Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

[BUT09]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Wasted: The inside story of what went wrong for the 2009-10 Terriers

BU Hammer will have an article in tomorrow's paper outlining some of the positives and looking ahead to next year. Kind of the good cop to my bad cop, if you will.

Way less exciting than I thought it would be after your hints. I hope they don't stay stuck in this fog.

 

[Rover]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Wasted: The inside story of what went wrong for the 2009-10 Terriers

BU Hammer will have an article in tomorrow's paper outlining some of the positives and looking ahead to next year. Kind of the good cop to my bad cop, if you will.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time and again, he addressed the media after a loss and said that he could tell his team wasn’t ready to play in the hours or even days leading up to the contest. But Parker could never figure out how to cure his team of that illness.

“It’s hard to coach a team when the players don’t want what the coaches want,” Parker said. “They weren’t hungry enough. The coaches wanted to do it again, have a good season, but at no time was that a priority with our team as far as I could tell.”

Parker tried just about every motivational tactic in the book -- he yelled at players, he expressed disappointment in them, he called them out by name, he changed their pregame routine, he even picked out the positives -- and none of them worked.

But there’s one thing Parker said he wishes he had done more of.

“When I look back on it now, I would’ve benched more guys,” he said. “I would’ve taken them out of the lineup because they weren’t performing.”

Parker said he also would’ve kept more tabs on his players away from the rink.

“We needed to be more attuned to what was going on school-wise, to what was going on socially,” he said. “We should’ve been more involved with that because we didn’t have the in-house monitoring that we should’ve had out of the captains and the seniors.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

After 37 years of coaching, shouldn't he be able to correct these problems during the season, and not in hindsight? If you can't reach a player or two, fine, but if the whole team is taking the season off, isn't that his job to fix it?

 

[Federal League]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Way less exciting than I thought it would be after your hints. I hope they don't stay stuck in this fog.

I told y'all not to get your sights set too high. After the whole Epic Photo fiasco that went down on here, I'm trying to avoid hyping anything too much.

The Boston Hockey Blog: Not ESPN

 

[buoldtimer]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Wasted: The inside story of what went wrong for the 2009-10 Terriers

BU Hammer will have an article in tomorrow's paper outlining some of the positives and looking ahead to next year. Kind of the good cop to my bad cop, if you will.

At any time during the interview on which this article is based, or during the season, did anyone ask JP if he thought the attitude and focus would've been different if Brian Strait had returned for his senior season? Did anyone ask Shattenkirk or the seniors the same question?

 

[kennedy]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

The Red Line was Amonte, McEachern, and Tkachuk. They wore red practice jersey's so they were "The Red Line." I don't attend practices, so don't know if it's still done.

The #'s (I know defkit has posted them before, but I never get tired of seeing them)

Amonte (31-37-68) - Best Pro #'s: 99-00 Chicago Blackhawks (43-41-84)
McEachern (34-48-82) - Best Pro #'s: 00-01 Ottawa Sens (32-40-72)
Tkachuk (17-23-40) - Best Pro #'s: 95-96 Winnipeg Jets (50-48-98)

This post makes me so happy I might print it out and frame it.

 

[buoldtimer]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
After 37 years of coaching, shouldn't he be able to correct these problems during the season, and not in hindsight? If you can't reach a player or two, fine, but if the whole team is taking the season off, isn't that his job to fix it?

One man's opinion: I disagree. Three-quarters of the team had participated/observed the attitude and focus that had been successful the previous season. How difficult would it have been for them to apply the same principles to this past season? These guys are supposed to be leaving adolescence and entering adulthood. If they require someone to hold their hand to do the things that had led to previous success, it's a comment on them, nobody else.

 

[Federal League]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

At any time during the interview on which this article is based, or during the season, did anyone ask JP if he thought the attitude and focus would've been different if Brian Strait had returned for his senior season? Did anyone ask Shattenkirk or the seniors the same question?

I never asked anyone about Strait. I personally don't see how his loss could've been any bigger than anyone else this team lost from last season, so I never bothered to ask. Knowing this team, though, I can almost guarantee that the response from anyone would've been something like, "Losing Brian Strait wasn't the problem."

