Abuse is abuse. Granted, not all of it is physical, but all of it is absolutely wrong.
Our ideas of what constitute abuse are changing. That doesn't mean those older norms are right. But few people question norms - that's what makes them norms.
Those wondering why players didn't call out this stuff in the past don't seem to understand that. It would no more occur to a Lidstrom or Chelios to speak up or go the media about Babcock making a player cry than it would occur to them to speak up about a coach bag-skating players. Why would you speak up about something that wasn't unusual, and was accepted - even if it wasn't liked - by most people in the sport as part of the price of winning?
As SuperMatt pointed out, Shanahan played for Babcock. He knew exactly how he coached. And yet he threw so much money at the guy that he couldn't say no to coaching the Leafs. Why would Shanahan do that if he didn't think Babcock's approach led to winning?
I agree that younger players today don't respond as well to bullying, hard-ass coaches. I just think it will take a lot more than these recent incidents to make dozens of NHL GMs and coaches abandoned their life-long beliefs around how to get the most out of professional players.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 12-02-2019 at 02:14 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I guess my question is, what kind of consequences could guys like Lindstrom or Chelios face. They’re virtually the definition of untouchable especially back then.
The incident that Chrlios talked about regarding Franzen happened in Lidstrom's last year. Makes me wonder if Lidstrom retired because he didn't want to deal with Babcock anymore. Having done it all and having a long career he certainly could have retired without question. He was dropping off but many felt he could have played a couple more years.
In 2011, Peter Laviolette punches Ville Leino in the head during a game (only once, but the gif loops). It was lightly reported, but glossed over as a funny motivational moment. These reports also joke that this might not be the first time Laviolette has punched his players.
Peter Laviolette is currently coaching the Nashville Predators. Here is video evidence of him physically abusing one of his players. Should there be outrage over this? If this gif goes viral, or if Ville Leino tweets out about it, would a media firestorm ensue?
I think that coaches should not hit their players to discipline or motivate them. Yet, this gif doesn't evoke any outrage to me, and obviously didn't evoke any media outrage back in 2011.
__________________
Gaudreau > Huberdeau AINEC
The Following User Says Thank You to Philly06Cup For This Useful Post:
I don’t even think he’s talking to Leino. He’s screaming at the guys on the ice. The punch towards Leino seems more coincidental than intentional. He hits his helmet. That’s gonna do more damage to his hand than Leino.
I can see how some might see it as inappropriate but that one is probably one of the least offensive incidents and one of the only ones we have video proof of happening.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
I fully agree that, where children are involved, that the abusive coaches should be called to account for their behavior.
However, in the NHL where adults and a great deal of money is involved, along with a high level of emotional and physical intensity is required to be successful, I can appreciate what it may take for the average NHL coach to be successful.
It seems that the consequences of abuse by an NHL coach is that the players quit playing for him, as evident by the difference between the lack of success of teams before a coaching change, and their immediate success after a coaching change e.g. Toronto, Calgary. Therefore the present system seems to be working as it should in weeding out the abusive NHL coaches.
Last edited by flamesfever; 12-02-2019 at 03:47 PM.
When us white guys realize how good we have it and how much we are dominating the oxygen in a room, we sure love to talk and talk and talk and talk and talk about it...in so doing we are generally explaining how woke we have become to the under-represented voices (who are no doubt thinking no s### sherlock), without really letting them speak any more, or saying anything profound enough that would bring insight to the millions of others who are blissfully ignorant of their own 'privilege' (IMO just not the best term to describe these situation, but that's a much longer dissertation for another thread).
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Abuse is abuse. Granted, not all of it is physical, but all of it is absolutely wrong. "Manipulation" in this respect is likely a convenient cover for coaches who are emotionally and psychologically abusive. Babcock didn't touch Franzen and yet caused a psychologically, neurologically vulnerable player to suffer a nervous breakdown for god's sake. That is JUST NOT okay—not at ANY LEVEL.
I don't see why this is altogether relevant. As I pointed out above, what's happening now is part of a larger shift in culture, and most likely one in which the same antics once employed by Bowman are simply no longer effective.
