A coach does a couple things: First, he manages the locker room, gets the guys playing hard and playing for each other. Second, he teaches the game and makes actual decisions as to system and strategy, lines, personnel, match ups, etc.
I think Hynes is quite good at number one. The team is committed, guys seem to play for him and want to play for him, even now, even in hard times. We have been consistently resilient under him, when things get stormy he seems to keep the vessel afloat. He’s a steady, fair, honest hockey guy and those are his strengths.
Interestingly, for a guy with those qualities, I’ve not been that impressed with the assistant coaches he’s attracted and hired.
But as to number 2, he’s got a ways to go and needs to grow. His system and tactics often don’t look good at a pro level as opposed to an AHL or college game and he’s not particularly creative or intuitive. Slow to see adjustments and make them, both during a season and within games, slow to see personnel combinations, and even when he does find one that works he often doesn’t stick with it. The management within games could be better too. Often a lot better.
Shero seems to value # 1 over # 2 at this point. The strengths make him a good steady guy for building a team of youngsters and instilling good professional habits. But the weaknesses mean that he won’t get the highest performance out of a roster.
Question for the future is whether Hynes can himself become more than just a reasonably competent good character kind of guy? Will he improve as a coach as the personnel upgrades?
Stay tuned.
