Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
bluedevil58

The Bill Peters Watch

Recommended Posts

Let's try not to let this thread off the  rails. There is a lot of history and bad blood out there, but this is a legit topic so long as posters keep it on track.

 

In fact, it's been one of our better recent threads. Lets keep it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three categories in which this team has consistently outperformed (as in years) under Peters are possession, shots for and shots against. Outperformed the league, but unfortunately also outperformed actual goals allowed and goals scored. The team historically has had possession, limited shots, and taken more shots. This year we are #1 in shots against. Number one. We are number 5 in shots for, and number one in shot attempts % close (the percentage of total shots taken in close games, and supposedly a playoff marker). We are THE best team in the NHL at generating shots and limiting them and this applies to close games too. Looking back these numbers have persisted for at least 3 seasons including this one.

 

The question in my mind is conversion on both ends to goals has been pretty bad. Why? Is it the coach or the players, or some mix? I fully get that sometimes you just have to change out the coach because the message is lost, but in terms of evaluating Peters:

 

He has created a system that limits shots, and creates shots in a big advantage for his team. But his team cannot convert on either end.

 

1. Is it that Peter's system is flawed and only generates harmless goalie crest shots, or is it that our players are not collectively offensively talented enough to create.

2. Is it that Peters' system is flawed and allows a high percentage of prime shots? The D does? or the goalies are weak?

 

My take on both ends is lack of talent. On the offense, we have some really good players and some even knocking on the door of elite (Aho, TT, maybe Skinner) but we still lack those elite game breakers that find themselves in the top 30. TT is our best offensive player and he is #50 in points. Specifically the 1C we've been pining for since E Staal's numbers went south. Put John Tavares (or pick your top 20 forward) on this team and even with the goalie trouble we're in the playoffs. On defense, there have been some breakdowns recently, but really it's goalie. Cam Ward is reverting to form overall and Darling never arrived. Put the #15 save percentage goalie on our team and we're also in the playoffs.

 

So to me this suggests that Peters is a very good coach, but has not been give the talent. No top 40 forward, and continued below average goaltending. So to me the question is: can he survive long enough for the talent to arrive? If not, he'll be the sacrifice for being too early on Francis' long, slow curve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its any more complicated than this.  When you start looking at teams that make the playoffs and their talent we come up short offensively.   We have young budding players without a doubt, but how many of our players can you really project as 20+ goal scorers each year... I don't mean "ought to be" I mean will most likely be type of 20 goal scorers...  

 

Jordan Staal is not one (he will be this year I suspect)

Lindholm is not one (yet)

Rask is not one (yet)

Teravainen is not one (yet)

Stempniak is not one

Justin Williams IS one (less in years to come)

Skinner IS one

 

So after acquiring Justin Williams this year we now have exactly 2 !!!!!!  Think about that for a minute.  

 

We had 6 in 2005/6 (regular season) (this would have been 7 if Ray Whitney would have scored 3 more) and 10 skaters that had 10 or more goals!  Now that was by all standards an offensive year in the NHL after the clutch and grab was ended.  Still it puts in perspective that a team with Ray Whitney NOT scoring 20 goals that 6 other skaters did.  

 

I think BP has done an excellent job with the lack of top level talent he has.  If we can get the guy 2 legit 20 goal scorers imagine where we would be?

 

As a fan base we have lost our memory on what it takes to truly compete, not make the playoffs but to compete.  We like "our" guys and there is nothing wrong with that.  However make no mistake about it, when you look at the list above, offensively how many of "our" guys RIGHT NOW are equal offensively to Matt Cullen, Cory Stillman, Rod Brind'Amour, Eric Cole, Erik Staal, Justin Williams, and Ray Whitney then?  

 

I would submit exactly 2.  One because he is the same guy (J Willie) and the other who is Jeff Skinner.  

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, remkin said:

My take on both ends is lack of talent. On the offense, we have some really good players and some even knocking on the door of elite (Aho, TT, maybe Skinner) but we still lack those elite game breakers that find themselves in the top 30. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

You don't have to buy it. PK already did, and TD says he's happy with BP. 

 

I personally am looking forward to improvement in stats too. And the minute the talent and will to win are there, it'll happen.