 

[theprofromdover]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

If they require someone to hold their hand to do the things that had led to previous success, it's a comment on them...

...and the person who recruited them

 

[BU Hammer]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

I never asked anyone about Strait. I personally don't see how his loss could've been any bigger than anyone else this team lost from last season, so I never bothered to ask. Knowing this team, though, I can almost guarantee that the response from anyone would've been something like, "Losing Brian Strait wasn't the problem."

I did ask about the decision to keep Shattenkirk as the sole captain, and Parker stood by that, saying the way he aligned the C's and A's was the right move at the time.

 

[budlite]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

I don't post very often, but I read the BU threads and I go to many BU games each year. The thing that amazes me is the pedestal that many of you put JP on. I personally am not (and never have been) convinced of his coaching talent. Yes, the leadership was lacking this year by the captains and they (except Gryba) all had one foot out the door all season. But JP's personnel strategy always mystifies me.

1. Parker Typically plays the top 2 lines of forwards 30-40 minutes per game. The pros average about 18. They are on the PK, PP and their regular shift.
2. When the team is playing poorly, it is simply because the top two lines are playing poorly. So, what does he do? He shortens the bench and gives them more ice time.
3. On a BU team, it is difficult to assess anyone except the top six forwards as far as production due to this crazy allotment of ice time. The fourth line play 2-5 minutes per game. The third line plays 5-12. If you have ever played, you know it is virtually impossible to be productive coming off of the bench every 10 minutes.
4. When there is a penalty, JP will play the top two lines and then he'll typically go back to them after the penalty. Then there 's another penalty... These players get exhausted. How many games were lost in the first half due to over playing certain players?
5. The love-fest with certain players is detrimental. 12 and 27 played so much to the point of ridiculousness. And why? They are good players, but not great. Wouldn't it have made sense to develop more kids? 6 and 22 were on fire with 13 and the team was winning. So what does JP do? He puts 22 on the 4th line and 6 on LW on the 3rd. I am convinced he wants certain players to be stars at the detriment of the team. A third grader would've recognized that as a dumb move.

Show me another team that comes remotely close to this crazy coaching formula. Compare this to BC who rolls their lines and gets productivity throughout their lineup. Or better yet, compare this to Scotty Bowman's strategy. You play well, you play more. You play poorly, you sit. You play well, you move onto the PK and PP for the game. The only forwards that seemed to shuffle in the lineup were 14 and 16 for 15 and 19. They were not the problem and in fact with more reps, they might have been able to contribute more. No one will convince me that any of these players couldn't of been decent penalty killers. Particularly 14 and 15 who can both fly. 14 showed offensive potential early on, but was thrown aside. 12, 27, 13 all started slow but they kept getting the reps. I just don't get it.

JP may be charming. He may have reasonably good recruiting success. But show me how he is a great coach.

 

[BU Hammer]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

I don't post very often, but I read the BU threads and I go to many BU games each year. The thing that amazes me is the pedestal that many of you put JP on. I personally am not (and never have been) convinced of his coaching talent. Yes, the leadership was lacking this year by the captains and they (except Gryba) all had one foot out the door all season. But JP's personnel strategy always mystifies me.

1. Parker Typically plays the top 2 lines of forwards 30-40 minutes per game. The pros average about 18. They are on the PK, PP and their regular shift.
2. When the team is playing poorly, it is simply because the top two lines are playing poorly. So, what does he do? He shortens the bench and gives them more ice time.
3. On a BU team, it is difficult to assess anyone except the top six forwards as far as production due to this crazy allotment of ice time. The fourth line play 2-5 minutes per game. The third line plays 5-12. If you have ever played, you know it is virtually impossible to be productive coming off of the bench every 10 minutes.
4. When there is a penalty, JP will play the top two lines and then he'll typically go back to them after the penalty. Then there 's another penalty... These players get exhausted. How many games were lost in the first half due to over playing certain players?
5. The love-fest with certain players is detrimental. 12 and 27 played so much to the point of ridiculousness. And why? They are good players, but not great. Wouldn't it have made sense to develop more kids? 6 and 22 were on fire with 13 and the team was winning. So what does JP do? He puts 22 on the 4th line and 6 on LW on the 3rd. I am convinced he wants certain players to be stars at the detriment of the team. A third grader would've recognized that as a dumb move.

