The Hockey PDOcast - Episode 140: Musical Chairs Behind The Bench

Episode Date: February 16, 2017

Uncle Jeff Marek joins the show to discuss the changing coaching landscape around the league, sneaky ways players are cheating the system, and how we can improve the presentation of hockey broadcasts moving forward. Here’s a quick rundown of the topics covered: 1:20 Coaching changes around the League 17:00 Cheating: Passive Interference and Faceoffs 30:00 Changing Hockey Broadcasts for the better 39:30 Bye Week: Pass or Fail? 40:45 The Looming Expansion Draft's effects 44:30 Kelly Hrudey's leap into the media game Every episode of the podcast is available on iTunes, Soundcloud, and Stitcher. All past shows can be found here listed in chronological order. Make sure to subscribe so that you don’t miss out on any new episodes as they’re released. All ratings and reviews of the show are also greatly appreciated. Thanks for listening! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices If you'd like to gain access to the two extra shows we're doing each week this season, you can subscribe to our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thehockeypdocast/membership If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

Are you ready for the most ridiculous internet sports show you have ever seen? Welcome to React, home of the most outrageous and hilarious videos the web has to offer. So join me, Rocky Theas, and my co-host, Raiders Pro Bowl Defensive Inn, Max Crosby, as we invite your favorite athletes, celebrities, influencers, entertainers in for an episode of games, laughs, and, of course, the funniest reactions to the wildest web clips out there. Catch React on YouTube, and that is React, R-E-A-X-X. Don't miss it. This podcast episode is brought to you by Coors Light.

These days, everything is go, go, go. It's non-stop hustle all the time. Work, friends, family. Expect you to be on 24-7? Well, sometimes you just need to reach for a Coors Light because it's made to chill. Coors Light is cold-loggered, cold-filtered, and cold-packaged. It's as crisp and refreshing as the Colorado Rockies. It is literally made to chill.

Coors Light is the one I choose when I need to unwind. So when you want to hit reset, reach for the beer that's made to chill. Get Coors Light and the new look delivered straight to your door with Drizzly or Instacart. Celebrate responsibly. Coors Brewing Company, Golden Colorado. Regressing to the mean since 2015, it's the Hockey PEDEOCast with your host, Dmitri Filipovich. Welcome to the HockeyPEDEOCast.

My name is Demetri Filipovich. and joining me is my good buddy Jeff Merrick. Jeff, what's going on, man? Hello, Dimitri. I am going to make sure that I don't try to host a show today. I got a little grief on Twitter, and rightfully so. Because every time I'm on, I always sort of hijacked this thing. So I'm going to be a nice, well-behaved guest today.

Yeah, I tweeted out earlier today to ask people what they wanted to hear when I had you on. And, you know, a lot of people said, just let Uncle Jeff talk. and there was one guy who actually said, as if you get to talk when Jeff is on, which I thought was pretty funny. I think we have a pretty good back and forth going whenever you're on here, though, so I'm not complaining.

Hey, I'm cool with it, but then again, I'm sure if you added up the words, I'm sure I might have, like, had my thumb on the scale. So I'll try to be a well-behaved, good guest of the PDO cast today, but having said that, I promise nothing. Just be yourself, man.

That's why we love having you on here. Thanks, bud. When we were prepping for the show, You know, initially I wanted to talk a lot about the Claude Julian hiring by the Canadians and the Michelle Tarian firing. And I know that you and Greg did quite a bit of that today on your own podcast. So I don't really want to put you in a position where you have to just basically keep repeating yourself. I just recommend everyone goes and checks out your thoughts there. But I think we can spin it into a bigger discussion here where it seems like teams are maybe just recently biases.

So we've had a lot of them happen in a short order. but it seems like teams are more willing these days to change up things on the fly and maybe just kind of pin it on, pin any struggles they might have on their coach and try and replace it in the hopes of like rejuvenating their team as a whole. Cascading effect, right? I believe that's, excuse me, that's what it's referred to. I mean, we've seen it before. I remember when Bruce Boudreber plays Glenn Handlin in Washington

and immediately, you know, turned around the Washington capitals and everybody sort of dragging, you know, starting to have a look at their minor league. coach and yeah that sort of cascade through the NHL. I remember in 2005 when the the app to the NHL lockout and they had a salary cap come in for the first time. I shouldn't say that there was a salary cap previous, but not going to bore you with history. When the salary cap came in in the new era, Pat Quinn made the point that this this salary cap is terrible for coaches because when it becomes impossible to make trades, then the coach is going to get whacked because it's the most simple thing is the path of least resistance can't make a deal let's just whack the coach let's just you know

let's just fire him and and and and take our chances there because making moves as a GM is next to impossible when you're everyone's up against the cap and you have to measure a dollars for dollars not just dollars for hockey players i remember listening to that and i said you know what that makes a lot of sense that's you know it does sort of philosophically sound correct i mean pat's a thumb on the on the pulse kind of guy and i thought well i bet that ends up happening And you know what happened, Dimitri? Same thing as ever happened before. Coaches were fired at the exact same rate.

Now, I haven't looked at it in a couple of years, but going back two years when you measure off, you know, when coaches were fired, how many coaches were fired throughout the season and the off season as well, it's pretty much the same. But as we've seen before, this is a copycat league. And if it works for one team, you can sell that to your owner. and sometimes it's just a justification that you need, hey, look what Doug waits to him with the Islanders. Why don't we try the same? Hey, look what Mike Yo's doing with the St. Louis Blues. Why don't we try a coaching change?

