Winnipeg Jets going into the 24/25 season

[10Ducky10]

lol so do you go around lobbying for stickies on constant topics like pionk and stanley being shit, scheifele + connor sucking on defense? or is it b/c you constantly ride ehlers' dick you're crying for everyone to stop?


ehlers will go 4 years in between PO goals.
but hey, it's the same as everyone else like Tofolli (2 goals this year), Lowry (2 goals) or KFC (3 goals) etc,

How is it the same?

 

[DRW204]

How is it the same?

sorry, forgot the

 

[bumblebeeman]

it's not extra blame.

b/c they love him more? wtf are you talking about. ehlers' regular season play is among some of the best in the league in a myriad of stats: 5v5 pts, gf vs ga, zone entries etc. look where he ranks among the Fwds. watch the Jets latest plays of the year for instance and and how much ehlers is in it compared to other Fwds. has nothing to do w/ how "others love him more," rather it's based on his quality of play and production.

has his PO play been up to that standard? players like ehlers, helle (obviously) playing up to their typical quality of play will have a bigger impact on winning than guys like monahan or toffoli. that's why there's larger discussion on the first 2 players in PO let-downs.

That's fair I guess. I don't really see it that way, but it makes more sense. I still don't see Ehlers is being more disappointing then any defenseman besides Morrissey, or guys who PK, etc. He was the best guy on his line (which is saying very little).

 

[Adam da bomb]

Why would you even compare Ehlers to Mcdavid? He is a solid 2nd line winger.... playing on a 2nd line that was terrible.

My point anyways the Jets all sucked, I don't think he needs to be singled out. He was maybe the teams 4th best forward, which is what he is.

Ehlers is considered our best or second best here. Schief our other best forward. Both were disappointing.

KFC is closer to our 4th as he is just a passenger who doesn’t play d, doesn’t drive play, his only skill is putting the puck in the net.

Therefore, kc is the only one who exceeded expectations.

I have not heard much bout where have fits into the hierarchy, but, he was also disappointing.

 

[DRW204]

That's fair I guess. I don't really see it that way, but it makes more sense. I still don't see Ehlers is being more disappointing then any defenseman besides Morrissey, or guys who PK, etc. He was the best guy on his line (which is saying very little).

this year id say the combo of goaltending+team defense was the most disappointing given how great it was in the regular-season, then the depth scoring which is primarily driven and headlined by ehlers.

on an individual basis, id say pionk or stanley were closer to how they typically played compared to ehlers. like im not sure if folks were expecting those 2 dmen to all of a sudden be huge stalwarts on the back-end, pionk notably was his usual chaotic self. i thought samberg may have had a bigger drop-off in play than the other dmen.

over the past few years; you'd be hard-pressed to find a similarly rated fwd as ehlers with a larger regular season-to-playoff drop-off.

 

[Dale53130]

Why would you even compare Ehlers to Mcdavid? He is a solid 2nd line winger.... playing on a 2nd line that was terrible.

My point anyways the Jets all sucked, I don't think he needs to be singled out. He was maybe the teams 4th best forward, which is what he is.

Small sample sizes not good, got it.

Super small sample sizes, comparing Ehlers with McDavid, is good though. Understood.

Of note, PLD and KFC (and Morrissey) were all pacing at 100 point seasons around the time that Ehlers came back and joined that line, excuse me, "the Ehler's line" (according to @JetsFan815 after 1 game), and were up against a relatively soft part of the schedule (Vancouver/Buffalo/Detroit). Perfetti and Wheeler also came back from injury, with Ehlers, so they basically re-introduced half of their top-6 forwards.

 

[Buffdog]

View attachment 870186

Small sample sizes not good, got it.

View attachment 870189

Super small sample sizes, comparing Ehlers with McDavid, is good though. Understood.

Of note, PLD and KFC (and Morrissey) were all pacing at 100 point seasons around the time that Ehlers came back and joined that line, excuse me, "the Ehler's line" (according to @JetsFan815 after 1 game), and were up against a relatively soft part of the schedule (Vancouver/Buffalo/Detroit). Perfetti and Wheeler also came back from injury, with Ehlers, so they basically re-introduced half of their top-6 forwards.

Lol typical Statsnerd behaviour

Anything is fair game when it supports their narrative

 

[Mud Turtle]

Somehow Colorado can’t get any shots through from the blue line against Dallas.
The Stars are blocking everything.
The complete opposite of the series against the Jets.