Show me another team that comes remotely close to this crazy coaching formula. Compare this to BC who rolls their lines and gets productivity throughout their lineup. Or better yet, compare this to Scotty Bowman's strategy. You play well, you play more. You play poorly, you sit. You play well, you move onto the PK and PP for the game. The only forwards that seemed to shuffle in the lineup were 14 and 16 for 15 and 19. They were not the problem and in fact with more reps, they might have been able to contribute more. No one will convince me that any of these players couldn't of been decent penalty killers. Particularly 14 and 15 who can both fly. 14 showed offensive potential early on, but was thrown aside. 12, 27, 13 all started slow but they kept getting the reps. I just don't get it.

JP may be charming. He may have reasonably good recruiting success. But show me how he is a great coach.

Well, there are a lot of shiny trophies in his office that may beg to differ...

Obviously, not going to tell you you're wrong for your opinions, although I will say that, having watched the team closely all year, the guys you mentioned on the top 2 lines -- namely 12 and 27 -- are without a doubt among the six most talented forwards BU had this season, and as many good things as Pereira and Gaudet might do, their energy can only translate into so much production.

-Parker said he split up the Bonino, Gaudet, Pereira line in an effort to get more production from the rest of the team. He hoped Bonino's playmaking would spark something with BU's "scorers," and hoped Pereira's and Gaudet's energy would do good things elsewhere. Also, Parker really needed to split those three up after Trivino went down and he needed Gaudet to play center.

-While some of the defensemen probably did see nearly (or possibly more than) 30 minutes of action in some games, especially at the end of the year when Nicastro was out, I don't think the forwards ever saw nearly that much time.

I didn't check the numbers with the BU stat girl after every game, but I know when I did, they never approached 30+ minutes. I think I saw Bonino at 24 or so once, but in the end, these guys are well conditioned enough (thanks to Boyle) to handle as many minutes as Parker could really give them.

 

[Federal League]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

I don't post very often, but I read the BU threads and I go to many BU games each year. The thing that amazes me is the pedestal that many of you put JP on. I personally am not (and never have been) convinced of his coaching talent. Yes, the leadership was lacking this year by the captains and they (except Gryba) all had one foot out the door all season. But JP's personnel strategy always mystifies me.

1. Parker Typically plays the top 2 lines of forwards 30-40 minutes per game. The pros average about 18. They are on the PK, PP and their regular shift.
2. When the team is playing poorly, it is simply because the top two lines are playing poorly. So, what does he do? He shortens the bench and gives them more ice time.
3. On a BU team, it is difficult to assess anyone except the top six forwards as far as production due to this crazy allotment of ice time. The fourth line play 2-5 minutes per game. The third line plays 5-12. If you have ever played, you know it is virtually impossible to be productive coming off of the bench every 10 minutes.
4. When there is a penalty, JP will play the top two lines and then he'll typically go back to them after the penalty. Then there 's another penalty... These players get exhausted. How many games were lost in the first half due to over playing certain players?
5. The love-fest with certain players is detrimental. 12 and 27 played so much to the point of ridiculousness. And why? They are good players, but not great. Wouldn't it have made sense to develop more kids? 6 and 22 were on fire with 13 and the team was winning. So what does JP do? He puts 22 on the 4th line and 6 on LW on the 3rd. I am convinced he wants certain players to be stars at the detriment of the team. A third grader would've recognized that as a dumb move.

