Quote:
Originally Posted by nobles_point
This is 100% true.
I had one of my managers at work talk to me about the art and science of coaching or managing once and he said,
It requires more thought and etiquette than most people have the patience for.
Coaching isn't manipulation and intimidation despite what has made some individuals like Darryl Sutter successful.
Manipulation and intimidation are lazy shortcuts that have diminishing returns.
This is why some coaches have an expiry date. Yeah, it can be hard to genuinely reach a person, connect with them, or motivate them to play better.
But that's why they're paid a lot of money. The coaching profession in hockey needs a wakeup call and to look in the mirror.
I haven't done a Hockey Canada course in a while, but childhood psychology should be the focal point taught to coaches before skills and systems. If you want better teams you need better players and if you want better players you need better people.
|
I think we need to create definitions of these to understand them. I also think that we have to seperate pro players who play for money and often a lot of money and minor amateur coaching.
The Pro game is different and always has been.
Its certainly tougher to get a full effort out of a pro player due to the amount of money and the guaranteed contracts that they get and the rules around No Movement and No Trade.
so yes between a coach and a gm there has to be some aspect of manipulation and intimation. Threatening to simply bench a player or move them the lineup doesn't necessarily work because they get paid no matter what. I would say its a smaller percentage of players that can just simply be challenged on their pride or professionalism.
However and again I emphasize that punching or kicking a player is wrong or using racial slurs or pressuring a injured player is completely wrong and has to be filtered out of the game. Coaching does need to evolve.
I mean frankly, which coaches last the least amount of time in NHL hockey.
Probably the so called players coach who wants to form a relationship with the players and doesn't believe in the stick for motivation. Eventually the players just run over that type of coach because frankly there's no consequences.
The teaching coach only lasts as long as he has something to teach, once that ends they're lame ducks as well.
Frankly the most successful coaches in the NHL are honestly the hard arsed punative coaches who find ways to manipulate players into a better effort and have the ability to intimidate players into a better effort.
In sports like football, without guaranteed contracts, it can be easier. Devone Claybrooks has a great quote. I don't coach effort, I replace it. That's a simple intimidating message.
Frankly in the NHL the only way that you're going to be able to guarantee that a newer generation of enlightened coaches would survive is to take away guaranteed long term contracts.
Right now there's a possibility that a player with a big money contract that's long term and has social media access or good relations with the press has a ton of power over a coach.
You can bet that right now there are 31 coaches that are now seeing the when is the shoe going to drop being added to their coaching strategy.
At this point I believe that GM's are now going to have to be more involved in the dressing room dynamics and atmosphere and pick their team leaders especially carefully.