I haven't coached at all, like most of us probably. Just played growing up and follow the sport. Hoping to start out coaching when my kid hits 5. Corporate leadership, yes a very smalla amount, but certainly not extensive experience.
I didn't say I can do an NHL coach's job better than them, of course not. I tried to allude to a few the difficulties of the role in my previous post. The human elements you mentioned are the hardest part of leadership.
Just because an NHL coach is an NHL coach doesn't mean they don't have blind spots that many outsiders or members of the team notice. Every leader has rationale behind their decision-making. That doesn't mean it is 100% correct. 80-90% of the time it probably is correct.
I don't even feel like any point has been made against me, just discrediting my opinion based on being an average Joe. Which is fine. There are a lot of smart people on here that fit that description.
I actually think that we are starting to agree on parts of this. I do think that personalities, egos of pro athletes have a huge effect and interpersonal dynamics are likely driving the Connor Ehlers line swap saga. It seems like something behind closed doors (Scheif preferring to play with Connor?) It my opinion as an outsider and average Joe that these type of dynamics are getting in the way of objective decision making and hurting the team.
I think it's better off for me not to assume what the intentions are behind closed doors. Research indicates when you assume someone's intent we are wrong more often than not. More to my point, I don't want to assume why Bowness is wrong. It just seems clear to me he is making a mistake. Doesn't matter much to me why, just that he is.
I hope this helps understand my thought process a bit better.
Good post.
I'd only add that the NHL coaching gig has been a mostly closed shop for a long time now, consisting substantially of the same core group of HC and assistants who move from team to team. In any given season how many of those 32 coaches have never before coached in the NHL? How many have made it to those positions by virtue of their tactical / man-management / whatever brilliance in or innovations vs having stuck around long enough to win the "trust" of a GM in a famously cautious league? We talk about "retreads" all the time round here, for good reason. If new blood isn't entering the sport regularly at the highest levels, then where are the best new ideas coming from?
The claim "There are only 32 coaching jobs in the world's greatest league; ergo those 32 coaches are the best in the world" is a textbook tautology. Maybe Bones is indeed one of the world's 32 best hockey coaches, or maybe he isn't. But even if he is, there's things to learn, surely.
It's hard to watch our PP or PK, for example, and imagine that the tactics and deployments we're seeing are truly the best ones possible, given the results, eyetest and stats. If coaching decisions are producing less than optimal results then discussion of them is fair game for fans, just as the play of any particular player is -- though all here would agree that even the worst Jet is a far better player than we are.
I don't think it's arrogant to query coaching decisions that seem to make the team worse, or applaud those that make the team better. If Rick and his staff know what ails this team -- as we've heard -- and can't fix it, that's an issue. If they don't know and can't fix it, also an issue.
Hopefully they have the insight, solutions and authority to sort out special teams and deployment to get the Jets in shape for a strong playoffs. I think that's what fans want and are hoping for. I know I bloody am.
Yeah, I mean we’ve debated the whole
Ehlers w/ Scheifele (and Connor away from
Scheif) quite a bit. I am in the 27-55-13 (and 81 on second line) camp, the numbers speak for themselves. But it is what it is — It’s become clear that it won’t be deployed that way, at least not consistently. The Pionk thing is interesting though, because he isn’t a “star” in the same way the KC is. Yet, despite Pionk’s terrible play, Bones doesn’t seem to have an interest in rotating him out of the line up. The strange thing is we have options — Miller is sitting in the press box and it would seem like a low-risk option to test out right now. I’m also not sure about this “need to have a right shot D on right D no matter what” philosophy — I think Samberg could do ok in that spot. But if that’s really the issue, then why not try out Miller at this point. Pionk’s play had been a major problem and nothing is being done to address it. I think Chevy did his job by getting Miller as a depth player, but now is perhaps the time to test it out - this seems to be the time where you would utilize the depth?
Agree -- no idea why Pionk seems to evade scrutiny of his play game after game and season after season. We spent assets for Miller. Let's use him. He may not hit the (increasingly rare) Pionk higher highs, but if he doesn't hit the Pionk low lows it's a win.
And Samberg's mysterious benching? Clueless.