It's a good way to jolt our team into victory, and it'll guarantee you some playoff dates. You like that, Mr. and Mrs. Owner? Of course they do. The interesting thing about Claude Julianne, to me, there's a few things here. One of them, Montreal is in first place. Right.

It's so seldom that you fire a coach that's in first place. But has much trouble playing great hockey lately? No, but if you look at the, you know, generally the body of work and it's the Atlantic, you know, Kerry Price hasn't been, Carrie Price, you could make the argument that things will turn around in Montreal eventually. But, I mean, you've directly replaced him with someone that was just fired last week, which does beg the question, if Claude Julianne doesn't get, fired from the Boston Bruins, Dimitri,

did the Montreal Canadiens have a new coach today? Many, and I would probably put myself in this camp as well, would submit no. Yeah, I'd agree with that, but I think, you know, we need to give Mark Bergeron a bit of credit here because I do think that it was an upgrade for them. I think Claude Julian is a fantastic coach and Michelle Terry. And, you know, he has his flaws.

I think some of his systems and maybe tactical stuff is a bit outdated. can't really speak to the personal stuff behind the scenes, how he interacts with a player. So I'm going to leave that completely out of it. Just based on what we're seeing on the ice, I think it's an upgrade for them. And I think that, you know, it's tough. It's easy for us sort of to be armchair GMs out here and to say that, you know, of course, of course they should make this move. But it's like, it's very tough when you're actually in it dealing with the people to just,

like, pull the plug on Michelle Terran and just bring in a new guy just like that. Like, it's, I think that's why we don't see this sort of stuff very often. Like, it's one thing for you to fire. the coach or fire the GM and then kind of bring in the right hand man who's been there the entire time and sort of knows how things are going and how everything's operating. But to just bring in a guy out of the blue who hasn't interacted with the team at all is like that seems like there's going to be quite a bit of an adjustment period. Not that, you know, I think Claude Julian has been doing this job for such a long time and he's so

well established that I'm sure he'll fit in seamlessly. But I think that that sort of just kind of explains why we don't see it that often. I think that, you know, if you're the Montreal Canadiens and one of the top five coaches in the NHL becomes available and he speaks French, I mean, you really have to move. I mean, it really forces you to answer the question, are you committed to your coach? Right.

And that's what face Mark Berger. How committed am I to this coach? Knowing that with a phone call, I can get Claude Julien. How committed am I to Michelle Tarian? I was committed enough to him last year that it cost us P.K. Suban, am I willing to be committed to him enough that we would pass up a shot at Claude Julian.

Now, the interesting thing about Julianne too is, I mean, he's not, he's not a, you know, $1.2 million coach. He's three plus, right? Like, he's in the big boy league, right? Like, he's in, you know, Joel Quinville territory here. He's making money. So I think you have the temper expectations as to where he was going to land based on what his compensation was going to be.

You know, the first team that popped up with the Florida Pan. The Florida Panthers were unprepared a couple of years ago to pay Dan Balsma $2 million. There's no way they're going to pay Claude Julianne a million plus north of that. Would Vegas have done it? Could that have worked? I mean, you wait to the end of the season. Montreal had a moment of opportunity to grab a top five coach who speaks French in the NHL, and they did it. And I'm with you.

It's a difficult decision. it doesn't sit well considering how many times you've been very public about defending Michelle Tarian. It's a personal relationship that the two have as well. I mean, you could tell at the media availability today just how strained Mark Bergervan was over this decision. It's not an easy one, but that's a shark in the water move. Like that is just like, that is ruthless business. We have a shot of Claude, Julianne. We're going to do it.

Sorry. And I think Elliot and Friedman reported that, you know, a couple other teams had at least inquired with the Bruins about Claude Julian. So I do think it was one of those things where the cabs just kind of needed to make the decision. And I think it was a pretty obvious one. And at that point, they just kind of had to do it. It's like a unique opportunity here where if they kind of waited around, saw how the rest of the season played out and then tried to do it this summer, like Julian probably would not have been available anymore. Yeah, no. And yet you have, I mean, dude, it's one week.

Yeah. Right. I mean, one week. And now, I don't know what happened in the players meeting with Mark Bergevin, with the leadership meeting. I don't know, so I can't speak to it. But it does seem a little bit curious that, you know, you have a meeting between the general manager and the leadership group.

And then next thing, you know, the head coach is getting the punt in and in comes Claude Julian. If you're the Bruins, like, you're looking at this and you get rid of Claude Julian and whatever. Like, it's been a week or so now, and you kind of make your piece. that you're moving on with Butch Cassidy. And then all of a sudden, like, your most bitter arrival just makes him the third highest page coach in the league. And everyone's praising them for what a great ghetto was for them. And you're just like, probably just watching this news, just like, oh, my God, what have

we done? Like, I can't imagine, like, if Cam Neely has Twitter, he's, like, scrolling through it right now, just holding onto his head so nervously. Yeah, you know, it's funny, too, because, I mean, you know as well. And I know plenty of Boston Bruins fans. I think we all know a bunch of bosses. I don't know that any, I don't know that any, I don't know that. I know many Boston Bruins fans that will say the Bruins problems was that of coaching versus

composition. Now, you can make the argument that, okay, you know, 10 years, one run, I get it, it's time for a new voice and time to move on. I suppose, but I don't think anyone looked at this Boston Bruins team and said that Claude Julianne was the problem. Right? I really don't. I have a hard time believing that. The interesting thing about Julianne with the Montreal Canadiens to me, with any new coach, right? Like you look at who's going to get the uptick. Okay? So, like, which players all of a sudden, boom,

are out of the doghouse and feel like they're playing with a new lease on life? With the Islanders, that's Ryan Strom. Like, the minute that Jack Capuano was fired and dug away to go over behind the bench, all of a sudden, boom, Ryanstrom explodes.

