Why do people seem to always equate passion and fire with acting like an idiot? Too many movies?
Do people think players respond to clown shows like this better than a guy who keeps it behind closed doors, or chooses to educate and lead without yelling and carrying on like an abusive parent?
I want coaches and players that hate to lose, for sure, but please, hold the circus.
I was at the Chill game when Ruskowski littered the ice with sticks et al. It was awesome. No, I don't believe it made him any more dedicated to winning or passionate about his team, but it was awesome. And hell, if you're not going to win, aren't we entitled to a circus?
__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Why do people seem to always equate passion and fire with acting like an idiot? Too many movies?
Do people think players respond to clown shows like this better than a guy who keeps it behind closed doors, or chooses to educate and lead without yelling and carrying on like an abusive parent?
I want coaches and players that hate to lose, for sure, but please, hold the circus.
Arniel and MacLean were pretty high-strung, while Hitchcock and King were not.
The biggest factor with winning games isn't a matter of talent or systems, it has to do with whether or not a coach is able to extract 100% effort from his players. For most people whose athletic careers ended with high school football, that usually means having the volume permanently on 11. Going ballistic at the drop of a hat may have value with high schoolers; it has minimal value with professional athletes.
The only common theme with great coaches and managers that I've ever been able to find is that they all know how to push buttons. Vince Lombardi and Paul Brown were polar opposites as far as how loud they were, but both knew how to get through to their players...Tony Dungy and Mike Ditka would be good modern examples, although neither had the track record of success. Bobby Cox is more low-key than Billy Martin was, and Earl Weaver was more intense than Sparky Anderson...Walter Alston was the consummate professional in an era where the loudmouthed manager was starting to take over. Hockey's greatest coaches have been Scotty Bowman, who was one of the most manipulative SOBs to ever coach a team, but he wasn't the overly loud type and he sure as hell wouldn't go throwing sticks.
A player will respond well to a coach who they believe has their back. Sparky Anderson had a story about how a player decided on his own to steal in the bottom of the 9th of a 1-run game with the Reds trailing; he was thrown at second, which ended the game. A reporter asked Sparky about it, and he said something like, "I had a hunch, so I sent the runner." It was a complete lie, but the team responded favorably because they saw that the manager was willing to put himself in the line of fire to deflect blame away from a player (even if he deserved it).
The biggest factor with winning games isn't a matter of talent or systems, it has to do with whether or not a coach is able to extract 100% effort from his players. For most people whose athletic careers ended with high school football, that usually means having the volume permanently on 11. Going ballistic at the drop of a hat may have value with high schoolers; it has minimal value with professional athletes.
The biggest factor, MB?!
I don't know that I buy this for a minute. If you look at who has won the Cup over the last couple decades, talent plays a crucial part. Did the Rangers win because Mike Keenan was a motivational genius, or because Mark Messier was one of the greatest players of his era? Is Dan Bylsma the next Scotty Bowman or just marginally more competent than his predecessor in picking an appropriate system for two of the great current superstars in the league?
If you were going to ask me to boil down to just one factor what seperates the contenders from the pretenders, it wouldn't be coaching, it'd be chemistry. Something our current GM has never seemed to grasp. Which isn't to so that Arniel wasn't a poor choice who negatively effected our ability to compete. Just saying that Arniel's impact was marginal.
I don't know that I buy this for a minute. If you look at who has won the Cup over the last couple decades, talent plays a crucial part. Did the Rangers win because Mike Keenan was a motivational genius, or because Mark Messier was one of the greatest players of his era? Is Dan Bylsma the next Scotty Bowman or just marginally more competent than his predecessor in picking an appropriate system for two of the great current superstars in the league?
If you were going to ask me to boil down to just one factor what seperates the contenders from the pretenders, it wouldn't be coaching, it'd be chemistry. Something our current GM has never seemed to grasp. Which isn't to so that Arniel wasn't a poor choice who negatively effected our ability to compete. Just saying that Arniel's impact was marginal.
Yes, the biggest factor in a coach continuously winning games has to do with what I said. Messier gets all the credit for the Rangers winning in 1994, which overlooks the fact that they won the Presidents' Trophy in 1991-92 and lost in the second round, then missed the playoffs entirely in 1992-93. Remember? Messier led a revolt against Roger Neilson. And it's not like the Rangers just strutted to a Cup in 1993-94 either; they had two 7-game bloodbaths against New Jersey and Vancouver.
The better question is exactly what impact a head coach has in hockey. I started a couple seasons ago trying to figure out if Bill James' methodology for beating or falling short of expectations (with baseball managers) could be applied to hockey. It's the type of thing I could finish with a good dedicated weekend, and haven't done yet. If winning and losing was merely a function of talent, or mostly a function of talent, then we would expect to see overall performances basically the same from one coach to the next. But that's not the case.
