BonkTastic
ಠ_ಠ
I don't know how much the quality of the player matters when you are trying to teach. More specifically - I think it's a crapshoot.
I mean, the best players tend to make the worst coaches, simply because the game comes so naturally to them that it's difficult for them to explain it; it's intuitive for them. Gretzky, Trottier,
Similarly, some times the best coaches are the average/so-so players, who weren't blessed with natural skill, and instead focused on the instructable parts of the game so that they could learn as much as they could to help bridge the gap between themselves and the true skill player. I mean, how many great coaches had their careers end in the AHL, or maybe only had a cup of coffee in the NHL? The great coaches tend to be **** players.
So really, I suppose it depends on how you are teaching. If you are teaching via example, then yeah, get yourself some generationally talented players. If you're teaching via instruction though, skill really doesn't come into play much.
A guy like Gonchar had both (high skill level + ability to teach via instruction). A guy like Dave Allison had neither. You can have elite veteran players who can't teach anything worth a damned (cough*BRETTHULL*cough), and 3rd pairing defencemen / utility forwards who go on to have great coaching careers because they think the game at a high level from an X's and O's perspective.
I'm just saying - skill doesn't always translate into being able to teach. Obviously you want skilled veterans on the team because of the whole "we want skill on the team" part. That's a no-brainer. Obviously they are probably going to be the more desirable asset. I'm just making a point about teaching here.
