Team sports are a human, social exercise of ego management, confidence, sustained mental health, and work ethic. Strategy, skill, and talent all matter, of course, but what we're seeing now with the Canucks is why someone like Crosby is still somehow underrated on hf. Keeping a team and a locker room motivated, hungry, confident, and happy, while consistently leading by example, was just as valuable to the Penguins as being one of the most talented forwards of all time.
It's not easy to do, at all. While intangibles were memed to hell in the Toews Hawks era, they've gone around to being strongly underrated in how important they are to sustained success and winning. This Canucks team is deeply insufficient in intangibles; much like the other teams circling in the drain of suckage for eternity, this Canucks team still has, to some degree, the smell of being a losing team from the Benning era stubbornly buried in its fabric like dog pee. This team is still terrified of losing. They're terrified that the bottom will fall out at any second. The main difference between us and a Buffalo, Detroit, Montreal, Ottawa; is having a true generational gamebreaking talent in Hughes, and having made a real top-down organizational change in hiring Rutherford and Allvin.
That's a great start, but it's not enough to attain the real excellence that defines teams like Forida, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Boston, and the Crosby Pens. That kind of belief held by every player, coach, scout, and management figure in every facet of the organization in eachother, and in the idea that their organization is a winning one, takes years to build. It's a matter of trust and prestige. That's why I think that expecting teams to just straight up contend in the ideal age window of the core to be a naive and outdated notion these days. Its harder than ever to build a winning team, and with how much bureaucracy and all-around competency is involved in running a good NHL team now, going from a team at the bottom of the standings to the top of the standings isn't as simple as just getting a good player or two. Vegas invested in that from day one, and that's why theyve been contenders since day one.
Insofar as this all relates to the Canucks; the team will not be a contender for as long as dread and drama hang over the heads of the fans, and by extension, the players. Whatever Petterssons problem is, whether its physical or mental, he needs to be given the space and support to figure things out and round back into form. The team needs to get Millers ego under control or trade him. The team needs to keep Hughes happy and consult him for what he thinks is best and who he wants to stay on this team. And while I love Tocchet and all the things he says; if he can't keep our players happy and confident and believing in themselves and eachother, then he simply can't be the head coach of this team if they're serious about winning a cup. People skills are what really distinguish and define coaches like Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich as the greatest of all time. People are saying - how did Kobe and Shaq get along? Well, it's because they had the all-time greatest mediator and social guru in sports history at the helm. Being able to manage Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman was no small feat, either. Can Tocchet actually be that guy?
A good post, thought out with reasonable ideas.
Crosby and the the team.
Teams that are winners rarely have the issues of the Canucks.
The core of this team have been on a losing team for 80+% of their careers and they do want to win. It is more than possible that they were or felt let down with the changes that were made both in personnel and system.
This Tocchet love affair might be getting exposed. He does appear to be able to get the desperate borderline players to play hard but he has a history of not dealing well with stars as a HEAD coach.
Over the decades I can't number the times where "the cancer in the room" has been a major topic or reason for teams failing. That the "room was in turmoil", that there were "cliques".
Hockey is not like some of the sports recently used as examples for working out issues between players. Basketball every player touches the ball and the stars all will get a shot, they also play the majority of the game still this is used as an example. A star player in basketball can't be shut out of touches. The coach can design plays for each.
Football has numerous players and they do have issues when a player feels he isn't getting enough touches but again the coach can change plays to suit.
Hockey is a "team" game more so than even basket ball. The coach in hockey can limit ice time, change line mates, bench because he doesn't like the color of a players eyes. While this is a little similar to any game and mostly football it is still different.
Shaq and Bryant, designed plays for both but also two wildly different talents and roles. Miller and Pettersson, two different players but the essentially the same skill sets or positions. The coach changes the PP plays and suddenly plays to the right side is changed from the one timer from Pettersson to the left side half boards from Hughes dishing off to Hughes holding the puck.
Both Miller and Pettersson are star talents but with different styles of play, the coach decides which style he likes and plays then assigns line mates and ice time.
Both players can be confident that other teams will want them, both are now held more responsible for the team's success or failures. Huge pressure. Then the coach plays them like his grunts, expecting them to play like his grunts, critiquing them for not playing like desperate players hoping for a new contract. making them compete with each other in an unfair system that favors his style or system.
Just the players that were removed from last years team show what he wants, GMs' often try to get the players the coach wants so this team is Tocchet's team all the way, his first 60 games were a left over from Rutherford/Allvin's first retooling that melded faster and surprisingly well, with the exception of Pettersson. could you imagine if they had pulled the trigger on the Necas rumored trade, he is more a Tocchet type, but they didn't and now there are two star players with their feet held to the fire having the success of the team placed on their shoulders and neither getting what all they need to succeed.
Tocchet got the Adams because Rutherford and Allvin did a great job, with the exception of the OEL buyout but that was a Tocchet/OEL hold over issue, not because he was a good coach, his record was dismal with numerous unhappy players on his head coaching resume.
I have read numerous times that Petey's game tanked after he signed his pressured contract but it also co-insides with Kuzmenko's trade, the guy he got 100 pts with, sometimes chemistry makes two players better than indvidually.
IMO for Tocchet it was "I'm in charge" and I think it was like that until Miller,(remember he was the player who called out the NHL for an unfair schedule and got it changed), needed his personal mystery leave. Since then Tocchets interviews have changed a lot.
I predicted a similar season to the 2016 year after the surprise 100+pt 2015 season. It definitely looks like I will be wrong, but maybe not too wrong only in they won't finish 26th but maybe 20th.
