Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
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.
|
The other problem you have is when you start letting a personal relationship get in the way of the team you suddenly can't cut or bench a guy, and it clouds being objective and making hard decisions.
If a guy struggles with an addiction issue and he comes to you as a coach, then you can develop a relationship and work with him as a friend.
From the Flames perspective, Bob Hartley did that with Ferland, and yet we have a poster here calling him scumb. Pretty crazy how labels so quickly get attached to coaches.
In 04 Darryl created an us against the world mentality and had a bunch of guys playing over their heads. How does that happen? I think people really need to think long and hard over what is acceptable, and necessary as a coach, because I agree with you, there are 31 guys in the NHL, and many more across the high level leagues sitting and wondering right now if morons like Carcillo are going to create a massive stink with their social media podium over tactics that 99% of successful players won't like, but also won't complain about on a daily basis.
Now, when you start talking about minor hockey, it is a LOT different. Coaching SHOULD be about developing relationships and helping kids grow. In fact given that almost every single player going through minor hockey won't make it further, the entire purpose of the game is to develop kids, skills, relationships, etc.
If a coach can't do that, he should be gone. Not a lot different from teaching in a school, IMO.