 

[Bob E]

This is fairly accurate

The team was far to easy to play against in the playoffs. I would keep Morrisey/DeMelo/Dillon/Samberg and bring in 2 new D on the back end if I could.

I am ok with keeping or trading Ehlers. I think you trade Ehlers if you can't resign him. I try and move Pionk as well. Schmidt isn't tradeable maybe you buy him out.

My gut feeling is one of DeMelo/Dillon walk and we go into the season with Morrissey/Schmidt/Samberg/Pionk/Stanley/ and one of those guys. Heinloa gets a chance in the lineup again and maybe he can run with it. Let Salo develop in the AHL a year and hopefully promote him the following year.

If Ehlers doesn't sign you trade him and get what you can for him. My preference would be a pick/prospect package and send him out east. I would also look at moving one of Iaffalo and/or Appleton for draft picks. Do some internal promotion whether that be high end guys like Lambert/Chibrikov or low end guys like Ford.

The team during the regular season when it plays the way Bones set us up to play can beat anyone and go on long winning streaks.

Don’t see how that makes us a better team Joe. Unless you find a Pionk replacement via Ehlers trade.

Still have holes at C and W for at least another year, not to mention a patchwork D.

 

[tbcwpg]

Don’t see how that makes us a better team Joe. Unless you find a Pionk replacement via Ehlers trade.

Still have holes at C and W for at least another year, not to mention a patchwork D.

This team has a lot of holes and not a lot of good ways to fill them.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

Don’t see how that makes us a better team Joe. Unless you find a Pionk replacement via Ehlers trade.

Still have holes at C and W for at least another year, not to mention a patchwork D.

You probably have to take a step back to go forward again

I think we probably need to bank on that next group of players elevating the team. Helly/Scheif/Lowry/Morrissey is a good base but you likely have to add in McGroarty/Lambert/Chibrikov/Salomonsson etc.. in this year/next year to take a run at it.

We are always going to be behind teams just because we can't bring in premium UFAs to fill gaps. LIke it would be lovely if we were going to bring Stamkos and Montour here next season but that isn't going to happen.

Its either that or crap the bed good enough to get a shot at Hagen or Misa in the 2025 draft but that might lead to other issues like attendance dropping

 

[Jack7222]

Monahan and Toffoli aren't trotted around these boards as "elite, top 10 in the league" at their positions by anyone like Ehlers is

it doesnt make you smart to disagree with how good Ehlers actually is during the regular season just because he happened to have a bad playoffs lol

 

[Buffdog]

it doesnt make you smart to disagree with how good Ehlers actually is during the regular season just because he happened to have a bad playoffs lol

Please find a single post where I said Ehlers isn't good. One single post. I'll wait...

If you can't, I'll accept your apology for putting words in my mouth

I've pointed out his flaws (all players have them), but I love Ehlers as a player

 

[surixon]

You probably have to take a step back to go forward again

I think we probably need to bank on that next group of players elevating the team. Helly/Scheif/Lowry/Morrissey is a good base but you likely have to add in McGroarty/Lambert/Chibrikov/Salomonsson etc.. in this year/next year to take a run at it.

We are always going to be behind teams just because we can't bring in premium UFAs to fill gaps. LIke it would be lovely if we were going to bring Stamkos and Montour here next season but that isn't going to happen.

Its either that or crap the bed good enough to get a shot at Hagen or Misa in the 2025 draft but that might lead to other issues like attendance dropping

Agreed. We need to do what Dallas did and have that young wave push the established group forward. But my gut says the org is going to keep doing what its been doing lately because it made promises to Scheifele and Helle that they would be trying to win every year to get them to stay.

 

[Adam da bomb]

You probably have to take a step back to go forward again

I think we probably need to bank on that next group of players elevating the team. Helly/Scheif/Lowry/Morrissey is a good base but you likely have to add in McGroarty/Lambert/Chibrikov/Salomonsson etc.. in this year/next year to take a run at it.

We are always going to be behind teams just because we can't bring in premium UFAs to fill gaps. LIke it would be lovely if we were going to bring Stamkos and Montour here next season but that isn't going to happen.

Its either that or crap the bed good enough to get a shot at Hagen or Misa in the 2025 draft but that might lead to other issues like attendance dropping

Yet I’d argue of your base the only one of those core players who were good enough was Mo.

 

[surixon]

Yet I’d argue of your base the only one of those core players who were good enough was Mo.

Yup. I think they need to come up with a clear path forward.

Mark is declining from a top line C to more of a 2A and will likely further decline over the next couple of years. We are likely going to have to move him to wing at some point to get the most out of him as his offense is eventually not going to be able to make up for his defensive game in the middle.