Show me another team that comes remotely close to this crazy coaching formula. Compare this to BC who rolls their lines and gets productivity throughout their lineup. Or better yet, compare this to Scotty Bowman's strategy. You play well, you play more. You play poorly, you sit. You play well, you move onto the PK and PP for the game. The only forwards that seemed to shuffle in the lineup were 14 and 16 for 15 and 19. They were not the problem and in fact with more reps, they might have been able to contribute more. No one will convince me that any of these players couldn't of been decent penalty killers. Particularly 14 and 15 who can both fly. 14 showed offensive potential early on, but was thrown aside. 12, 27, 13 all started slow but they kept getting the reps. I just don't get it.

JP may be charming. He may have reasonably good recruiting success. But show me how he is a great coach.

Maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't the top 2 lines be playing 30-40 minutes a game? 30 minutes are half the game. Are you telling you want the 3rd and 4th lines out there for half the game? That's crazy.

As for your assessment that Parker sends out tired top lines after they were just on the PP, I can't say I ever remember seeing that. In fact, I quite clearly remember a lot of times when the third or fourth line would be the first line out after a PP.

As for Parker overplaying certain guys, I don't think any of BU's losses this year, with the exception of games when they got in major penalty trouble, could be chalked up to anyone being overworked. And in those exceptions, being overworked was merely a product of taking too many penalties.

If you're arguing that Parker should've benched more guys, though, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you. Parker even said himself he should've benched more guys.

As BU Hammer already mentioned, Parker had his reasons for splitting up the Gaudet-Bonino-Pereira line. The point is that Bonino was the most talented player on the team, and you want him playing with other talented players. Although Gaudet and Pereira are probably the hardest workers on the team, they aren't as talented as Connolly or Saponari. And really, offense wasn't the problem on this team. They averaged 3.59 goals per game in the 2nd half, which isn't quite last year's 3.90 average, but is certainly still good enough to win.

Finally, the PK. The top 6 were far from the only guys Parker used on the PK. Popko, Gaudet, Pereira and Santana (when he played) all saw regular PK time.

 

[Agganis]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Parker Typically plays the top 2 lines of forwards 30-40 minutes per game {snip}
The fourth line play 2-5 minutes per game. The third line plays 5-12.

Even at the high end your totals the minutes do not add up to 60... I'd bet it's closer to an average of 18-22 min, 16-20 min, 11-15 min, 7-11 min, with the 4th line low end being games when the team was losing in third and the bench was shortened to 3 lines until the team took the lead.

14 showed offensive potential early on, but was thrown aside.

I agree with the premise that some of "the teens" should have gotten more ice time than they received, however 14's prolonged absence from the lineup was for breaking off ice rules, not a reflection of his play.

 

[Federal League]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

I agree with the premise that some of "the teens" should have gotten more ice time than they received, however 14's prolonged absence from the lineup was for breaking off ice rules, not a reflection of his play.

I know you have sources that are just as good if not better than ours, but how sure are you of this? As far as I know, he only missed one game for breaking team rules. I was told he was a healthy scratch for the rest.

 

[slurpees]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

He may have reasonably good recruiting success.

I have trouble figuring out how bringing in a recruiting class in the fall of 07 that has placed 66% of its skaters with professional hockey contracts just three seasons later is reasonably good. he's had his hits and misses, but so has every single major collegiate athletics coach, its the nature of trying to evaluate 16 and 17 year olds. Sure, Pat Kane was a miss, for example, but consider that if he hits there and Kane is on our roster in the spring of 2007, we're all probably booking flights to St. Louis.

 

[pirate]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Sure I wish he could have gotten through to these guys but if they haven't worked as hard as they could all summer and fall, there is only so much you can do to get them focused.

In explaining it to my son I used an example from back when I was still playing sports, just before the dinosaurs died. We had a team go to the state semi's and then two years later to the state finals...in between, a losing record. Why? It was 100% the seniors that bad season...we had no off-season leadership, nobody policing the younger guys, if somebody was going to break curfew it was the seniors, not only didn't they set a good example-they set a bad one. The coaches didn't go from good to bad to good and they couldn't turn it around once we lost a few. The seniors that year were good athletes, just bad leaders. They were confident we'd go right back to the semi's without the work; it could be argued we were less talented the next year but the miserable year brought more focus.