And like, that's the Ryanstrom. You know, we thought the Islanders were getting so many years ago and then drafted him fifth overall. Boom, all of a sudden, he pops. You wonder who that player, or those players are going to be on the Montreal Canadiens. And I keep coming back to the goaltender.

You know, I don't want to make too much out of, you know, the stare heard around the NHL world when he got the hook. And I, the one thing the clubge Julian doesn't do is he doesn't get cute with his goalies. He doesn't mess it right. Can you think off the top of your head any time we said, wow, what's Julian doing with Tim Thomas? Like, ooh, man, that's a bad move with Tuka Rask. What is he doing?

It's almost as if he's just completely hands off to the point where he says to himself, I don't know, they're goalies, let the goalie coach figure it out. I'm not going to get cute with this guy. I'm not going to mess around with him. He kind of leaves goaltenders on their own. It's kind of been his MO. So I wonder if at the end of all of this, the big benefactor isn't Carrie Price, more than anybody else in that roster.

I think Price and I think Alex Kelchernic would be a fair one. Like I know that he scored 30 goals last year and that's that's pretty good. It's like he's he's already emerged. He's already had his breakout as, you know, at least he's on his path towards becoming a star in this league. But I know he's dealt with some injuries here and there this season. But like he seems like the guy, it keeps popping. It's weird. Like I think it's maybe just because it's Montreal, but like he keeps popping up in these rumors.

And now it's discussion about whether they trade him for Matt Duchenne. It's all this stuff. And it's like Alex Calchian. Cieniac is 23 years old and he's very productive and, you know, he doesn't have the huge counting stats yet. But if you watch him play, like, he's fantastic. I don't see what the big concern with him is. So I think that just kind of letting him play and do his thing would also benefit this team quite a bit. Yeah, he's been false started more than anybody else in the Montreal Canadiens.

I mean, it wasn't that long ago that, you know, they insisted that Lars Eller play on that line almost to hold his hand for the big boy moments, right? Oh, it's a big boy face off time. Let's get Lars Eller in there. It's not going to be called Chenyuk taking this one. all those times it should have been, you know, moments where he takes, you know, a couple of steps in his maturation. I mean, he was false started because as much as they didn't love Eller, and I still can't figure that one out, as much as they didn't love Eller, they weren't prepared to take him away from Galcenaug, who was sort of, Ella was sort of shepherding him through his, you know, the season where they kind of, they kind of said they were committed to making him a centerman and were for a little bit, and then they would back off. I feel bad for the guy. I really do because it's been false started more than anybody else in the Montreal Canadiens.

And you're right, maybe at the end of all this, if they decide to keep him, and he doesn't become trade bait. And I still do think that Montreal is big game hunting more than any other Canadian team. They are looking for a big trade at deadline. I wonder, too, if he becomes a benefactor, if they just finally say, you are, and no offense to flip to know, has been very good. you are the number one center for the Montreal Canadians. You are going there and we are leaving you there.

Because that's where you're going to be. Yeah. No, I agree. I'm very curious to see how he turns out. But so just like kind of getting away from the HABs themselves, though, just kind of speaking about the coaching position itself. I just pulled up the list of sort of how long each coach has been tenured with their team right now. And there's three guys on this list that were with their team at the start of the 2012-20,

13 season. Like that's that's that's that's pretty mind-blowing to me. I mean, you have quenville, Tippett and darrell Sutter and everyone else started sometime right in the 2013, 2014 season. Like it just that kind of seems crazy to me. And there's so much fluidity with this position. And that's why I always shudder when a team gives a guy. I understand you have to, uh, buy some goodwill with the, with the locker room and to kind of show them that the coach is going to be around and actually has a strong voice. But like when they start handing out extensions before the initial contract is even done, like that pretty much never winds up working out. Yeah, it's, you see, I'm very much of the mind that there's only a handful of great coaches in the NHL.

And then there's just sort of everybody else. Like when you look at the way the game is played, I mean, there are minor sort of, you know, details that each coach brings to the game. But generally, we're all kind of watching the same style of game here. You know, in 2017, like, realistically, there's, what, like, three different ways to play the game right now? There are minor tweaks the system and all that. You know, Hitchcock, before he got blown out, was doing man-to-man on the defensive zone. First thing yo did was say, screw that, we're playing zone. All of a sudden, Jake Allen, can stop pucks once again because when defenseman or anyone misses an assignment,

it's not a one-on-one battle with the goaltender. But I'm still very much of the mind that there is a sort of a sort of base level for all the coaches in the NHL, and only a couple of them rise above it. You know, Joel Quinville is certainly one of those coaches. Mike Babcock is one of those coaches as well. But like I guess you say, the Claude Julian, you probably throw him in that equation as well. But there really aren't that many great ones.

And I think if you go and you look at the history of the NHL, even in the 16 era as well, they're great because they're legends, but are they great because they're great coaches? It's always a question that I ask about it. And I look at the NHL now and I say, there's a lot of good coaches and maybe a handful of great ones. But that's it.

