Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F
...My only emotion in this whole debate is amusement/incredulity that a guy would spend just one season with another coach, see that coach make an enormous mess out of that season both on the ice and off, leading to that other coach being fired after that one season, and decide to change a lifelong pattern to be more like him...
|
This is your characterization; not Gulutzen's. I don't think this was done in an effort "to be more like [John Tortorella]." Gulutzen's reason for taking this approach is eminently rational and makes a lot of sense.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glen Gulutzen
"I like to take that emotion out of the end of the game. I'm emotional, the players are emotional, both ways, wins and loses, and look at it from a clear-eyed perspective.
"I used to go in, I can tell you that, for probably 10 or 12 years of my coaching career. And sometimes you say the right thing, sometimes you say the wrong thing, sometimes you're emotional.
"I worked with John Torterella and he doesn't go in after games. I just felt addressing it the next day was something I picked up on from Torts. When you address it the next day you have a clearer mind, you have fresher eyes, you've got perspective. If something made you mad that night and it still makes you mad in the morning you know it must be something serious. A lot of times when you look at the tape it gives you a different perspective. Maybe sometimes you thought someone made a mistake or tried to make a play and you watch it on video you see a little clearer what was actually going on."
|
If Gulutzen was employing this tactic for the reason you invent, then you would have a point. But he quite explicitly posits a different reason altogether—he is analytical about it. Do you seriously find it incredulous that he strives to be more rational and analytical?