An athlete is not necessarily a person who is in good shape, just like a person in good shape will not necessarily be an athlete. An athlete usually constitutes of a given person being superior at a given physical skill (talent); for example, shooting accuracy does not result to a thinking process per say, but more in fact that body, after alot of practising a given talent, starts to memorize what movement/strength applied/etc is needed to make the shot accurate. My evidence would be that some players have easier time memorizing those data (movement, position, strength applied) faster and better then others, since everyone should have or has access to the logic behind a good accurate shot. Same can be said about making saves as goaltender. So roy spend most of his time practising that given talent/skill, which it seems, he was very good at.
Not to say Roy doesn't have the mental 'talents' to be/become a great strategist, which is usually great skillset for any coach/gm. personally, the instinctual/Spontaneous nature that i see in Roy, would tell me he's not necessarily reluctant to use a thinking process prior to some of his actions. be aware this is personal observation, which includes lots of generalzation and a subject thats open to alot of debate.
I'm curious, how do you explain his continued success strategizing & developing winning teams and NHL playerscontinually in the QJMHL? Jr hockey is typically very cyclical but he's had repeated success.
Or is he just the luckiest instinctual athlete that has had extreme luck the past 4 years or whatever?
I'm curious, how do you explain his continued success strategizing & developing winning teams and NHL playerscontinually in the QJMHL? Jr hockey is typically very cyclical but he's had repeated success.
Or is he just the luckiest instinctual athlete that has had extreme luck the past 4 years or whatever?
Getting a budget that is roughly 5X bigger than other teams gives him a slight advantage, you know...
I'm curious, how do you explain his continued success strategizing & developing winning teams and NHL playerscontinually in the QJMHL? Jr hockey is typically very cyclical but he's had repeated success.
Or is he just the luckiest instinctual athlete that has had extreme luck the past 4 years or whatever?
i don't follow much qjmhl, nor follow roys progress. i was, as said a few times, talking in generalities, of difference between job of a coach, and job of an athlete, differentiating the required skillets needed in either position, which ended in me saying that it doesn't necesarly mean that if your an athlete you cant be good coach. Reasons of why his success can vary from him having time to develop a sense of coaching, and having the required talent to coach and strategize a team, to him having an outstanding group of assistants that make his job easier. At least Roy knows what steps to take to get the proper training to become a NHL coach, and he might succeed, i don't think it makes my points any less valid.
The Alouettes and Impact have one. Why not the Montreal CanadiAns ?
Football is an American dominated sport, and soccer also has a bigger American following, most of the coaches/talent in the NHL are Canadian, how come you'd prefer an American?
The thing is that it's not 3 games or 4 games. Some people like what they see in Martin. Personally, I absolutely hate what I see. I feel like more could be accomplished with this group offensively, not necessarily at the expense of defense. I don't like the passive system and the lack of toughness while being amongst the leaders in PIM. And all of that is not just from this year, but since he took over.
Amen.
The poor start to this season is what it is. Martin's poor systems that do not match his roster's talents or abilities have been going on for two years. And Martin is proving incapable of "change" with regard to motivation and systems used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk
i don't follow much qjmhl, nor follow roys progress. i was, as said a few times, talking in generalities, of difference between job of a coach, and job of an athlete, differentiating the required skillets needed in either position, which ended in me saying that it doesn't necesarly mean that if your an athlete you cant be good coach. Reasons of why his success can vary from him having time to develop a sense of coaching, and having the required talent to coach and strategize a team, to him having an outstanding group of assistants that make his job easier. At least Roy knows what steps to take to get the proper training to become a NHL coach, and he might succeed, i don't think it makes my points any less valid.
To be honest, Gauthier was not an NHL player..........and it shows.
You cannot generalize about an athlete not being a good coach or vice versa. Coaching is a job that anyone can do. Winning championships,however, regardless of what level, is a TALENT that only a few elite coaches can ever accomplish.
Past success is usually a predictor of success in the future. Past failures is usually a predictor of failure in the future.
Roy, Martin, Gauthier. Who among those three people have experienced success, as in winning a championship?
Last edited by Mike8: 10-17-2011 at 06:30 PM.
Reason: merge
I think if you go back and look at the plethora of ex-habs that won cups as players and later coached this team, you'll see just how specious that arguement is.
