Coach Discussion: All-purpose Coach discussion thread

[Duke749]

If coaches have no impact then why have them let alone pay them crazy sums of money. I get it, their actual impact is likely overstated a bit but some on here seem to think they make very little difference. Yes it is the players who ultimately play on the ice but much like a conductor conducting a symphony the coach needs assemble the pieces he has together and provide direction and guidance. He needs to make sure the parts are working optimally together.

In the end I think the team is feeling the pressure of the expectations and is wilting under them which is leading to them over thinking things and trying to take short cuts. On the flip side Maurice has done very little to get things on track. He's doubled down on his bad habits and has proceeded to ride our vets too hard despite poor results.

If we flame out early next year will be telling. Is it a team that had to suffer a hard lesson to really take the next step or is the roster not quite as good as expected. This applies to Maurice as Well, does he learn and grow or does he continue to coach the same way with the same biases.

As far as a potential coach, I have been beating the Sheldon Keefe drum for a while now. He's a real good young and up and coming progressive coach with a terrific track record. He also coaches a very up tempo offensive system which fits the roster.

What’s the back ground with him? We know about the usual guys but I’m not sure they’d be my first choice. Your short description on Keefe sounds exactly like someone I’d put at the top.

 

[Daximus]

You’re defaulting to coaching regardless of the context is very short sighted.

I find this is really common among football fans, where coaching takes a more direct role in how the game plays out. Hockey isn't defined by it's plays and systems. Even basketball has a more systems direct flow to it. Hockey is to fast for a coach to have any real effect with whats going on on the ice. I mean when you hear guys like Sullivan say they are very hands off coaches it's because when you have someone like Crosby on the ice you don't have to coach him. Nothing you can tell him is going to be a better decision then the one he makes in that split second.

I remember a few games ago when Ferraro was broadcasting there was a long period of play with no whistle and he commented something like the players love it when there is no whistle because the coach can't tell them what to do and they can just play their game. Coaches hate it when there is no whistle because they have less control. That right there tells you all you need to know about hockey.

 

[Mbraunm]

I’ve never said that. I just don’t put all this extra weight into coaching like it’s the difference between being bottom 6-7 and top 6-7.

There are a few mediocre coaches who may not have a net positive impact. However, great coaches can definitely have an overall positive effect. Look at Trotz and Julienne-those teams would be no where close to a playoff spot without the coaches ability to provide leadership, accountability and intelligent roster management.

 

[Maukkis]

The posts do rack up quickly here. This one's done, but a new one will be posted.

Closed.

 

[Ducky10]

There are a few mediocre coaches who may not have a net positive impact. However, great coaches can definitely have an overall positive effect. Look at Trotz and Julienne-those teams would be no where close to a playoff spot without the coaches ability to provide leadership, accountability and intelligent roster management.

And they might be nowhere near a playoff spot next season. Rosters like that have no margin for error, they aren't talented enough to not have full buy in. It's a tough task to keep that going year after year. Have Julien and Trotz had to hold any of their leaders accountable this year? Or are they kind of taking care of that on their own?
Ironically a number of coaches have accomplished similar success with even lesser rosters...….including Maurice.