I am perfectly okay with the shift in culture, and many teams have performance coaches on staff as well, and have been making a bigger effort to understand the psychology of the players to help them perform better.
I do however have a major problem with the dog-piling by certain players on coaches who they suddenly deem as manipulating scumbags who didn't give them a chance. If there was actual abuse, then yes the NHL should investigate and deal with it appropriately, but there has been a lot of garbage thrown around in the past week or so.
All THAT is doing is taking away from the seriousness of the actual abuse, and how the NHL needs to move forward. The BS against Sutter is a great example of that.
I think while we have evidence that an old-school coach can be successful at motivating players to win I don’t think we have evidence to say a non-abusive approach doesn’t work.
Coaches are hired and fired based on both their performance and their conformance to what a coach should look like. So I don’t think we have the evidence to determine what kind of coaching is most effective to win championships at the nhl level.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Our ideas of what constitute abuse are changing. That doesn't mean those older norms are right. But few people question norms - that's what makes them norms.
Those wondering why players didn't call out this stuff in the past don't seem to understand that. It would no more occur to a Lidstrom or Chelios to speak up or go the media about Babcock making a player cry than it would occur to them to speak up about a coach bag-skating players. Why would you speak up about something that wasn't unusual, and was accepted - even if it wasn't liked - by most people in the sport as part of the price of winning?
As SuperMatt pointed out, Shanahan played for Babcock. He knew exactly how he coached. And yet he threw so much money at the guy that he couldn't say no to coaching the Leafs. Why would Shanahan do that if he didn't think Babcock's approach led to winning?
I agree that younger players today don't respond as well to bullying, hard-ass coaches. I just think it will take a lot more than these recent incidents to make dozens of NHL GMs and coaches abandoned their life-long beliefs around how to get the most out of professional players.
I can't remember where I heard a few years back, but I seem to recall Chelios or one of Shanahan's ex-teammates making an off the cuff joke how Shanahan is a company lapdog (not in those words but to that effect). Anyone who works in a corporate environment in Toronto who pays attention to the people who rise up the ladder generally knows that they're not the subject matter experts, but rather for most positions they're people who play the corporate game well. Those tend to be the networkers who kiss the right butts consistently, and more often than not, those who just do as the person above them says, and supports themselves with people who will do the same. Often the job isn't actually done but results are portrayed as being achieved. Simply a dog and pony show. Anyway, what I'm getting at is Shanahan knew the game as soon as he came in. Babcock would bring results from his kicking and screaming and as long as he produced some result, there are little questions going to be asked.
Hearing the Holland reaction is classic corporate environment. These are not nice people generally, and as much as the guys at the top can be savvy to make the outward appearance of being the nicest guys out there, they are sharks. I imagine a huge percentage of these guys in NHL leadership positions are just complete #######s. It's how the corporate game is played and it's allowed from the very top. I think you'll see a couple more of these stories but nothing will come from it because it's much greater than hockey.
The native of Sweden said in the interview that Babcock is the worst person he ever met.
“As a coach he is extremely meticulous and well prepared. He is very good at putting a team together and getting everyone to buy into it. That’s his strong side,” Franzen told the newspaper. “But then, he’s a terrible person, the worst I have ever met. He’s a bully who was attacking people. It could be a cleaner at the arena in Detroit or anybody. He would lay into people without any reason.”
filler
__________________
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?"
If a new standard is being set for the league, then there's going to need to be some sort of purge before the new standard is reached.
I see abusive behavior as being different from just tough coaching and I'm all for abusive behavior being out of the league. The NHL is for entertainment, and as a fan I don't want to cheer for anyone if I think they're actually an awful person. Wouldn't feel that comfortable with kids of mine cheering for an awful person either. One of things that made Iggy my favourite all-time player was the fact that he came across as such a phenomenally good person. I wanted to cheer for him all the more because of that, and he could still be a beast on the ice and drop his gloves.
I hope the purge is executed fairly and judiciously. I'm sure there will be successful teams worth cheering for without the abusive coaches in the league. Someone will still win the cup every year.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
