All around it's a pretty fluffy interview. Still, Peters is a straight shooter so I like that about his interviews. The most interesting part was when he spoke to modern hockey and the importance of mobilizing puck moving d-men.
With all the Jets playoff news I came across this article where Maurice talks about important things he picked up along the way.
He ties in the teams's ability to play fast to keeping the system simple.
Quote:
“It started in Russia with maybe some communications, but the World Cup with Ralph, kind of a light went off,” Maurice said. “I still cut 130 clips (of video) … Ralph would only let me show 10, which I thought was insanity, but he was onto something.
Maybe the Flames are actually a fast team and were burdened by too many rules in the system.
With all the analysis and theories it would be very hard for a coach to figure out that less might be better.
Hope that Peters has learned in 18 year of coaching what it took Maurice 30.
The Following User Says Thank You to ricardodw For This Useful Post:
Maybe the Flames are actually a fast team and were burdened by too many rules in the system.
With all the analysis and theories it would be very hard for a coach to figure out that less might be better.
That's actually my theory, too. I have a bit of a background in military history. The one thing that guarantees defeat for a general is to come up with a plan that is such a tactical monstrosity that it breaks upon contact with the enemy and the troops don't know how to adjust.
We know that Glen Gulutzan had to simplify his system after the first few weeks of his first season, because the players found it too complex to execute at game speed. There seems to be evidence that he returned to the full complexity of that system in his second season. He was also heavily criticized for not making in-game adjustments: well, that is hard to do if the system has so many moving parts that you have to change half a dozen things at once to adjust anything.
I don't, of course, know exactly what Gulutzan's system entailed in terms of X's and O's, but the results in practice suggest that it was too complicated and inflexible to work effectively.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
There's a book called the power of habit. In that book is a chapter talking about when Tony Dungee first took over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. He wanted the team to think less and habitually react to the cues they saw on the field. Doing this would result in the team playing faster. If they played faster their opponents would be forced to adjust and react and ultimely make mistakes.
So maybe the Flames with some better habits can habitually react to situations and play faster.
With Hartley they could play fast but with poor habits and very ad hoc. They did seem like a slow team last year.
__________________ "Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
There's a book called the power of habit. In that book is a chapter talking about when Tony Dungee first took over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. He wanted the team to think less and habitually react to the cues they saw on the field. Doing this would result in the team playing faster. If they played faster their opponents would be forced to adjust and react and ultimely make mistakes.
So maybe the Flames with some better habits can habitually react to situations and play faster.
With Hartley they could play fast but with poor habits and very ad hoc. They did seem like a slow team last year.
To me, this sums up Vegas' style quite well. They are a fast team, to be sure. But they also play a simple, aggressive style that constantly pressures the other team, forcing them to play quicker and thus make mistakes. Then Vegas employs a quick counter-strike to take advantage of those mistakes.
Simple, executable, fun to play, and fun to watch.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
He is still busy coaching in the World Championships. I think it is basically assumed that the search for assistants will begin once he is back in Calgary.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I don't, of course, know exactly what Gulutzan's system entailed in terms of X's and O's, but the results in practice suggest that it was too complicated and inflexible to work effectively.
It had all the letters of the alphabet, plus some θ, γ, ∏ and A†.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
I personally think a lot of people in the corporate world are suffering this right now, people can't just WORK anymore. With the big data, analytics, tracking, and software systems that everybody is deploying now, a lot of people do more work trying to prove they are busy than actually working!!
Some of these coaches, especially ones who never played the game at the highest level and had a lot of success are forced into this type of mentality. It sometimes becomes salary justification because a coach who runs quick practices, motivates, draws up a simple and easy to execute game plan and runs a bench easily will be questioned if losses pile up. These coaches need endless video sessions and rules and need to come up with fresh ideas to show that they are actually doing something to make their teams better.
I wonder what would happen if we ever went back the coaching of many years ago where there may have been a head coach and maybe an assistant talking to these players but with some of the standards and technical knowledge of today?? Today's players have so many voices they have to listen to... head coach, assistant coaches, video coaches, skills coaches, team trainers, personal trainers, team physical therapists and than personal ones as well. If a young guy is up and down between the minors and the big club, you can almost double it. Is everybody on the same page? I doubt it but I am sure the message sometimes get's confusing.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to curves2000 For This Useful Post:
That's actually my theory, too. I have a bit of a background in military history. The one thing that guarantees defeat for a general is to come up with a plan that is such a tactical monstrosity that it breaks upon contact with the enemy and the troops don't know how to adjust.
We know that Glen Gulutzan had to simplify his system after the first few weeks of his first season, because the players found it too complex to execute at game speed. There seems to be evidence that he returned to the full complexity of that system in his second season. He was also heavily criticized for not making in-game adjustments: well, that is hard to do if the system has so many moving parts that you have to change half a dozen things at once to adjust anything.
I don't, of course, know exactly what Gulutzan's system entailed in terms of X's and O's, but the results in practice suggest that it was too complicated and inflexible to work effectively.
Or in the words of Iron Mike Tyson," Everyone has a game plan til they get punched in the face." If you cant adjust you're doomed.
