Hockey Abuse Reckoning

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't get this.

Darryl Sutter won it all multiple times in the hardest league in the world.

To say he doesn't know how to coach literally shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Here, let me help you get this.

1. I didn’t say he doesn’t know how to coach. I said his style of coaching relies on manipulation & intimidation, which it does.

2. If anything I’m talking about the ends justifying the means in coaching. This discussion is about NOT using psychological & physical abuse in coaching hockey. It’s not a discussion about winning championships. Bob Hartley & Marc Crawford also won championships while being even worse human beings than Sutter. Whoopity doo!

So look in the mirror for evidence of not knowing what you’re talking about, because this thread is literally not what you are talking about.

[CaptainCrunch]

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.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I’d let your kid play Calgary minor hockey. Hazing is really only a thing in upper ages, and then only in elite leagues. Any normal team in CMHA is coached by people like you and me, parents who contribute their time. Parents are in the room at almost all times, helping out. There’s really no “alone time” for players when hazing would occur.

I'm happy with my one day per week commitment. My kids are in the ice back to back to back at the same arena. I only drive to the rink once and not rushing around town or going separate ways from my wife. I'm also saving thousands per year.

My oldest would like to play minor hockey but then he doesn't get to play on the school volleyball or basketball teams. He wouldn't have time for drums or his youth groups or school work.

My kids love hockey and they get to love hockey without feeling the pressures.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

Here, let me help you get this.

1. I didn’t say he doesn’t know how to coach. I said his style of coaching relies on manipulation & intimidation, which it does.

2. If anything I’m talking about the ends justifying the means in coaching. This discussion is about NOT using psychological & physical abuse in coaching hockey. It’s not a discussion about winning championships. Bob Hartley & Marc Crawford also won championships while being even worse human beings than Sutter. Whoopity doo!

So look in the mirror for evidence of not knowing what you’re talking about, because this thread is literally not what you are talking about.

Says who? Labeling them as terrible human beings is jumping to a complete extreme. Perhaps they are very good humans who have a switch they can turn on when they are coaching.

Like I said earlier, there is a HUGE difference between actual abuse, both verbal and physical, and a coach simply pushing buttons and being hard on guys. People like you label the coaches that are hard as terrible human beings and basically blur the line.

So far you have said Darryl Sutter, Marc Crawford and Bob Hartley are all terrible human beings who manipulate and intimidate players. Outside of a few select NHL players who like to whine about not getting a chance, most players who played under those coaches and were actually successful have never said more than what amounts to 'end of their shelf life, tactics don't work, etc, etc.' They certainly don't go around calling them the scum of the earth, and even if they would I would take it with a huge grain of salt. I'm 100% of the opinion that at the NHL level, 99% of the coaches and people in the game are good people try their best. Sure, there is a lot of old school mentality still in the game, but many teams are changing that as well, and the players seem to adapt well.

I'll ask the question again, what do you think Berube did in St. Louis last year? Bake cookies and give the players a hug at the end of the game? We are literally talking one of the hardest players to ever play the game, and from all accounts he coaches like that as well. Any St. Louis players come out and throw him under the bus yet?

[Azure]

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.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Azure

Says who? Labeling them as terrible human beings is jumping to a complete extreme. Perhaps they are very good humans who have a switch they can turn on when they are coaching.

Like I said earlier, there is a HUGE difference between actual abuse, both verbal and physical, and a coach simply pushing buttons and being hard on guys. People like you label the coaches that are hard as terrible human beings and basically blur the line.

So far you have said Darryl Sutter, Marc Crawford and Bob Hartley are all terrible human beings who manipulate and intimidate players. Outside of a few select NHL players who like to whine about not getting a chance, most players who played under those coaches and were actually successful have never said more than what amounts to 'end of their shelf life, tactics don't work, etc, etc.' They certainly don't go around calling them the scum of the earth, and even if they would I would take it with a huge grain of salt. I'm 100% of the opinion that at the NHL level, 99% of the coaches and people in the game are good people try their best. Sure, there is a lot of old school mentality still in the game, but many teams are changing that as well, and the players seem to adapt well.

I'll ask the question again, what do you think Berube did in St. Louis last year? Bake cookies and give the players a hug at the end of the game? We are literally talking one of the hardest players to ever play the game, and from all accounts he coaches like that as well. Any St. Louis players come out and throw him under the bus yet?

You’re the one jumping to extremes and labeling them as terrible human beings. I said they rely on simplistic tactics.

Kevin Bieksa reiterated that point last night on HNIC. Several coaches aren’t that bright, so they need to resort to these sort of tactics.

Based on your diatribes you clearly can not see the nuances in how to improve coaching and coaches as you resort to polarized thinking and arguments.

So what are the choices for Craig Berube?

Kicking players in the back or baking cookies with hugs?

Are those the only options or is it possible for a coach to continually learn and evolve his approach without physical abuse while bettering his understanding of the psychology of his personnel to avoid being an bullying abusive a-hole ?

It’s about being fair & firm & teaching when it’s required. To do this in a way that is healthy requires intelligence not just simplistic lazy tactics.

You can complain all you want about players needing to be motivated by a hard ass coach, but that’s not going to make some of these tactics palatable.

These players will as always exist, the challenge now is for highly paid coaches to utilize their high intellect & almost bottomless resources to reach them in ways that don’t belittle and abuse them.

This isn’t 1975/85/95 anymore. We know & understand exponentially more about all of these things. It’s about coaching consuming & applying the knowledge that exists. If anything, Craig Berube probably did this more than anything else.