To be honest, Gauthier was not an NHL player..........and it shows.
You cannot generalize about an athlete not being a good coach or vice versa. Coaching is a job that anyone can do. Winning championships,however, regardless of what level, is a TALENT that only a few elite coaches can ever accomplish.
Past success is usually a predictor of success in the future. Past failures is usually a predictor of failure in the future.
Roy, Martin, Gauthier. Who among those three people have experienced success, as in winning a championship?
Scotty Bowman, Mike Babcock, Ken Holland, Pat Burns, Jacques Demers, Peter Laviolette and Peter Chiarelli all disagree and that the only ones I can find from memory right now.
Scotty Bowman, Mike Babcock, Ken Holland, Pat Burns, Jacques Demers, Peter Laviolette and Peter Chiarelli all disagree and that the only ones I can find from memory right now.
For the literal crowd, I was referring to coaching success, not success on the ice.
The poor start to this season is what it is. Martin's poor systems that do not match his roster's talents or abilities have been going on for two years. And Martin is proving incapable of "change" with regard to motivation and systems used.
To be honest, Gauthier was not an NHL player..........and it shows.
You cannot generalize about an athlete not being a good coach or vice versa. Coaching is a job that anyone can do. Winning championships,however, regardless of what level, is a TALENT that only a few elite coaches can ever accomplish.
Past success is usually a predictor of success in the future. Past failures is usually a predictor of failure in the future.
Roy, Martin, Gauthier. Who among those three people have experienced success, as in winning a championship?
while i try and explain my arguments, you just give me examples and vague correlations (if it worked, it will work again). Let me know when you have anything constructive to argue about. Start by giving me a factor in how you can quantify what it takes to be a "winning" coach. i gave example of an athlete and of a coach, separated them in two distinct categories. Coaching as purley "mental intelligence" and athlete as "body intelligence", were mental intelligence has to rely to quickness and effectivness of logic and thought process; analytical skillset. While "body intelligence" would be responsiveness and memory of given physical skillset, instinctual responsiveness of your body. this obviously is debatable i hope someone can add/disprove of what im saying.
obv you need other skills/talents to be a coach then just mental strategy; i would add emotional awareness as good skill to have.
For the literal crowd, I was referring to coaching success, not success on the ice.
At one point Scotty Bowman was a 0 time Stanley Cup champion... so was Burns, so was every coach who has ever won.
So by your theory their lack of success means they will never win a cup.
Babcock should never have been hired by Detroit after failing to win the cup in Anaheim. Burns should have never gotten the New Jersey job after winning 0 cups in Montreal, Toronto, and Boston. Julien never won in Montreal or Jersey, so Boston shouldn't hire him... etc...
Football is an American dominated sport, and soccer also has a bigger American following, most of the coaches/talent in the NHL are Canadian, how come you'd prefer an American?
Just curious.
Ever heard of sarcasm ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead
I would still put guys like Babcock, Demers and Bowman go look at their history before having won the cup.
Bowman lost 3 time in a row in the finals....
Then Babcock lost in the finals before winning it and had alot of first round exit.
Demers also took alot of time before winning the cup in fact his track record was about the same has a guy like Martin.
Same thing for a Pat Burns who took alot of time before winning the stanley cuphe even had a finals lost.
Back then, St-Louis was playing against expension teams like them in the playoffs before meeting the finalist of the Original Six teams for the Stanley Cup. They were not necessarely the second-best team of the NHl, just the best of their division/conference. Bowman had the chance to have Jacques Plante and Glen Hall in nets.
while i try and explain my arguments, you just give me examples and vague correlations (if it worked, it will work again). Let me know when you have anything constructive to argue about. Start by giving me a factor in how you can quantify what it takes to be a "winning" coach. i gave example of an athlete and of a coach, separated them in two distinct categories. Coaching as purley "mental intelligence" and athlete as "body intelligence", were mental intelligence has to rely to quickness and effectivness of logic and thought process; analytical skillset. While "body intelligence" would be responsiveness and memory of given physical skillset, instinctual responsiveness of your body. this obviously is debatable i hope someone can add/disprove of what im saying.
obv you need other skills/talents to be a coach then just mental strategy; i would add emotional awareness as good skill to have.