Even in baseball, where the manager arguably has the least impact, there are those managers who consistently have success and those who consistently fall short. Whether they get over the hump and win a championship obviously has something to do with the talent available, but the ability to put that talent together into something and push it is what separates the greats from the average.
I guess I fall somewhere in between Cap'n and Mayor B. I see coaching as the thing you need to win a championship but not the most crucial thing in a team, that as Cap'n said is talent. Case in point the Washington Capitals. The caps would be no where near where they are without Ovie, Backstrom, Semin, Carlson, etc. Without Talent, the Caps, like every other team without premier talent (CBJ, Islanders, Minnesota, Montreal. etc) would be mired at the bottom of the league. Talent is the foundation for a team. But proper coaching is what takes a talented team (Caps under Boudreau) and turns them into a contender (Caps under Hunter) or a champion (Pens under Bylsma). A coach that can get the most out of his team turns that team into something better than the sum of its parts, as we saw with Hitch and the Blues this year. However, the coach can only do so much a good coach can get his team to overachieve, but if the team lacks talent then that over achievement is going to put his team into the middle of the pack not make them a championship caliber team.
I guess I fall somewhere in between Cap'n and Mayor B. I see coaching as the thing you need to win a championship but not the most crucial thing in a team, that as Cap'n said is talent. Case in point the Washington Capitals. The caps would be no where near where they are without Ovie, Backstrom, Semin, Carlson, etc. Without Talent, the Caps, like every other team without premier talent (CBJ, Islanders, Minnesota, Montreal. etc) would be mired at the bottom of the league. Talent is the foundation for a team. But proper coaching is what takes a talented team (Caps under Boudreau) and turns them into a contender (Caps under Hunter) or a champion (Pens under Bylsma). A coach that can get the most out of his team turns that team into something better than the sum of its parts, as we saw with Hitch and the Blues this year. However, the coach can only do so much a good coach can get his team to overachieve, but if the team lacks talent then that over achievement is going to put his team into the middle of the pack not make them a championship caliber team.
It's certainly possible to oversimplify in either direction. I did manage to find the spreadsheet I referred to...I started it so long ago that I only have data compiled up through 2009-10, and don't even have the updated projections for what an expansion team's first three years can be expected to look like. (Eep. I finished that over a full year ago).
In normal life, falling between two opposing viewpoints would be called "the middle ground". But in the world of the internet, you're actually stuck in the crossfire.
I know Bob Hunter isn't the most popular Dispatch writer here, but its worth a mention....
CBJ have been quiet on the coaching front, even to Todd Richards. Howson says "Evaluating"
A candidate they want to interview thats an assistant on one of the teams still playing maybe?
Any assistants have prior Head Coaching experience in the league? Because it would seem that taking another chance with a "hot candidate" with no experience in the position at this level would not be in the organizations best interest right now.
I know Bob Hunter isn't the most popular Dispatch writer here, but its worth a mention....
CBJ have been quiet on the coaching front, even to Todd Richards. Howson says "Evaluating"
A candidate they want to interview thats an assistant on one of the teams still playing maybe?
Any assistants have prior Head Coaching experience in the league? Because it would seem that taking another chance with a "hot candidate" with no experience in the position at this level would not be in the organizations best interest right now.
Give me five minutes, and I'll find out what Ted Sator is up to.
Can't we interview people right now though? Even assistants on teams still playing?
Also wondering if maybe Howson is thinking about a coach who's team is still playing that only had a 1 year deal to begin with and just so happened to coach one of our current players who might be p1ssed at him? Just wondering.
Can't we interview people right now though? Even assistants on teams still playing?
Also wondering if maybe Howson is thinking about a coach who's team is still playing that only had a 1 year deal to begin with and just so happened to coach one of our current players who might be p1ssed at him? Just wondering.
I think it would be disrespectful if Howson asked for permission to talk to a assistant if the team is still playing. The GM wouldn't grant permission as he would want the assistant to be focused on the playoffs. Also, I can see the Assistant not wanting to be interviewed so he can focus on the playoffs.
I think it would be disrespectful if Howson asked for permission to talk to a assistant if the team is still playing. The GM wouldn't grant permission as he would want the assistant to be focused on the playoffs. Also, I can see the Assistant not wanting to be interviewed so he can focus on the playoffs.
I get that. I guess I was thinking more of in football where on Mon-Tues. other teams talk to assistants about head coaching positions. Not really thinking of having a game every other day.
Any assistants have prior Head Coaching experience in the league?
A quick cursory glance reveals:
Calgary: Craig Hartsburg (Has not been fired/resigned and management is hoping he will be retained by whomever they put in charge) coached Chicago (95-98), Anaheim (98-01) and Ottawa (08-09).
Carolina: Dave Lewis coached Detroit (02-04) and Boston (06-07).