Additionally, roster construction has as much or more to do with winning than coaching does. Both are important.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Buff

I'm happy with my one day per week commitment. My kids are in the ice back to back to back at the same arena. I only drive to the rink once and not rushing around town or going separate ways from my wife. I'm also saving thousands per year.

My oldest would like to play minor hockey but then he doesn't get to play on the school volleyball or basketball teams. He wouldn't have time for drums or his youth groups or school work.

My kids love hockey and they get to love hockey without feeling the pressures.

That’s up to you of course. The time commitment is a big difference between rec and “regular” hockey. I’m just saying the regular leagues don’t have a hazing problem, especially at the level your kid would play if he’s only doing rec now. So fear of hazing shouldn’t stop you. The other reasons are totally legit and reasonable.

My biggest issue with rec (which we did for one year after years of regular hockey) is that there was no coaching at all. The kids weren’t being taught anything, because there’s no practices. In that case the coach didn’t even do much in game coaching (eg tapping on the shoulder and giving advice based on tha last shift).

[Textcritic]

Chris Chelios was on Spittin' Chiclets yesterday, and relayed a story about his time in Detroit when Mike Babcock layed in to Johan Franzen so hard while on the bench that he suffered a nervous breakdown. This happened in 2011–12 when the Red Wings lost in the first round to Nashville.

He was also asked about how the team leadership handled these situations. He said that when Ken Holland was made aware of what was happening, he came own to the dressing room and delivered a speech, backed his coach, and threatened to trade anyone who did not fall in line.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Chris Chelios was on Spittin' Chiclets yesterday, and relayed a story about his time in Detroit when Mike Babcock layed in to Johan Franzen so hard while on the bench that he suffered a nervous breakdown. This happened in 2011–12 when the Red Wings lost in the first round to Nashville.

He was also asked about how the team leadership handled these situations. He said that when Ken Holland was made aware of what was happening, he came own to the dressing room and delivered a speech, backed his coach, and threatened to trade anyone who did not fall in line.

I'll give it a listen today. That is crazy.

If memory serves, Franzen was a playoff beast back 10-12 years ago. I wonder what set Babs off?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I'll give it a listen today. That is crazy.

If memory serves, Franzen was a playoff beast back 10-12 years ago. I wonder what set Babs off?

In 2012 the Red Wings were dumped in five games by the Predators, and Franzen scored only a single goal in the series. It was already fairly widely known at the time that he was suffering mightily from post-concussion syndrome, and his career really flat-lined after this year. He had a decent season, but probably should not have been playing in the first place.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

In 2012 the Red Wings were dumped in five games by the Predators, and Franzen scored only a single goal in the series. It was already fairly widely known at the time that he was suffering mightily from post-concussion syndrome, and his career really flat-lined after this year. He had a decent season, but probably should not have been playing in the first place.

If the Chelios stuff is true, or even semi-true, it makes me dislike Babcock more than ever

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jonesy

If the Chelios stuff is true, or even semi-true, it makes me dislike Babcock more than ever

Yeah, me too.

If anyone is not keen on wading through the full two hours of the interview, they played the clip on the Eric Francis show this AM @ around 0930.

The show hasn't been archived yet, but will appear here:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/the-nine/

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by jonesy

If the Chelios stuff is true, or even semi-true, it makes me dislike Babcock more than ever

And it makes Ken Holland just as bad, if not worse.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

And it makes Ken Holland just as bad, if not worse.

It will be interesting to see how far this goes as it unfolds, and how many in upper management become implicated. Ron Francis is in the hot-seat right now, and I suspect that the contradicting stories being offered by him and Karmanos won't go away. Ken Holland and Lou Lamarollo—who hired Babcock in TO—will probably also need to answer questions as the NHL undertakes its own review.

[CliffFletcher]

Detroit was regarded as the model NHL franchise in the Holland/Bowman/Babcock era. We can say hard-ass, abusive coaching is wrong. But you're delusional if you think it's ineffective.

Pro sports at this level fosters a win-at-all-costs mentality. NHL GMs and coaches who are at risk of losing their jobs if their team doesn't succeed are going to use whatever means they can to get those wins. And when they see franchises like Detroit make a habit of winning, they're going to copy that culture.

[Strange Brew]

I'm glad this is coming to light and doesn't make me think much of Babcock or Holland.

I'm still processing what it means that so many people knew about stuff like this and it remained hidden for so long. Even the Aliu racist incident with Peters was witnessed by others and while I see why he didn't say much about it, you had a whole team that was aware.

You tend to think of pro athletes as empowered people but it has taken Babcock getting canned by the Leafs to open the floodgates seemingly,

[CliffFletcher]

I don't think it's so much that the abusive coaching tactics were hidden, as they're so common that nobody thought it worth mentioning. It was just considered to be part of pro hockey culture that coaches screamed at, berated, belittled, at and times struck players.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't think it's so much that the abusive coaching tactics were hidden, as they're so common that nobody thought it worth mentioning. It was just considered to be part of pro hockey culture that coaches screamed at, berated, belittled, at and times struck players.

I think it is much like the time honoured tactics of military training. Anyone with that background has probably seen similar abuse and bullying going on. I think it was supposed to make hardened soldiers. (similar tactics, methods and results as pro sports??)

[motorcrosser]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yeah, me too.

If anyone is not keen on wading through the full two hours of the interview, they played the clip on the Eric Francis show this AM @ around 0930.

The show hasn't been archived yet, but will appear here:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/the-nine/

Does anyone know who the flames coach/player Francis talked about. Player cried?

Sent from here.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by motorcrosser

Does anyone know who the flames coach/player Francis talked about. Player cried?

Sent from here.

Hartley -> Baertchi ?