I don't think its all that controversial to say a coach who has a history of tinkering, tinkered with a player, who was a very good player, to the point where he damaged his confidence and that hurt the guys motivation. I would love it if Jake took it all in stride and kicked it into high gear but he didn't. I think a good amount of us on this board manage people and we all know you can't just motivate everyone the same way because people respond differently.
Sure, but how much? I’ll grant that Cassidy isn’t perfect, and that I disagree with the degree of absolutism in @TFP ‘s post about what an NHL head coach’s job is. But can we frame this in a relative sense? My guess is that we’re more aligned than our posts might indicate—you might have noticed that frustration gets to me and my writing as well.
I’d say that his responsibility is to get the most out of his team, rather than any one individual player. He’s not perfect in that regard, but catering to one specific player has opportunity costs in terms of method and scarce management resources and messaging consistency. I have no greater insight, but motivation of the team as a whole has not seemed to be the problem during Cassidy’s tenure. Scoring depth has.
I don’t think it’s clear, and it’s more than a bit post hoc ergo propter hoc. DeBrusk isn’t fuel to be burned and the coach isn’t to be measured by the efficiency rate at which he’s converted to energy.
we're getting better, MYT1. We can do it.Sure, but how much? I’ll grant that Cassidy isn’t perfect, and that I disagree with the degree of absolutism in @TFP ‘s post about what an NHL head coach’s job is. But can we frame this in a relative sense? My guess is that we’re more aligned than our posts might indicate—you might have noticed that frustration gets to me and my writing as well.
I’d say that his responsibility is to get the most out of his team, rather than any one individual player. He’s not perfect in that regard, but catering to one specific player has opportunity costs in terms of method and scarce management resources and messaging consistency. I have no greater insight, but motivation of the team as a whole has not seemed to be the problem during Cassidy’s tenure. Scoring depth has.
I don’t think it’s clear, and it’s more than a bit post hoc ergo propter hoc. DeBrusk isn’t fuel to be burned and the coach isn’t to be measured by the efficiency rate at which he’s converted to energy.
Everything hurts DeBrusk’s confidence and motivation. Being moved around the lineup, lockdowns, not being able to go out and socialize due to league protocols, his stick and whether it has holes in it. He’s been given ample chance to be a top six forward on a playoff team. He appears not to be that. None of that makes him a bad person—these aren’t moral failings.
As for tinkering, you might have a better idea of rates across the league, but isn’t that just what happens with bottom six forwards, especially those on cobbled-together, no depth teams? I’d have preferred to see DeBrusk play less on his off wing, and more on the left side (because that’s a specific mechanical issue), but if you’re not a superstar performer (and even if you are, see Pasternak second line experiments and the recent revolving door McAvoy partners), you gotta find a way to fit and contribute.
Your posts haven’t gone so far as this, so I’m using this conversation as more of a jumping off point: when we talk about failures of specific players—especially those for whom consistency is an issue—the blame is more often laid first at the door of the coach than the player. As you’ve rightly pointed out, a one-size fits all approach is typically not the most effective form of management. But my impression from some of these discussions is that, if only the coach were the right combination of Louis Gosset Jr. in An Officer And A Gentleman and Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting, the player would flourish.
Nothing crazy new here, but I do think it's somewhat notable that they appear to be more interested in receiving immediate help rather than futures.