You hear it frequently from good teams, "we started off-season conditioning with a purpose, we wanted to get the bad taste of losing out of our mouth etc"

What was JP supposed to say before the Maine game? they all knew what it was about, they all knew their season was on the line, nothing he could say 5 minutes before the game could help. Now, if he saw it all week in practice I'd hope he'd try something to shake them up...but at that point you are trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat...if they don't want to put in the effort you can't make them, they are too old to motivate with a gimmick or a story

 

[Agganis]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

I know you have sources that are just as good if not better than ours, but how sure are you of this? As far as I know, he only missed one game for breaking team rules. I was told he was a healthy scratch for the rest.

Suspended may not be the technically correct term, but his response to the initial suspension was not satisfactory to the coaches, and he was not considered for a roster spot for a prolonged period of time.

At games where he was not dressing if you noticed the scratches in the crowd they were generally all wearing shirts and ties and sitting together, while 14 was somewhere else in his red warmup, I'm sure that rubbed them the wrong way to.

And for the record I have nothing against the kid, and thought he was easily one of the top 8 wingers on the team.

 

[Federal League]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Sure I wish he could have gotten through to these guys but if they haven't worked as hard as they could all summer and fall, there is only so much you can do to get them focused.

In explaining it to my son I used an example from back when I was still playing sports, just before the dinosaurs died. We had a team go to the state semi's and then two years later to the state finals...in between, a losing record. Why? It was 100% the seniors that bad season...we had no off-season leadership, nobody policing the younger guys, if somebody was going to break curfew it was the seniors, not only didn't they set a good example-they set a bad one. The coaches didn't go from good to bad to good and they couldn't turn it around once we lost a few. The seniors that year were good athletes, just bad leaders. They were confident we'd go right back to the semi's without the work; it could be argued we were less talented the next year but the miserable year brought more focus.

You hear it frequently from good teams, "we started off-season conditioning with a purpose, we wanted to get the bad taste of losing out of our mouth etc"

What was JP supposed to say before the Maine game? they all knew what it was about, they all knew their season was on the line, nothing he could say 5 minutes before the game could help. Now, if he saw it all week in practice I'd hope he'd try something to shake them up...but at that point you are trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat...if they don't want to put in the effort you can't make them, they are too old to motivate with a gimmick or a story

Great post. I think this is about as good a summary of this season as you'll see. And I do think next season will be better regardless of the dropoff in talent.

 

[Rogie21]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

USHR reports that Avon Old Farms defenseman Patrick MacGregor, 6-4, 210 RD, has committed to BU for next fall. Besides playing for AOF's prep school champions (2 assists in the title game vs NMH), he played in the Western Prep fall league http://westernprep-elite.com/players_print.php

Before AOF, a two-time All-State player in Hamden CT.

 

[buoldtimer]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Sure I wish he could have gotten through to these guys but if they haven't worked as hard as they could all summer and fall, there is only so much you can do to get them focused.

In explaining it to my son I used an example from back when I was still playing sports, just before the dinosaurs died. We had a team go to the state semi's and then two years later to the state finals...in between, a losing record. Why? It was 100% the seniors that bad season...we had no off-season leadership, nobody policing the younger guys, if somebody was going to break curfew it was the seniors, not only didn't they set a good example-they set a bad one. The coaches didn't go from good to bad to good and they couldn't turn it around once we lost a few. The seniors that year were good athletes, just bad leaders. They were confident we'd go right back to the semi's without the work; it could be argued we were less talented the next year but the miserable year brought more focus.

You hear it frequently from good teams, "we started off-season conditioning with a purpose, we wanted to get the bad taste of losing out of our mouth etc"

What was JP supposed to say before the Maine game? they all knew what it was about, they all knew their season was on the line, nothing he could say 5 minutes before the game could help. Now, if he saw it all week in practice I'd hope he'd try something to shake them up...but at that point you are trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat...if they don't want to put in the effort you can't make them, they are too old to motivate with a gimmick or a story

Outstanding.