 

No offense, but they also buy Jordan Staal and Faulk as core pieces on the team, but you’ll tell anyone that’ll listen about how we should trade them.  It works both ways.  And it seems like under your ideology, BP should get all the credit when the team’s successful, but no blame when they don’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to add that while my take is that the lack of high end talent up front and in goal is the issue, I'm open to opposing views. It could be argued that Peter's system doesn't get guys in position to make actual high quality NHL plays. I don't think so, but could be.

 

Also, Peters is content with the prototypical grinding core of "professional 4th line grinders". We probably get less production from our 4th line as any team. But so long as they grind and win faceoffs, and play heavy we keep them going. This may be fine, or even good, it's surely been historical conventional wisdom, but the best teams don't seem to see it that way, and I think that 4th line needs to add at least some goals, especially on a team that has less than average goals for, and our 4th line doesn't seem to be able to do it.

 

I think the goaltending though is really hard to put on Peters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canes lose in the blue paint.  It costs goals for and against.  IMO that is what skews the otherwise stellar numbers cited by Remkin.

 

I don't think BP is to blame for that.  His system works just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone remember Commodore's comments of Peters during a phone interview earlier this season?

 

Kinda keeps me wondering how much truth was behind it. His assessment was not positive or supportive and even though he made no mention of it, to me it sounded a lot like someone within the organization confided in him.

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, remkin said:

I want to add that while my take is that the lack of high end talent up front and in goal is the issue, I'm open to opposing views. It could be argued that Peter's system doesn't get guys in position to make actual high quality NHL plays. I don't think so, but could be.

 

I think the goaltending though is really hard to put on Peters.

 

This is my point exactly.  BP’s system doesn’t have a high percentage play rate, and it’s shown in the way we’ve played the past 4 years.  

 

And I put the goaltending more on GMRF.  Darling has been a dud.  I was never sold on him, but I realized we needed to do something.  I just wished we would’ve gone with someone with starting experience.  And Cam Ward is way past his expiration date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Whaler1 said:

Anyone remember Commodore's comments of Peters during a phone interview earlier this season?

 

Kinda keeps me wondering how much truth was behind it. His assessment was not positive or supportive and even though he made no mention of it, to me it sounded a lot like someone within the organization confided in him.

 

   

 

I must have missed those.  Does it have to stem from the time Peters was an assistant under Babcock?  Peters was in charge of STs and defense until he got here.  Does Mike hate all things to deal with his time under Babcock?  In case anyone is unaware there are a few articles on Commodore ripping Babcock.  It could be someone has confided in him from the organization, I'm not sure.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

 

No offense, but they also buy Jordan Staal and Faulk as core pieces on the team, but you’ll tell anyone that’ll listen about how we should trade them.  It works both ways.  And it seems like under your ideology, BP should get all the credit when the team’s successful, but no blame when they don’t.

None taken, and none meant when I respond:

 

Neither Staal nor Faulk were chosen by TD, and to my knowledge he hasn't gone on the record about any player, though he has about BP. Both Jordan and Faulk were bought by PK, when he was still being sold a bill of goods--er, influenced by a now-gone GM.

 

I've also suggested moving Jordan because of diminishing value as he ages and the NTC that now-gone GM gave him. Perhaps you missed it, but I've noted on several occasions that I like his game and what he brings, but that if he'd bring back a 1C, I think that's an easy decision. I've also noted that choosing him and Faulk as co-Captains only makes sense if it was done with an eye toward burnishing their reps and upping their market values. I think we all expected Williams or Skinner to get the C, and the fact that neither did was a fail, whether on BP, RF or both.

 

Neither have I said (nor suggested) that BP should get all the credit when the team succeeds. All he has done is show that if they play his system, they will win games. When the team wins I give them full credit, because they should get it--just as they deserve criticism when they lose. But on losing night the passengers become pretty obvious, and until Faulk, Ryan, Rask, PDG and others stop riding the bus and share some driving, I'm gonna keep pointing it out. 

 

The logic that says this org will solve problems that have plagued it since Paul Maurice 2.0 by firing the coach is, to me, about as sensible as 2 + 2 = aardvarks. But hey, to each their own.

Edited by top-shelf-1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

 

I must have missed those.  Does it have to stem from the time Peters was an assistant under Babcock?  Peters was in charge of STs and defense until he got here.  Does Mike hate all things to deal with his time under Babcock?  In case anyone is unaware there are a few articles on Commodore ripping Babcock.  It could be someone has confided in him from the organization, I'm not sure.  