Carolina: John MacLean coached New Jersey (10-11).
Chicago: Mike Kitchen coached Toronto (03-07)
Florida: Craig Ramsay coached Buffalo (86-87), Philadelphia (00-01) and Atlanta (10-11).
Los Angeles: John Stevens coached Philadelphia (06-10) and a handful of games for LA this season.
Montreal: Randy Cunneyworth coached Montreal (10-11)
New Jersey: Larry Robinson coached LA (95-99), New Jersey (99-02), and New Jersey again (05-06).
NY Rangers: Mike Sullivan coached Boston 03-04 and 05-06)
Phoenix: Jim Playfair coached Calgary (06-07)
Phoenix: John Anderson coached Atlanta (08-10)
Pittsburgh: Tony Granato coached Colorado (02-04 and 08-09)
St. Louis: Brad Shaw coached NY Islanders (05-06)
Toronto: Scott Gordon coached NY Islanders (08-11)
Vancouver: Rick Bowness coached Winnipeg (88-89), Boston (91-92), Ottawa (92-96), NY Islanders (96-98) and Phoenix (03-04).
Calgary: Craig Hartsburg (Has not been fired/resigned and management is hoping he will be retained by whomever they put in charge) coached Chicago (95-98), Anaheim (98-01) and Ottawa (08-09).
Carolina: Dave Lewis coached Detroit (02-04) and Boston (06-07).
Carolina: John MacLean coached New Jersey (10-11).
Chicago: Mike Kitchen coached Toronto (03-07)
Florida: Craig Ramsay coached Buffalo (86-87), Philadelphia (00-01) and Atlanta (10-11).
Los Angeles: John Stevens coached Philadelphia (06-10) and a handful of games for LA this season.
Montreal: Randy Cunneyworth coached Montreal (10-11)
New Jersey: Larry Robinson coached LA (95-99), New Jersey (99-02), and New Jersey again (05-06).
NY Rangers: Mike Sullivan coached Boston 03-04 and 05-06)
Phoenix: Jim Playfair coached Calgary (06-07)
Phoenix: John Anderson coached Atlanta (08-10)
Pittsburgh: Tony Granato coached Colorado (02-04 and 08-09)
St. Louis: Brad Shaw coached NY Islanders (05-06)
Toronto: Scott Gordon coached NY Islanders (08-11)
Vancouver: Rick Bowness coached Winnipeg (88-89), Boston (91-92), Ottawa (92-96), NY Islanders (96-98) and Phoenix (03-04).
Phoenix also has King. Who, many know, coached the CBJ during their first few yeras.
I would hire him as Asst. GM in charge of ALL Scouting and Development. I agree he was the most intelligent hockey mind in Franchise history.
Maybe, or maybe this is fan inflation.
You have to assume there's a reason he ended up coaching in the Dutch League, then Russia, then low man back in Phoenix.
Maybe, or maybe this is fan inflation.
You have to assume there's a reason he ended up coaching in the Dutch League, then Russia, then low man back in Phoenix.
King is a good coach; in retrospect it's possible we didn't give him enough time in Columbus, I don't recall many fans busting down the doors to keep him when he was fired though.
I would support hiring him for the organization in some capacity although not head coach, I think that ship has sailed. He is a great hockey mind and a person few don't enjoy being in his company, getting people as him in the organization in some role is an example of what it will take to build a winning organization.
What prospective coach is going to want to work for a failed GM and suspect ownership --that fired a potential hall of fame coach who then went on to lead a team from last to first, screwed two promising seasons into the ground, and made our star franchise player want to leave ?
Choose Your Answer:
1) a desperate one
2) one with a messianic complex
3) an unproven one
4) Todd Richards
If I'm a reputable NHL head coach, I'm waiting to see who Columbus brings in to replace Priest and Howson.
What prospective coach is going to want to work for a failed GM and suspect ownership --that fired a potential hall of fame coach who then went on to lead a team from last to first, screwed two promising seasons into the ground, and made our star franchise player want to leave ?
Choose Your Answer:
1) a desperate one
2) one with a messianic complex
3) an unproven one
4) Todd Richards
If I'm a reputable NHL head coach, I'm waiting to see who Columbus brings in to replace Priest and Howson.
It will be Richards... I will cautiously say as to the bold; you're spot on.
What prospective coach is going to want to work for a failed GM and suspect ownership --that fired a potential hall of fame coach who then went on to lead a team from last to first, screwed two promising seasons into the ground, and made our star franchise player want to leave ?
Choose Your Answer:
1) a desperate one
2) one with a messianic complex
3) an unproven one
4) Todd Richards
If I'm a reputable NHL head coach, I'm waiting to see who Columbus brings in to replace Priest and Howson.
Setting aside whether or not this is a realistic assumption, none of these are necessarily incompatible with success.
__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards
Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
