GDT: Game 21: Coyotes @ Sharks - 8PM - FSAZ

[BUX7PHX]

I don't know if it was simpler, but whatever Ulf did was certainly more effective. And given NYR's performance with Ulf coaching the defense, it seems like his strategy/tactics provided repeatable success.

That's where we were able to rise above our talent level on ice - impeccable team play and chemistry at that point. Veteran players understand the team concept better than youth.

For the most part, these dynamic 16, 17, and 18 year olds were all the stars on their team in the younger days. How many people here have seen those coaches who say, "Just give the ball to our best player..."? Kid learns to depend on himself only and then you have to reteach him to get that out of his system. We just had that perfect mix of veterans with enough talent to get by in the playoff years. We lost some talent and even gained some talent. Ribeiro should be the perfect example of how greater talent maybe isn't always best if someone puts himself before team, even when his background, age, and experience should have been considered positives.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Veteran players understand the team concept better than youth.

No offense intended, but this is one of those "It seems right, therefore it must BE right" truthy gut feelings rather than fact. In practice, whether a player understands team play and the greater strategy that governs tactics is entirely dependent upon the player himself, not how old he is or how many years he's been playing in the league.

The temptation is there to paint with a blanket brush and silo everything by age or by the number of years players have been at a particular level. But - especially in the case of hockey - by the time they reach the top level of a sport, an athlete has spent years figuring out what a "team concept" is and playing within it. The hiccups between levels have more to do with the specific methods of adapting to tactics and strategies endemic to their new environment, rather than a more generalized unfamiliarity with "team play" or the mechanics of simply playing the game - and that adaptation is reliant far more upon a player's intelligence, common sense, and attitude than his age or experience.

We've all seen rookies who play like they've been around forever and veterans who look like they've wasted every year in the NHL with their ten-cent heads, so IMO any analysis of a team's character resists such easy categorizations. I think it is more accurate to say that a team's chosen strategic system is the biggest influencer, and the ability to adapt to that system and execute it is the biggest challenge for players. Whether the system can accommodate anything less than perfect execution is the most significant modifier.

 

[kihekah19*]

No offense intended, but this is one of those "It seems right, therefore it must BE right" truthy gut feelings rather than fact. In practice, whether a player understands team play and the greater strategy that governs tactics is entirely dependent upon the player himself, not how old he is or how many years he's been playing in the league.

The temptation is there to paint with a blanket brush and silo everything by age or by the number of years players have been at a particular level. But - especially in the case of hockey - by the time they reach the top level of a sport, an athlete has spent years figuring out what a "team concept" is and playing within it. The hiccups between levels have more to do with the specific methods of adapting to tactics and strategies endemic to their new environment, rather than a more generalized unfamiliarity with "team play" or the mechanics of simply playing the game - and that adaptation is reliant far more upon a player's intelligence, common sense, and attitude than his age or experience.

We've all seen rookies who play like they've been around forever and veterans who look like they've wasted every year in the NHL with their ten-cent heads, so IMO any analysis of a team's character resists such easy categorizations. I think it is more accurate to say that a team's chosen strategic system is the biggest influencer, and the ability to adapt to that system and execute it is the biggest challenge for players. Whether the system can accommodate anything less than perfect execution is the most significant modifier.

Seems you missed the point, as I read it anyhow. It's not about age, it's about skill level exceeding those of teammates at previous levels. Greater skill and being a star lends itself to players "making plays" at one level that they can't at another.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Seems you missed the point, as I read it anyhow. It's not about age, it's about skill level exceeding those of teammates at previous levels. Greater skill and being a star lends itself to players "making plays" at one level that they can't at another.

You missed MY point - for me, it's not about the amount of talent or skill a player has, it's about being able to adapt it to different systems and environments.

Perhaps it's too fine a point to quibble about - we seem to be saying shades of the same thing - it's just that I get tired of the whole "kids versus veterans" excuse that gets thrown around so cavalierly. A team full of kids can beat a team full of veterans if they have the right strategy and full buy-in - EVEN at the NHL level.

 

[BUX7PHX]

No offense intended, but this is one of those "It seems right, therefore it must BE right" truthy gut feelings rather than fact. In practice, whether a player understands team play and the greater strategy that governs tactics is entirely dependent upon the player himself, not how old he is or how many years he's been playing in the league.

The temptation is there to paint with a blanket brush and silo everything by age or by the number of years players have been at a particular level. But - especially in the case of hockey - by the time they reach the top level of a sport, an athlete has spent years figuring out what a "team concept" is and playing within it. The hiccups between levels have more to do with the specific methods of adapting to tactics and strategies endemic to their new environment, rather than a more generalized unfamiliarity with "team play" or the mechanics of simply playing the game - and that adaptation is reliant far more upon a player's intelligence, common sense, and attitude than his age or experience.

We've all seen rookies who play like they've been around forever and veterans who look like they've wasted every year in the NHL with their ten-cent heads, so IMO any analysis of a team's character resists such easy categorizations. I think it is more accurate to say that a team's chosen strategic system is the biggest influencer, and the ability to adapt to that system and execute it is the biggest challenge for players. Whether the system can accommodate anything less than perfect execution is the most significant modifier.

You are correct in some ways - my intention was to have this come across with the idea that while both veterans and younger players have to adapt to certain team concepts, the veterans have been exposed to much more in that department and can correlate the mental aspects more fluidly than youth can as a result. That doesn't mean that Chychrun or Domi aren't already smart players, just that they have dealt with and reacted to fewer NHL caliber scenarios than other veterans.

 

[Tom Polakis]

I'm shocked we dumped the puck in more than San Jose.

I can only hope that the absolute waste of time one poster dedicated to the obvious, is somehow beneficial to someone.

They you will be pleased to learn that it was beneficial to me. In that post he pointed to Sharks players of lesser skill not dumping the puck. I'm not so entrenched in my view that "dumping is a result of low skill" that I can't change it. The post by xx had some good material in it to argue that this team is relying on the dump too often, and it's not a winning strategy.

 

[kihekah19*]

You missed MY point - for me, it's not about the amount of talent or skill a player has, it's about being able to adapt it to different systems and environments.

Perhaps it's too fine a point to quibble about - we seem to be saying shades of the same thing - it's just that I get tired of the whole "kids versus veterans" excuse that gets thrown around so cavalierly. A team full of kids can beat a team full of veterans if they have the right strategy and full buy-in - EVEN at the NHL level.

They can, but it's more rare. Labels pigeon hole and are rarely a good thing, as people players are quite diverse.

Agreed!