And it's a 30-team league. Yeah, that's fair. When I look at a situation like this, you mentioned how Mike Yo takes the job and all of a sudden makes a fundamental shift to the system they're playing. I always fascinated when the right-hand man that's been there the entire time as sort of an assistant or whatever, an advisor, gets the job and just completely changes something.

Like, it just gets me thinking, like, the entire time was he, like, what kind of advice was he giving the incumbent coach? Like, it just like, what was Mike Yo telling Ken Hitchcock that he thinks they should have been playing a different way? Or was he just going along with him? Because he was working under him. Like, we saw that. A great example for that with me is, is Mike Sullivan, for example, and he spent all those years working under John Tortorella, and you just kind of figured that, well, these two guys are linked together. they must have share similar philosophies or coaching styles. And then he comes to Pittsburgh and he's just this breath of fresh air just doing things

completely differently that we would ever would have necessarily expected him to. And it's like I'm just kind of fascinated about how that can, how we never really know. We just kind of link them together just because they are working together, but they might have totally different philosophies and stuff. And depending on the situation they're in, I mean, you look at Mike Sullivan. I mean, what's the one thing that Mike Sullivan did when he takes him over with the Pittsburgh Penguins? He said, okay, I've got a bunch of guys that can fly. I got a bunch of guys that like having the puck on their stick.

There's going to be a number of guys on this team that I'm going to allow to cheat, right? And there's a handful. Guys that don't have to curl back when the puck goes back into the zone, right? I mean, you look at in St. Louis, I mean, you look at Vlad Tarasenko, right? When there's a shot from the point in the defensive zone, he's going. He's leaving, right? And he's anticipating that that is going to be blocked, stopped, picked off, and I want to step. on the defense. It's right out of the pages of Papal-Burray. It does it all the time. You look at

what Mike Sullivan did with the Pittsburgh Penguins, a couple of different things. First one is guys like Kessel, guys like Crosby, guys like Haglin, guys that can move, they're allowed to leave the zone early, you know, which is for a lot of coaches, that's major no-no, right? Because defense is something that's very, very coachable. Offense generally isn't. Cheating is something that coaches don't like him. Players cheating is something that coaches don't like on their resume. Oh, look at this team. Look how on discipline. Look at these guys leaving the zone early. Man, Sullivan's got to get these guys under control.

No, that was done deliberately. He let those guys and the other one, which is all over the NHL, maybe no team did it better than Mike Babcock's Detroit Red Wings and now to some extent, well maybe a large extent Mike Babcock's Toronto

made beliefs, skating interference. You know, the interference where you're moving your feet and you're just shading a guy, it is rampant in the NHL. Babcock took it to a whole new level. And if you look at what the Pittsburgh Penguins were able to do against the San Jose sharks last year,

like we were all amazed that, you know, Brian Dumlin looked like he was Paul Coffey getting the puck out. Right. Holy smokes, right? This is amazing. Ben Lovejoy, you had this in your game? Well, it's because that neutral zone skating interference. We're also like, where's this, you know, big, huge, heavy San Jose forecheck?

Well, they couldn't get through the neutral zone. If you go back and watch what Pittsburgh did, it's, it's nothing new. It's been in the game for a while. This idea of skating interference. And it's very passive. It's very casual, but it slows you down. It almost brings you to a stop in your tracks. Is it illegal?

You can stretch, I suppose. Right. But, I mean, it's one of those, it's one of those things that it's in the game and it's not obvious unless you really pay it. face-offs. Okay, so my latest thing now that I can't stop looking at, that I can't stop watching. I was talking to an NHL player a couple weeks ago, who brought it up. And now that he mentioned it, I can't stop seeing it on every single face-off the way players use their feet to win draws. It is, now there's no rule against it, right? I think there will be one day. I know I talked to one American hockey league coach just to sort of confirm, like, is this happening in the American

League, too? He said, it's happening so much that I'm going to raise this as a new issue and ask that we create a rule about it. The way players use their feet to win draws, they'll cut off the circle by backing up their stick with their skate as the draw is coming and they'll start turning even before the puck has dropped. So even before the puck hits the ice, you've already cut out the circle. And now that I've said at Dimitri, when you watch hockey tonight, you are going to see this everywhere and you'll become obsessed about it because I am.

I can't stop seeing it because it's everywhere, but it's been hiding in plain view. And it was only until one NHL player pointed out to me. It's funny. And I put it out on Twitter on Sunday and right away, I had one player text me and one player direct message be saying, dude, everybody does this. It's driving us nuts. They need to come up with a route. Now, of course, he's the same centermen and probably doing it themselves. But they're all on the same page. This is the new way of cheating. It's a new way of winning draws. Is it against the rulebook? No. But then there is really you know, this passive skating interference. Sorry to go off on a tangent there.

Have I had this discussion with you about why hockey media people on TV are so enamored with the idea of talking about face-offs all the time during game broadcasts? I'm not sure if it was on the podcast or if it was just, you know, over a burrito in Vancouver, but let's do it. It's, it's crazy. I thought we'd already went through this and we'd already settled it a few years ago. I remember you had me on Merrick vs. Sushinsky and we talked about this. We talked it through how it's not nearly as important as you think and all this stuff.

