Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Would sure like to know what this means ...
Negative leadership. Same leadership as the year before?
|
Sutter challenges players, and as much as he “changed”, he can still be reckless and derogatory in how he provides feedback. His response about Huberdeau leaving the bench to “take an S” was an example.
To me it seems he wants to evoke a response in order to see what players are made of and how they unite. It’s a trademark of his coaching style from Chicago to San Jose, here and LA.
Directly or indirectly through the media. He obviously has a method to his madness, while understanding the game and requirements for winning like few others.
Again, old tactics, which have & can work, but they are kind of like running an engine on dirty coal or fuel. Eventually things breakdown.
Players are way more intelligent now, and they want more intellectual reciprocity and respect from their coaches. Coaching is really just teaching. What’s the saying, “when one teaches, two learn.” The biggest difference between the two is teaching is about the process, and coaching (@ elite levels) is about the outcome. This ties back into Sutter reiterating that the NHL is not a developmental league. Sure,to an extent, it isn’t the AHL. However, if players aren’t growing, learning, and getting better teams will not get better, or the outcome they want.
Sutter also epitomizes the euphemism:
“You can be wrong or you can be an A-hole, but you can't be both.”
When you lose, the way they did, it’s self evident he was wrong.
It was the same when he was GM. The double edged sword of his stubborn brilliance.