IF he can coach. He might suck at it for all we know… assuming he even wanted it. Stoll, it is well documented, is good at teaching face-offs. He helped guys when he was still playing so bring him in was sensible and a natural move.
The idea that we need him to show the effort it takes to be good at something by doing repetitive drills is borderline hysterical. They get taught that as young children. The prospects are surrounded by guys that do that and they all spend the off season working on stuff. There isn’t an issue with skills specifically, there are areas guys need to improve and they are doing so. We scored plenty of tip ins the last few seasons, when the team had strong net coverage.
If there is an issue it’s with usage, deployment and pathway. Are players being blocked? Are we putting round pegs into the wrong holes? System?
If they think someone like Pavelski can complement the current group or even upgrade the staff, great I have no problem. I don’t care how many cup wins he had, who he played for. I’m just questioning the view of:
1. We (including the players) don’t already teach and work on that stuff.
2. There aren’t already examples of the dedication it takes to succeed and improve.
3. That just because he (any player) was good at something as a player he’d therefore be good at teaching it. He’s far more likely not going to good at it, but I also acknowledge he could also become the best coach hockey has ever seen. I’m open to possibilities, not to flawed assumptions. Therefore it isn’t a ‘no-brainer’ as was stated.
Anyway, I have nothing to add. People either get it or they don’t…