And it feels like it really died down. And then this year, for whatever reason, it's, it's pop back up again as like a major talking point for people. It's like you can't watch a game these days without at least one or two like segments devoted to it and graphics showing what's going on with the face loss. And it's like, I don't know. I just, it seems like we've discussed on the show how you only have a limited amount of time during these broadcasts to actually get your own.

point across and that makes it tough but if you that's not necessarily you know a justification for then just using that time to talk about something that actually doesn't mean anything like you may as well try and sneak something useful into it if it results in a scoring chance almost immediately it means something but if it doesn't then it's just part of a long sequence yeah right and like i listen trust me it took me a while to come around to that too it took it took me uh because i'm like demit you like you know me but i'm dumb it took me it took me a while to get my head around thinking like that. And it was through conversations with people like you

and with other friends that are of the same mind. And I drive people nuts at the shop now when they talk about faceoffs, and I just sort of shrug it off and say, well, a board battle is a face off for a winger, where's that stat? And oh, well, that's just in the middle of play. Well, so, well, face off is just something that begins a sequence of play and generally has nothing to do with a goal. Generally, sometimes it does.

Let me tell you a story. Have I told you a story about these, there's two assistant general managers. Now, now former assistant general managers that I know that ran a program, that ran a, that's a lack of a better term, a survey or did a study. That's the word I'm looking for. Okay. So they ran a study one year. These are two now ex-assistant general managers in the NHL. They ran a study about face-offs, offensive zone face-offs on the power play.

And whether it was advantageous to win the draw or lose the draw by way of creating scoring chances. And overwhelmingly, Dimitri, it is advantageous for a centerman in the offensive zone on the power play to lose a face-off. And here's why. When you lose a draw, the puck goes back. If you can have a forecheck fast enough to get on the defenseman that has a face-off, the puck, you force a turnover around the net and automatically you're in a scoring position. If you win the draw, however, the puck goes generally back to the point and how many bodies line up in between that puck and the goaltender? Five, six, it's almost nearly impossible to turn

that into a scoring chance. But it's much easier to turn a lost face off into a scoring chance when you're on the power play. Because the turnover occurs. around the net. Ryan Getslaff does this still, to this day, all the time in Anaheim. We saw Austin Matthews do this in the Toronto Ottawa game a few weeks ago. It is a tactic. But when you start talking about creativity with face-offs, sometimes people get, in my industry, get a little bit weird because they like to think that if you're winning the draw, you're doing good because it's a very quantifiable event. You can see it. Right. And everybody, understands it. Oh, they won the draw. That's a good thing. And generally, winning a draw and

getting possession is a good thing. But it doesn't always lead to scoring chances. And it is just the beginning of, I'm preaching to the choir here on your podcast. It's just a beginning of what turns into a long sequence. That's all. Yeah, it's a puck battle. Yeah, I understand just from a human element, like it's kind of an easy thing. If it's such a clean face-off that results in a goal against or something like that, you can kind of point to it and explain it. And, And that's why people love stuff like giveaways for defensemen, right? Because it's like if you see a giveaway from a defenseman, you can like very easily kind of point to someone who's to blame for it.

But ultimately over the long haul, like we know that if you have a lot of giveaways, it generally just means that you have the puck on your stick a lot. And that's a good thing. So yeah. Well, here's something to consider as well. I'm going to get a little Marshall, Marshall McLuhan, ask on you here a little bit. Here's the thing to consider as well. During a hockey broadcast, things are happening really quickly and action is happening

really quickly. You have to describe it fast on the radio and you have to describe it really, really quickly on television as well. You don't have the luxury. And this is the limit, right? This is the limit of how the game is played itself and what you're able to say in those brief spaces in between pass to the point, shot on net, there's a whistle face off to the right of Kerry Price. The game moves so fast, you don't have a lot of time during the game to explain concepts. that like when you're watching a game the analyst generally has only a few seconds to make a point and if you need to sit there and explain why face-off stats aren't important you're going to miss things in the game the play-by-play guy is not going to be able to do his job of the play-by-play

now you can make the argument that well that should perhaps be the studio's job and you're right there um that should be what i think a good studio show does is here's the game and here are things that went, you know, that you perhaps you didn't see while you were watching the game because we can't all follow 10 people on the ice at the exact same time. And that's a good point. But while the game is on, it's, it's tough to get in anything that's more than here's his shooting percentage. Here's his face-off percentage. Oh, he's seven for nine so far this period. He's doing really well. I still chalk it up to the limit of how fast. Like if hockey were played at a baseball speed and a baseball pace, then I think you could,

but it's not. But how many people, and listen, I might be just the wrong demographic here. Like, I'm sure that there's kind of older people at home that do prefer this, but like how many people watch the game and just like get upset if the play by play guy isn't calling the exact action like for the entire time? Like, I'm perfectly cool if they're just having a conversation about something relevant and not necessarily, you know, if it's just, just like the other team just dumping the buck into the zone like or whatever's happening like you can kind of go give me a little anecdote without necessarily just breaking down every single play as it's happening like i'm perfectly cool of that too i've always maintained i think you and i've

talked about this before i've always maintained i've made this pitch before uh to various places where i've worked where they do uh they do hockey broadcast of nchl games that there should be two streams uh one for people who just want the basics and there's nothing wrong with that you know you want, you know, Henrik to Daniel, you know, back to Edler, feeds it to Tenev, shoot, he scores. Like, for people that just want that, great. That's cool. And nothing wrong with that.

And that's good. And I think this should also be an alternative broadcast of every single game, which is a roundtable discussion, which can use, you know, a jumping off point, some things that happen in that game. But consider yourself. Consider when you're around a bunch of buddies. and you're watching the game,

are you following the play and calling the play or are you having a conversation about hockey and every now and then a goal happens or a hit happen or some event sparks you that happens. But it's a conversation around the game that is consistently interesting when the game is not.

