Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
The elite players did fine under Gulutzan.
It was the scrubs who didn't perform.
Which makes sense, I suppose. Talent is more likely to still produce in a crap system.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
This analogy makes more kinds of no sense than anything I have read on CP for some time. Putting in the system is a major part of the coach's job, and the system is integral to making the team function.
The hockey equivalent of a car stereo would be stuff like the Jumbotron, organ, and PA system.
|
I'm saying the system is probably the least important aspect of being a coach. You have to be a leader, a motivator, a tactician. You have to be able to adjust on the fly. The fundamentals of hockey are always the same.
Keep the play away from the middle of the ice in your own zone. Take the puck to the middle of the ice in the offensive zone. Defend your area, turn pucks over, counter attack.
Mike Babcock isn't a great coach because of his system. It shouldn't take half a season to learn a system. The system should be seen and not heard. If the system is being spoken of, the system sucks.
Bill Peters may be a fraud for all I know, but when he does speak, he's talking about hockey and players. Not systems. I like that.