We are going to need two top 6 centers probably within 3 years. We desperately need both Cole and Lambert to hit at center.

We also need Chibrikov to hit as he will provide some team speed to offset the slower skating of Barlow, McGroarty etc.

If this org doesn't start properly planning a succession strategy we are going to get caught with our pants down again when the wheels fall off a key player and we have no replacement plan.

 

[WolfHouse]

Here's a crazy idea... so if you signed Bross for 2 years at $5m - ton of money tied up in goalies but you have a legit backup plan for the playoffs. Trade Ehlers, Iafallo buyout Pionk and go with a youth movement...

You basically sit Helle down and say hey - playing a million games isn't working, we need a tandem to win the cup

If you buy out Schmidt and Pionk - play Heinola, Capo and live off of goaltending, just like we always do

Whats worse a $12m D third pairing... or a $13m goalie tandem

 

[scelaton]

Here's a crazy idea... so if you signed Bross for 2 years at $5m - ton of money tied up in goalies but you have a legit backup plan for the playoffs. Trade Ehlers, Iafallo buyout Pionk and go with a youth movement...

You basically sit Helle down and say hey - playing a million games isn't working, we need a tandem to win the cup

If you buy out Schmidt and Pionk - play Heinola, Capo and live off of goaltending, just like we always do

Whats worse a $12m D third pairing... or a $13m goalie tandem

The crazy part is the premise that Helle needs a partner for the playoffs. There is nothing in his regular season performance to suggest he is tired come playoff time, and he has had such short playoff (4-6 games) runs that it's hard to believe they would exhaust him.

Of interest, in his only long payoff run--17 games--he had a .922 Sv%. Next longest was 8 games @ .931

IMO, Helle's crappy sv % is attributable to a combination of variance and, this year, a crappy team in front of him. He is a Vezina calibre goalie and the least of our problems.

 

[LowLefty]

Here's a crazy idea... so if you signed Bross for 2 years at $5m - ton of money tied up in goalies but you have a legit backup plan for the playoffs. Trade Ehlers, Iafallo buyout Pionk and go with a youth movement...

You basically sit Helle down and say hey - playing a million games isn't working, we need a tandem to win the cup

If you buy out Schmidt and Pionk - play Heinola, Capo and live off of goaltending, just like we always do

Whats worse a $12m D third pairing... or a $13m goalie tandem

I'd be fine with a youth movement -
I'd pass on the dual goaltenders though - I'd play Helle like we were paying him $8.5
And remove a bunch of the guys that drive me nuts every season - you named a couple.
And hope that everyone is better next season - as per Chevy / Scheif, 5 or 10% better should do it

Personally, I'm holding out for the new troops - hope they can add some excitement to the lineup.
Play a more inspiring game, win or lose, and I'll be happy (ier).
One thing I am convinced of - if we roll with this crew again, we will be disappointed, again. So add a few players that are working for contracts or slots in the lineup and see if that energy will take us anywhere.

 

[Gm0ney]

Forst of all, I never said thay analytics aren't important. They just aren't the only thing

Who's saying analytics are the only thing? Not me. Not anyone. That's one of your strawman saying that.

The first four paragraphs in my original post that didn't reference analytics at all: 1) The Jets' defensive gameplan changed; 2) Colorado's hard forecheck caused lots of problems; 3) the Jets lost composure and panicked; 4) Hellebuyck did not play well; and 5) the Avs used analytics and smart gameplanning and Bones' gut feelings couldn't figure out a counter. If you read all that and come away with "it was all analytics" then maybe go back and re-read the post?

The point I made (it's always crazy how you never address's THE point) is that the Avs beat the Jets because they're a better team and we played like ass. Did analytics help them? Maybe. But they also have the 2nd best forward in the world, the best d man in the world and a goalie who all of a sudden looked like an all star again. Are you saying that all that didn't matter, and it was all analytics? Because to me, that's what you're implying

Sorry, when did this become THE point I was supposed to be addressing? You mentioned the Avs had MacKinnon and Makar and got .919 goaltending out of Georgiev. But then the Jets got completely manhandled at 5v5 by everyone aside from those two.

When Miles Wood and Ross Colton are outshooting you 40-20 that seems more like strategic victory for the Avs, and a strategic clusterf*** from Bones and his assistants who spent 4 straight losses just shrugging their shoulders. It was more of a strategic failure that than just being overwhelmed by the Avs' generational talents, anyway.