They need to be long stretches of games that aren't interesting. It's at those moments you don't need, I don't think, you don't need as a viewer slash listener, You don't need all the janitorial work at that point. You don't need the tic-tac-toe and tell me all the names of the players that are touching the park. You don't need that. You need a conversation.

I'd be really curious and really interested in hearing an alternative feed, which is just a roundtable discussion, maybe of the two teams that are involved in the game, but the conversation has nothing to do with the game other than, oh, we have a goal, who got that one, and that turns into another discussion based on whomever scored or how we scored it. No, I'm with it. It's a hockey conversation while the game is going on. I'm with you 100%. I think the other thing we need,

and if there's one thing you and I do during our time with Roger Sportsnet to improve the product, can it please be getting the sports net broadcast to have a shot counter, a running shot counter during the game? A shot counter? Yeah, just like, you know how if you're watching like a Fox Sports broadcast during a game? It says like the time, the time. It says the score. They do that, don't they?

Yeah. They just beside it easily. It just says how many shows. shots each team has. And I think that's, it doesn't even need to be something as nerdy as shot attempts. Like I think just shots on goal, which everyone recognizes as being an important, useful thing. It's just really nice to be able, especially like, you know, it's one thing. If you're just watching the entire game, you kind of have a feel for it. But like, for someone like you or I, if we're sitting at home and there's 10 games on and you're flipping back

and forth between games, it's a really useful thing for you to kind of captivate you and catch your attention to what's happening in that game. Let me ask you this question, because I go back and forth on it. How busy do you want your screen when you watch hockey? Like how clean do you want it or how busy do you want it? I mean, generally cleaner than not. But like, I mean, they're showing, they're like pulling up graphics of like random stuff.

Like, oh, over the past two weeks in home games, this player is averaging this time on ice. It's like, okay, did I really need to know that? Like, I feel like that was like a completely irrelevant nugget. I feel like you could have shown me something more useful there. Yeah. But at the same time, I mean, well, I mean, to meet Bavis and Butthead was some of the best television I've ever seen, right?

Two guys sitting on the couch talking about what they see on television. It's pretty simple. That and pop-up video. And I think that, you know, those two programs influence people more than they want to admit. It's opinion and information. And I think they're looking for that perfect balance or that perfect marriage of it in sports. certainly they're trying to find it in hockey as well. I think the interesting, the challenging thing is when you're programming for hockey,

or any sport, we're just going to take hockey because it's the topic of this podcast. You're not really, and you see this on hockey and Canada, maybe more so on, you know, regional games or even, you know, national nights like Wednesdays. You're not, you're not broadcasting to a demographic. You're broadcasting to a family reunion. Right. It's not like a tight, a 2554 demo that you're broadcasting to. You're broadcasting to a five-year-old to an 85-year-old.

How do you find common ground with interesting information for all of them? That's tough, man. I will consider, because listen, I understand that there's a lot of empty-calorie stuff that goes on the screen. I agree. But then I always have to catch myself and say, well, would 12-year-old me feel the same way? You know, would eight-year-old me feel the same way? Would 25-year-old me feel the same way? And will 65-year-old me feel the same way?

I don't know the answer to that. Well, how long do you think it's going to take for us before, you know, we have the capabilities or the resources to be running multiple versions of the same broadcast, as you mentioned earlier? I would love it. Put it this way. If there were money attached to it, it would happen tomorrow. Right?

All it would take is, you know, someone, someone, someone to sponsor it and get behind it. You know, now at Sportsnet, they're getting into virtual reality, you know, broadcasting, you know, VR games. And, you know, that's that, that's another, a whole other level. So I would like to be, to be honest with the Dimitri, I thought we'd already be there by now. Yeah. You know, I can recall, like, even, you know, like five or six years ago saying, man, by the time

2017 rolls around, you're going to be able to, you know, you'll be your own director. and you'll choose all your angles and all the information you need will all be personalized and it's whatever you want. And I kind of thought we'd have been there by now. But the one thing that we have learned

about hockey audiences, by the way, I can't speak so much stateside but in Canada, they don't like things to change. Yeah. You know, they like it the way... Because whether it's, I mean, how many times you get the eyeballs

when someone says, oh, analytics or fancy style Very easy. You get the eyeball rolling. Right. I would, I'd really be curious to find out what was the reaction in the late 60s when plus minus was introduced to the audience? Was it the same reaction? Yeah.

This is way too complicated. Yeah. Hang on. I don't understand. What? What? Huh? Explain this to me.

I don't get this. But then you take it even further back and you go to some of the original game sheets, the NHL. I think the first ones they kept were 1918. or 1919. And on the game sheet itself, you know, there's a message from would have been probably Frank Calder, then president, encouraging the official scorer to include assists on every goal. So you could make the argument then, too, that assists were the first analytic. Because I'm sure there are people saying, well, what is the guy that passed him the puck? What does that have to do with the goal? He didn't score the goal. But really, it's talking about something that happened

around the event. That wasn't the event, but influenced the event. Yeah. Well, I'd like to speak to the person that invented the secondary assist because he's caused us a lot of pain here. I was having this conversation with, oh, who was I talking to? Oh, I think it was Colby. I think it was Armstrong. We were sitting around watching a game and he said, you know, it would be really cool.