Comms was funny and fun to watch--and lasted in the NHL about four years longer than he deserved to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Whaler1 said:

Anyone remember Commodore's comments of Peters during a phone interview earlier this season?

 

Kinda keeps me wondering how much truth was behind it. His assessment was not positive or supportive and even though he made no mention of it, to me it sounded a lot like someone within the organization confided in him.

 

   

I don't recall that but I know he ripped Babcock many times.

 

Former NHL defenseman Mike Commodore has never been one to bite his tongue. The retired Stanley Cup champion is one of the most outspoken athletes on Twitter, especially when it comes to matters concerning his former head coach Mike Babcock

Commodore briefly played for Babcock with the Detroit Red Wings and, as evidenced by his online comments, wasn’t a fan. When former Wings star Pavel Datsyuk took to Twitter to congratulate his former head coach on achieving his 600th career win, Commodore couldn’t help but weigh in.

Check it out:

 

Pav you are the man...but pipe down. We don't want to hear it. You never listened to that piece of *edit* anyways.

 
 

Wow… tell us how you really feel, Commie! Is this just sour grapes? While Babcock may have a reputation for being a "hard *edit*" coach, we don't see any other former players ripping into him on social media. So, what gives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Comms was funny and fun to watch--and lasted in the NHL about four years longer than he deserved to. 

He's hilarious to listen to when speaking about his KHL experience. He said any flight, any, was a 10 hour trip. He signed without really understanding exactly where he would be living and playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, remkin said:

Just for fun. It was speculated on XM NHL today that Quinville might be done after this year in Chicago. 

 

Just say no to Q. The speed of the league has passed him by, can't adjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

 

I must have missed those.  Does it have to stem from the time Peters was an assistant under Babcock?  Peters was in charge of STs and defense until he got here.  Does Mike hate all things to deal with his time under Babcock?  In case anyone is unaware there are a few articles on Commodore ripping Babcock.  It could be someone has confided in him from the organization, I'm not sure.  

 

Not sure but I think it was on Canes' Corner beginning of the season. Basically said Peters and Babcock are on a constant power trip and attention hogs or something to that effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Manwolf said:

I don't think BP is to blame for that.  His system works just fine.

So do we call for Steve Smith's head then?  He's also in charge of our wonderful PK unit that's still languishing at the bottom of the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, remkin said:

 We probably get less production from our 4th line as any team.

 

Rem, you keep saying this, but do you know if it's true or not?  I look at how the fourth line is used by BP and I'd say Goals Against is his measuring stick, not Goals For.  But yeah, if you are expecting a scoring fourth line, I agree, BP's system isn't really setup for success there.  But does that mean other team's fourth lines are used differently, and by default, score more?

 

Below is our most often used fourth line, their usage, and their production:

 

image.png.574bfb06156c07854490bad99fbc244a.png

 

image.png.a421051299a16ee9178bb4ab1c6ffd8b.png

 

I chose Tampa Bay for comparison, a team I would consider very offensive minded:

 

image.png.28f60a4518c61798fcb9a5c817070eac.png

 

image.png.412473b99efe8ac309c9abcc0d82af5f.png

 

So, I'm not seeing much difference here, in terms of O-zone starts, or QOC (i.e. player usage).  Even on an offensive-minded team like the Bolts, fourth lines are defensive lines for the most part, and by default don't score much.  Looking at production and shut down ability, their fourth line is slightly better offensively, but ours is slightly better defensively than theirs.  I really think the "slightly better" offensively gets magnified out of proportion when you compare our fourth line to a fourth line on an offensive juggernaut like the Bolts.  On the surface your like, "man, we need a scoring fourth line like they have".  But when you dig down...

 

Maybe there is a better team for comparison, and admittedly, I've only looked at the Bolts. But identifying fourth line scoring as a measure of a coach's abilities is misplaced logic IMO, relative to other team's, their fourth lines, and how their coach's use those players.

 

Feel free to dig deeper if you like- https://leftwinglock.com/index.php

I figure you might like this site if you are interested in line combos, defensive pairings, and goalie tandems and how they stack up against other teams.

