Quote:
Originally Posted by codynw
It's not just a Ward thing though. It's a common complaint from all fanbases about their coaches and it's baffling. Why do we understand but these paid professionals don't?
|
First of all, I am not saying I could coach an NHL team. I am not even saying I could coach a midget or bantam team when it comes to "people management" or "x's and o's". I probably wouldn't want to coach a timbit team and deal with the parents either. I complete acknowledge that coaching is a skillset with nuances that require experience.
That said, to answer your question - I think it's
coaches overvaluing the wrong things because their biases are so ingrained into their perception.
But I am saying that I wouldn't default to "veteran experience" while the game has apparently passed guys like Giordano and Lucic by. It's one of those biases where people who live and breathe the game as a career are simply stubborn and would rather see a declining player make mistakes because they've earned it in the distant past than seeing an up-and-comer who is earning it in the present be given a chance to flourish.
Special teams is another one. Do we really believe Ward is stupid enough to think Nordstrom is one of our best 5v5 players? Of course not. But since Nordstrom is a go-to penalty killer he is given that 5v5 icetime as a byfunction. Where we as fans differ however is that a lot of forwards could be killing those penalties with marginal losses to the PK structure. Plenty of guys can kill a penalty, and have had success killing penalties. Sean Monahan is a guy who used to kill penalties well for Hartley. Sam Bennett is a guy who used to kill penalties well for Gulutzan. Andrew Mangiapane used to kill penalties at every level he played before he became an NHLer. You shouldn't need to sign a player just to kill penalties or add PP assists if they're not
also a strong 5v5 player. Treliving has been particularily guilty of overvaluing special teams every offseason. And then he has to buy out lance bouma or troy brouwer.
Size and truculence is another one of those biases. Of course you want players who compete out there and impose their will. But ultimately chasing these bonuses as a necessary element is putting the cart before the horse and you end up with Zac Rinaldo in the lineup for just about every playoff loss last year.
"linemate consistency" is another bias where they think players will be confused playing with someone new. When something isn't working, coaches are reluctant to make a change and upsetting that consistency. When Gaudreau and Monahan weren't working for 1.5 years, how often were they split? When Hanifin and Hamonic weren't working, did it not take a Hamonic injury to finally split them? And now we have Giordano and Andersson simply not working, but hey, they
have to work because trying a Valimaki up the lineup is risky.
What paid professionals seem to miss is that one bad shift by an exploited line or d pair can completely swing momentum for the rest of a period. As fans, our mindset is "don't play units that actively sabatoge your momentum". As coaches and GMs, their mindset tends to be "you need energy lines to go around and bring energy and hit things and be able to fight rawr".
It's a philosophical difference, not one of coaching skill. Glen Gulutzan is probably a smarter coach than all of CP combined. But what does that matter if philosophically he is going to throw his trusty vets Stajan and Brouwer out there for every big penalty kill?