I said, what's that cold? I hope it was cold, except I don't want to misquote him. said what's that he said it would really cool if at the end of a game or even at the end of a period you could have someone go back and look at the play and determine who really assisted on the goal because to your point it's not always just you know the person that taps it over to the guy for the you know for the one time or the scores that really set up that play sometimes it's a clever pick sometimes it's an outlet pass sometimes it's breaking the things up with the far blue line he said that would be i said well it'd be all subjective because everyone

Well, no two people look at the exact same sequence, the exact same way. Right. But I think he's on this, I think there's, I don't know what it is, but I think there's some there there. I just don't know how you would articulate it or frame it, but I know that just touches probably doesn't do, you know, proper assists any real service. Right. Yeah, like the other day when Chris Kelly scored a goal from his own bench because

Yuri Huddler did a drop as into his own hat. Yeah. Man, how bad did you feel for Hiddler at that point? Just came back into the lineup like two days before, fires it back. It was a great summation of this entire Dallas Star season, honestly. It's a big question mark. Well, and you know what the thing about it too, and this is, I know this is a bone of contention for a lot of people that don't like the play, but I mean, it's Lindy Ruff as the coach.

And, you know, what was the play he was making? He was doing the ladder play, which has always been a hallmark of Lindy Ruffman. That ladder play he did with the Buffalo Sabres, I mean, when they was drew, and Breyer and Campbell, Palm andville, like that ladder play, I mean, that's how they got the zone, like every single time. They weren't the first to do it. I mean, the Soviets did the ladder play, you know,

years and years, for years to get zone. That was their play. I'm not sure if it was Terra Soff or it was someone afterwards, but that's a Soviet play. And Lindy Ruff was the first one to really popularize it, I think, in the NHL, and he does it with Dallas, too. A lot of coaches do ladder play now, but that's what that was.

Like, it was a Dallas star is getting burned on a signature Lindy Rough play, the latter play, into your own net. Yeah, that was brutal, brutal. All right, you have to go in a few minutes here. So I have a couple of rapid fire things that I want us to get to, and then I'll let you go, okay? Let's do it, man. So where are you are out with the biweek?

Because teams right now are, I think, like, I saw three and nine or something coming out of it. And, you know, like the flames most recently just got absolutely smoked by the coyotes in their own home rink. And I think opinion is sort of split, but I feel like most people are leaning towards it being an unsuccessful venture so far. Where are you out with it? I like it.

By the way, there's nine teams this week on their buy. I think it's only like 44 games in the league this week, something like that. It's pretty late. Here's why I like it. I like anything that gets players away from coaches. You know, and the records are abysmal. You're right.

I think it is three, three, is it three nine and one or something like that? Something like that. Yeah, it's really bad. but goal scoring is up there's probably a number of reasons for it and i think one of them is the buy week i mean what do we keep hearing coaches saying now oh i don't get enough time to work with these guys well good good because we're done with the robots we're done with table hockey we're done with this is what you dig no no no anytime you can get coaches away for players the game benefits uh coaches don't like the buy week why because they can't work with their players

and they come back generally flat of course they're not going to like it. But goal scoring has gone up this year for the first time since I think it was 2009. I had a pretty increased clip too. So I like it just because it produces sloppier play. And I think this is a game that needs sloppier play and less coaching. So for that reason, I'm all in on the buy. I just wonder if it'd be better off just maybe doing it like one division just takes it all off at a time or something like that. I feel like it's kind of been a bit random and a bit wonky. It's caused like a weird schedule

just because teams, it's kind of all over the place a little bit. Yeah. To me, as long as everything, because I know, like there was times where like, you know, the Maple Leafs had five games in hand

on the Boston Bruins. You see it's like, how do you have a schedule like this? Right. But to me, as long as everybody is sort of within one or two games of each other at trade deadline,

then I think the schedule is fair. Like, if you have one team that's like, you know, five, played five games less than everybody else at trade deadline. then I think the schedule is not doing the game of service. But as long as everybody has an accurate representation of what their team is at trade

deadline, and they've all sort of played within one or two games of each other, the exact same amount of games, then I'm okay with it. It does look weird sometimes when you look at the standings and you see like, how's this team played six more games than everybody? How does that work? I know it looks kind of bizarre. But for me, as long as everything matches up, sort of matches up a trade deadline.

Speaking of the deadline, do you think we're going to have another quiet one like we had last year? Do you think that the expansion draft actually, just the looming possibilities and how some teams have guys they can keep in some teams don't have enough guys? Do you think that's going to create some unique moves, or do you think it's just going to be kind of status quo? I think there'll be, I mean, we've already seen some unique moves, right?

I mean, Calgary picks up Thomas McCollum. Why do you think Calgary picked up Thomas McCollum? expose an expansion draft. The Maple Leafs claim Alexei Marchenko. Why do you think the Maple Leafs claim Alexei Marchenko? Someone you can expose to the expansion draft. Let me rephrase it.

Moves of any significance. Do I think we, I think we will see moves of, but I just don't know that it happens on March 1st. Right? Which is, you know, the vein of our existence at sports sent and TSN as well, because we got, you know, 10 hours of programming

to fill on March 1st. Yeah. So gimmick it up, boys. I see big players moving. I mean, listen, man, Colorado, whatever, you want it, it's yours. You know, Arizona will be certainly dealing as well. I think, you know, Dallas is pretty close to just saying, okay, who wants Patrick Sharp? So I think there will be players that move.