 

image.png.61daa7800bb0be1fc473dd75a3d631a7.png

 

image.png.26feca1abd96c9de350d02234c2b8988.png

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coastal,

 

In this case it is more a sense following our 4th lines and the words of experts I've heard. Not a comprehensive study on all 4th lines in the league.  I am certainly open to evidence to the contrary. I think it would take some more digging as you've suggested to be sure that there is no team with a 4th line that can score though. As I mentioned in my post, conventional wisdom and most teams use the 4th line as you've mentioned and so have we. But it's a question of degree. How much lack of scoring from the 4th line is ok? The 4h line is going to score less not only because of situational use, but a lot less total minutes too. So we don't ever reasonably expect much, but we do need some.

 

Trip brought it up in the last broadcast that we are not getting enough offense from the 4th line, and I've heard some experts on other venues talk about getting some scoring from the 4th line, but I just can't recall which teams. I think Pittsburgh last year, but I don't have time to check at the moment.

 

I did do a quick comparison of our cup team. The combined mostly 4th line guys put up .25 ppg that year. Our mostly 4th line guys are at .11 ppg. Also, my recollection is that our current 4th line scored more earlier on and lately even less so.

 

I'm not sure those extra goals really matter that much, but for a team that doesn't score much, and at the cut line, they might.

 

I do get your point about limiting goals. If the 4h line is a net positive plus minus, that has to be good almost by definition since they are not getting PP time. To that end PDG is -3 and Kruger is -4 which is actually very good, Jooris ok at -6, and Nordstrom -9.

 

But in another way what the preponderance of other team's 4th lines does is only partially relevant because what I am really thinking about is something different. That is jettisoning the grinders and bringing up an entire line of AHL guys who might score. It really could be a bad idea for a lot of reasons, but just recalling the infusion of River Rats that one year with Walker, there could be an upside. They cycled and scrapped but they scored too. 

 

Again, it might be too disruptive, they might not be as good defensively, etc. But we need all the scoring we can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Whaler1 said:

 

 

Not sure but I think it was on Canes' Corner beginning of the season. Basically said Peters and Babcock are on a constant power trip and attention hogs or something to that effect. 

I believe that falls in the category mental health professionals call "projecting." One look at Comm's Twitter feed confirms it. Take your NHL pension, Mike, and stop trolling the guys who still have jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, remkin said:

I think it would take some more digging as you've suggested to be sure that there is no team with a 4th line that can score though.

 

Define "score".  It's all relative.  And since you can't compare our 4th line to the AHL, the only comparison are the other 30 NHL teams.  Show me a 4th line that can score by your definition.  I looked at the top 16 teams.  The best fourth line combination on each of those teams doesn't have more than 6 goals over one half of a season. Our most often used fourth line has 3 goals during the same time period.   Does that mean if the Canes fourth line had 3 more goals the team would have a scoring fourth line?  And if you look at the line combos, fourth lines rarely stay intact from one game to the next, not to mention almost every fourth line combo never exceeds 9 minutes TOI.

 

When your top-9 can't score enough, then sure, you absolutely need a talking head to tell the fans we need more from the fourth line.  Brilliant Trip.  Every team in the league wants more scoring from the fourth line.  But, they are not setup or put in a position to "score".  They grind and kill penalties and that's just the way it is.

 

And to the original point, if you want to assign blame on Peters' system for not producing from the fourth line, then I say that's just grabbing at the low hanging fruit.  Some of my issues with Peters is certainly not fourth line scoring.  It's also not why we are struggling again.  With that said, sure, I hope the fourth line scores more.

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, remkin said:

they might not be as good defensively, etc. But we need all the scoring we can get

We do, but I'm with CC, this suggests that scoring trumps defense. That is just not true, especially in today's (mostly) low-scoring NHL. One hand washes the other: preventing goals has only a bit less value than scoring them (one goal less value per game, to be exact, until you have the lead--when their values flip).

 

In every configuration of lines throughout his tenure, BP has followed the conventional wisdom: Fourth lines are there to hold the fort, and any scoring they give you is a bonus. I know Tripp Tracey wants more goals out of the fourth. So do I. Who wouldn't? But I also think that, if asked whether he'd accept less defense when there's two minutes left and the Canes have one-goal lead in exchange for those goals, he'd say no.

 

The top three lines produce the offense, but only five of the nine guys on those lines are on pace for 20-goal seasons, and - the key point - none of them projects to 30. Only Fishy is close: if he comes back after the AG, misses no more games, and equals what he's done already, he scores 27. 

 

Of course, there's the x-factor of the stretch drive to consider. Was Skinner on pace for 30 at this time last year? I'm too lazy to look, but good players rise to the occasion, and I think all of the Canes top goal scorers - Aho, TT, Skins, Lindholm, and Jordan - are such guys. We already know that Willy and Stemp are two more. Rask and McGinn have the tools to be. 