Of course the abysmal penalty killing and powerplay were to be expected, but again, IMO, these are also more strategic issues than talent disparities.

I'm not sure what the point of using analytics is at all if you're just gonna look at data points ypu like and explain them away with "well, yeah BUT...". That's not how data driven fields work

Try a simple exercise. Plot the number of people in each teams analytics department on one axis, and their "success" on the other, however you want to define it. If you were being thorough, you'd do a couple of different metrics. You could do regular season points, playoff wins, etc and make separate graphs

Then you'd draw a best fit line. If more analytics = more success, you'd see that. But you won't. You'll see a cluster with a bunch of noise, and no real correlation - never mind causation

Then you'd look at your results and you would interpret them - not in such a way that you explain away the data point that don't fit your hypothesis - that's not science.

I'd imagine an intellectually honest person who thinks that hockey analytics are extremely important would look at the results and say "that's interesting, the results aren't what I thought they'd be. I wonder why, and I maybe I was wrong"

And now you're back on this bullshit again! You've created your own ridiculous strawman argument that doesn't stand up.

You can't just claim "if more analytics staff doesn't mean better results, then analytics is a sham!" and think you've proven something (or whatever it is you're trying to say - the goalposts move around a lot). It's a one season snapshot of 32 teams' staff numbers - can you infer anything useful from that?

...but since we're here inferring things anyway, I will point out again that the 14 teams employing more than the average number of people in "data-related roles" have made the playoffs with greater frequency in the last two seasons than the 18 teams with fewer than average data-related staff (64% vs. 39%). The Top 14 have averaged 94 points/season vs The Bottom 18 with 88 points per season over that time period as well. Not cherry picking, but small sample caveats and all that.

But as I said, you're more interested in not being wrong. I get it. People hate admiting that they're wrong to me because I can be smug and condescending. It doesn't usually start out that way though. It starts with me hearing something like "the avs beat the Jets because of analytics", and me bringing up alternate reasons- like they have a better team and we played like dogshit. All it would have take is for you to say "yeah, those were definitely factors too" (which they were), but you refuse to. So here we are

What exactly am I wrong about? Please refrain from deploying your strawman army. I didn't say any of the stuff you say I did. "We played like dogshit" doesn't add anything...it's not an argument, not debatable. Why did we play like dogshit? Because the Avs had our number(s) - specifically in a spreadsheet...

 

[Buffdog]

Who's saying analytics are the only thing? Not me. Not anyone. That's one of your strawman saying that.

The first four paragraphs in my original post that didn't reference analytics at all: 1) The Jets' defensive gameplan changed; 2) Colorado's hard forecheck caused lots of problems; 3) the Jets lost composure and panicked; 4) Hellebuyck did not play well; and 5) the Avs used analytics and smart gameplanning and Bones' gut feelings couldn't figure out a counter. If you read all that and come away with "it was all analytics" then maybe go back and re-read the post?


Sorry, when did this become THE point I was supposed to be addressing? You mentioned the Avs had MacKinnon and Makar and got .919 goaltending out of Georgiev. But then the Jets got completely manhandled at 5v5 by everyone aside from those two.

When Miles Wood and Ross Colton are outshooting you 40-20 that seems more like strategic victory for the Avs, and a strategic clusterf*** from Bones and his assistants who spent 4 straight losses just shrugging their shoulders. It was more of a strategic failure that than just being overwhelmed by the Avs' generational talents, anyway.

Of course the abysmal penalty killing and powerplay were to be expected, but again, IMO, these are also more strategic issues than talent disparities.


And now you're back on this bullshit again! You've created your own ridiculous strawman argument that doesn't stand up.

You can't just claim "if more analytics staff doesn't mean better results, then analytics is a sham!" and think you've proven something (or whatever it is you're trying to say - the goalposts move around a lot). It's a one season snapshot of 32 teams' staff numbers - can you infer anything useful from that?

...but since we're here inferring things anyway, I will point out again that the 14 teams employing more than the average number of people in "data-related roles" have made the playoffs with greater frequency in the last two seasons than the 18 teams with fewer than average data-related staff (64% vs. 39%). The Top 14 have averaged 94 points/season vs The Bottom 18 with 88 points per season over that time period as well. Not cherry picking, but small sample caveats and all that.


What exactly am I wrong about? Please refrain from deploying your strawman army. I didn't say any of the stuff you say I did. "We played like dogshit" doesn't add anything...it's not an argument, not debatable. Why did we play like dogshit? Because the Avs had our number(s) - specifically in a spreadsheet...

Thanks, proved all my points again!