I just don't know that they all get done on March 1st because a lot of general managers, now just aren't leaving it to the very last moment. Like when you have the deal, do it and get it done. I mean, the hurricanes did this in 206 are the first ones. They made all their moves before. I know it was a freak year and everyone had to relearn the game. But afterwards, you know, team just stopped waiting until a trade deadline to make all their moves.

So I think there'll be moves. For my sake, selfishly, I hope that they're all done on March 1st. So I'll be part of the sports net trade deadline coverage. But I have a feeling there'll be out. there'll be some pretty big fish that are gone before March 1. Yeah. What do you think? It's tough, man.

Like, I, the optimist in me looks at it, and I see so many interesting sort of things that can happen and potentially domino effect. But then I'm reminded that it is the NHL, and it's super conservative. And I feel like it, we're just setting ourselves up for disappointed if we get too carried away with it. But, like, I definitely see some stuff that should happen that would be, would make for a very interesting day. I just, what?

I'm not sure if I floated this on your podcast. last year, but the drum that I've been beating for a long time is really turn trade deadline into an event, you know, and turn into event like the draft, have an arena with 31 tables. To get, to get juices going, you need all the guys in the same spot. You know, 31 tables, right? They started 8 o'clock in the morning or 9 o'clock in the morning, you know, cover it, like the draft. You're just there, just do a show. And then when you see the conference, Just to see the conversations, right? Right.

Like, oh, man, you know, Ron Hextall is talking to Kevin Shevolde off. Yep. And then that turns, it's just adding another layer of information that, and if it's a simple conversation, even just a visual of watching two general managers talk to each other on trade deadline day is one that I think is pretty grippy and has some flight paper for hockey fans and for viewers. All general managers, 30 tables, one arena, and promote it as trade deadline day, like proper and turn it into a TV event.

Yeah, but I think if you use Kevin Shevoldeoff as the example there, people aren't going to get too excited because I say the trade's probably not going to happen. Okay, it's Ron Hextel and Dean Lombardi. The old running mates in Philadelphia and Los Angeles getting back together again. There we go. One final thing. I have a knock on wood. I don't want to jinx it, but I'm getting Kelly Rudy on the show next week.

We're going to have hopefully a fun chat about goaltending. I've heard he's an amazing, an amazing gentleman and such a nice guy. Do you have any one thing I should ask him while I have his ear? Or I guess you talk to him all the time, so it's not a thing. Yeah, Kelly is one of the more, honestly, Kelly is one of the most genuine, sincere, nicest guys that you will meet in the industry.

And he's from a TV point of view, the guy is so watchable because he looks so comfortable. I remember asking him once because we've just known, you know, Kelly from, you know, playing with the Los Angeles King, and playing with the Islanders and the sharks as well to make it a transition that seem really seamless into TV, right?

Because he's always, God, he's always been great, always delivers. I remember asking him, it's like, how long did it take you to feel comfortable? And I expected him to say like, uh, maybe a season and a half. He told me 10 years.

Like, what? Because the guy is, like, he's so comfortable, so easy. And you know when someone's comfortable when they're not shy about silence, right and that's a great thing in a broadcast when you're comfortable enough to say nothing and pause then you know you're comfy and and that's that's kelly rudy he is a genuine um guy with a big heart and he's really thoughtful um and he cares a ton and just to hear him talk about Patrick marlowe was interesting right because when he was with the San Jose sharks Patrick marlowe was a rookie and him and

his wife Donna took in Patrick Marlow in his rookie season. And even just now to hear him talk about Patrick Marlowe is pretty fascinating. But that'll be a great conversation because he's a real interesting guy with, you know, great stories of that great run with the Los Angeles Kings, you know, being traded from the, from the Allenders to the Los Angeles Kings. And I believe is probably the only all-medic hat Tigers trade because Kelly played for the Tigers. She was traded for who was a Wayne McBean who was Tiger and Mark Fitzpatrick

who was also a tiger so all three people in the deal all played for the medicine hat tigers that has to be a league wreck or at least a unique piece of trivia you'll love Kelly honestly you're gonna have a you have a great conversation I know I'm gushing like him like he invented oxygen but

I'm a I'm a huge fan I got nothing but respect for the guy and I can't wait to download that podcast Dimitri That was the most Jeff Merrick way to end a podcast talking about how it was an all-medicine hat trade. That was a nugget that I feel like you were the only

person that would even think of and acknowledge. I had to get my Pierre McGuire on a little bit there for you. Do you want to plug anything before we get out of here? Where can people find you? What are you doing? You know, I'm living on Twitter these days doing Hockey Central, the 630 show. It's 630 Eastern Mondays, Thursdays, Fridays,

sort of pop up on weekends, doing various regional games as well, doing our trade deadline coverage as well, which I guess Ilya spoiled the big surprise today by announcing on Twitter that he'll be part of it. So that's going to be a lot of fun. And that's a, yeah, that's a big one for us.

Hope everyone digs what we have planned. I'm not in the position to give me any details of what I'm doing yet, but I think you'll enjoy the room and the company. The room that I'm made in the company that I'm with, we'll leave it at that. I have no idea. I have no idea.

I have no doubt that we will, man. I'm looking forward to seeing you on there, and keep fighting a good fight, and we'll chat soon, okay? Thanks, bud. Always a pleasure. No, I didn't host it. Like, I was a good boy this time, right? No, you did great.

I think that was a lot of fun. Let's do it again soon. Okay, thanks, Val. Talk soon. The hockey PDO. Follow on Twitter at Dim Philipovich and on SoundCloud at soundcloud. At soundcloud.com slash hockeypedocast.