 

All of which is the best argument I can think of - assuming a trade is not made - for having Ryan and Kruger split fourth-line centering duties with Nordy and Brock on the wings, and slotting Zykov in the top nine. Move PDG or Jooris out, keep the other as the healthy forward scratch (with whichever of Ryan and Kruger is sitting), and bring up more Chex when the roster expands after the TD.   

 

If we are going to sacrifice D for scoring, I'd rather do it with one guy on one of the top three lines (Zykov) than by trading out an entire line that already knows (and does) its job effectively.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, Rem... I feel the need to state for the record that there was no collusion between myself and CC (let alone any Russians) on the above replies. (GREAT minds think alike--and apparently OURS do, in spite of that!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Whoa, Rem... I feel the need to state for the record that there was no collusion between myself and CC (let alone any Russians) on the above replies. (GREAT minds think alike--and apparently OURS do, in spite of that!)

 

Huh, what am I missing here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:

 

Huh, what am I missing here?

This may hurt, but you asked.....something about minds.  Sorry, man.  Really.  I should delete this post, but I just...can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

 

Define "score".  It's all relative.  And since you can't compare our 4th line to the AHL, the only comparison are the other 30 NHL teams.  Show me a 4th line that can score by your definition.  I looked at the top 16 teams.  The best fourth line combination on each of those teams doesn't have more than 6 goals over one half of a season. Our most often used fourth line has 3 goals during the same time period.   Does that mean if the Canes fourth line had 3 more goals the team would have a scoring fourth line?  And if you look at the line combos, fourth lines rarely stay intact from one game to the next, not to mention almost every fourth line combo never exceeds 9 minutes TOI.

 

When your top-9 can't score enough, then sure, you absolutely need a talking head to tell the fans we need more from the fourth line.  Brilliant Trip.  Every team in the league wants more scoring from the fourth line.  But, they are not setup or put in a position to "score".  They grind and kill penalties and that's just the way it is.

 

And to the original point, if you want to assign blame on Peters' system for not producing from the fourth line, then I say that's just grabbing at the low hanging fruit.  Some of my issues with Peters is certainly not fourth line scoring.  It's also not why we are struggling again.  With that said, sure, I hope the fourth line scores more.

 

Hey if you've looked at the top 16 teams and our 4th line is 3 goals off of the best, then it's not a big issue. I looked at our team in 05-06, and the difference is probably about the same as the best team this year. I would actually say that more makes your point. They did score twice as much, but then it was maybe 6-7 total extra goals. Of course if it comes down to one or two games, that might be key, but overall, it's not that much.

 

I'm a fan of Peters and the line about the 4th line scoring was a line contained in a mostly positive position. My position is that Peters is a good coach. But even then, I pointed out that what I'm suggesting is not conventional wisdom, and if the top 16 teams don't get much more out of their 4th lines, then that shows that it's really not easy to do.

 

My sense of why that is, that 4th lines don't score, is not necessarily because it is always optimal though. It is because it is nearly unavoidable. There is not enough scoring talent available for it. Most teams, Canes included, would kill for a scoring third line, let alone 4th line. And even if one team could amass that much talent, they couldn't generally fit it under the cap.

 

The other issue is ice time. The offensively talented guys expect to get the ice time. A scoring 4th line would not have much impact if they got 5 minutes of ice time a night. But that would take ice time from an established "scoring" forward. They'd be po'd. But maybe that wouldn't be all bad.

 

But what if a team had talent in the AHL on cheap salaries? What if a team brought them up as a line or at least two of them and gave them 10 minutes a night and let them try to score. If they did, then the ice time would come from whatever other line was not playing the way the coach wanted (oh, not going to the net, or lazy back checking). What if those guys could also grind, at least mostly as well as the guys we have now?

 

Sure, it just isn't the way it's done. And maybe it's been tried and wasn't so great. But the time we brought the Rats up it worked, and they were not as talented as guys we have in Charlotte now.  I get that it may not be a good idea. We'd have to waive some guys and bench a couple of others. It might p.o. some veterans too. In the end the possibility of a few more goals vs. possibly losing some of that veteran grinding, probably is not a good idea. But it is something that could be tried if we needed a shake up but could not find a trade to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...