Can you quantify respect? Can you quantify motivational abilities?
You cant. But it exists and its real and the outcomes are real.
How else can you explain a team that is average to poor where the coach is replaced and then that team excels. It happens every year in every sport.
With regard to Martin and respect. When a coach "punishes" a player for making a mistake and then lets a certaing other players commit the same mistake without punishment, does he earn the respect of his players. A coach does not have to be well liked to be a successful, but he damned sure needs to have the respect of his team.
Motivation. Not much needs to be said about this. Do you honestly think Martin motivates his teams?
I would still put guys like Babcock, Demers and Bowman go look at their history before having won the cup.
Bowman lost 3 time in a row in the finals....
Then Babcock lost in the finals before winning it and had alot of first round exit.
Demers also took alot of time before winning the cup in fact his track record was about the same has a guy like Martin.
Same thing for a Pat Burns who took alot of time before winning the stanley cuphe even had a finals lost.
Look at the playoff records of Martin (.446) Bowman (.632) Babcock (.632) Demers (.561) and Burns (.508)
Do you see a trend? A great coach will not win a Stanley Cup the first time that they get there. They will not win a Cup every year either. But they do know how to win in the playoffs.
The coaches you mentioned had a history of winning in the playoffs. It was a matter of time before they won a Cup or Cups.
Martin does not have a history of winning in the playoffs.
Past performance is not absolute. It is, however, an indicator of future performance though. It does not look good for the Habs as long as Martin is in charge. And that pains me to say that.
Last edited by Private Encounter: 10-17-2011 at 08:08 PM.
Reason: No.
Can you quantify respect? Can you quantify motivational abilities?
You cant. But it exists and its real and the outcomes are real.
How else can you explain a team that is average to poor where the coach is replaced and then that team excels. It happens every year in every sport.
With regard to Martin and respect. When a coach "punishes" a player for making a mistake and then lets a certaing other players commit the same mistake without punishment, does he earn the respect of his players. A coach does not have to be well liked to be a successful, but he damned sure needs to have the respect of his team.
Motivation. Not much needs to be said about this. Do you honestly think Martin motivates his teams?
Players (as a whole) are motivated by winning, getting closer to the given goal.
Any given sunday speach is short term motivation, if that's the quality your looking that martin might be lacking.
Players feel respected, by being respected. Sometimes, people feel disrespected, because they have no respect themselves.
Those are trivial, and easy achievable goals. What's harder is to come with game plan, using numerous personal, analyzing tapes and tapes of hockey players/teams and coming to fruitful strategy, day in day out. Once you have that, and the right players, and your team is winning, motivation is there.
Last edited by Private Encounter: 10-17-2011 at 08:08 PM.
i don't follow much qjmhl, nor follow roys progress. i was, as said a few times, talking in generalities, of difference between job of a coach, and job of an athlete, differentiating the required skillets needed in either position, which ended in me saying that it doesn't necesarly mean that if your an athlete you cant be good coach. Reasons of why his success can vary from him having time to develop a sense of coaching, and having the required talent to coach and strategize a team, to him having an outstanding group of assistants that make his job easier. At least Roy knows what steps to take to get the proper training to become a NHL coach, and he might succeed, i don't think it makes my points any less valid.
How does being wrong not make your point less valid? The reality is he is having success as a coach and GM. That is a fact. It proves your point wrong basically doesn't it?
Look at the playoff records of Martin (.446) Bowman (.632) Babcock (.632) Demers (.561) and Burns (.508)
Do you see a trend? A great coach will not win a Stanley Cup the first time that they get there. They will not win a Cup every year either. But they do know how to win in the playoffs.
The coaches you mentioned had a history of winning in the playoffs. It was a matter of time before they won a Cup or Cups.
Martin does not have a history of winning in the playoffs.
Past performance is not absolute. It is, however, an indicator of future performance though. It does not look good for the Habs as long as Martin is in charge. And that pains me to say that.
Where in this category does Claude Julien fit? How far in the past do you consider "past records" when it comes to playoff coaching? The only thing I hate more than misinformation, is stats that are tailor picked to support the argument.
"Statistics are like a drunk with a lamppost: used more for support than illumination." -Winston Churchill
Last edited by Private Encounter: 10-17-2011 at 08:09 PM.
