How should a coach coach? | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

How should a coach coach?

Stylizer1

Stylizer1

Rocket Surgeon
Jun 12, 2009
19,925
4,465
Ottabot City
Should a coach make the players he has fit into his system or should the coach develop a system based on the players he has?

If you have a highly skilled team but the coach wants to play a defense first system is he wasting his resources?
 
If I'm building a puzzle and I can't seem to make a piece fit, I don't grab a pair of scissors and alter the piece so I can put it somewhere it doesn't belong.

It's much easier for a coach to tweak his strategies than it is for multiple guys chang how they've been playing their whole life.

The coach should fit the players.
 
Both.

You need to have a system that complements the strengths of your players, but you also need your players to be able to extend themselves out of their comfort zone and adapt the system to counter their opponents.

And it's also important for a young team for players to build a solid foundation so they can grow and adapt to the NHL and playing at the highest professional level. Playing to your strengths exclusively is one of the main causes of guys having short careers, the sophomore slump, and generally flaming out early. You always need to work on adding to that toolbox, because the league is quick to adapt and neuter your strengths.
 
Nac Mac Feegle said:
Both.

You need to have a system that complements the strengths of your players, but you also need your players to be able to extend themselves out of their comfort zone and adapt the system to counter their opponents.

And it's also important for a young team for players to build a solid foundation so they can grow and adapt to the NHL and playing at the highest professional level. Playing to your strengths exclusively is one of the main causes of guys having short careers, the sophomore slump, and generally flaming out early. You always need to work on adding to that toolbox, because the league is quick to adapt and neuter your strengths.
Click to expand...

Well said. I agree.
 
I'm not at all suave but if I'm a coach I want high IQ players to fit a system. It's easier to coach players who can adapt to a system than to develop a system for players.

Technical abilities coupled with a high hockey IQ who can play any position(except goalie) and transition from and to each position sorta like total football.
 
Basically what Nac said.

Players have to be able to adjust, that's the reality.

However, at the same time you don't want to adjust so much that their greatest strengths are void. Coaches have to make a system that is well adjusted to the strengths of their players. If players have to completely change their game so that their greatest strength is meaningless, then the system isn't good enough.
 
Watch any team Canada in the world juniors: Either the players play the coaches 200ft system or they lose horribly. Individual players should have ZERO effect on the system the coach uses.
 
It depends on the control he has. If he has control of his roster and has a system that is very effective id say players should fit the system. In soccer at higher levels managers with lots of money sell players that dont fit their system and buy players that do. At lower level they generally have to take what they have and make the best of it
 
J0sh said:
Watch any team Canada in the world juniors: Either the players play the coaches 200ft system or they lose horribly. Individual players should have ZERO effect on the system the coach uses.
Click to expand...

World juniors isn't an 82+ game tournament. You also have a massive pool of players to hand-pick a team to suit your needs.
 
A coach is a coach. What kind of a coach? It's a coach. And when you have a good coach, it's because he's coaching.
 
Jacques Martin had a winning system that worked against all kinds of opponents over the balance of a regular season.

But when playing the same team over and over again in the playoffs, if that system didn't work, he didn't have any other options.

He would just throw the same guys out there, and ask them to play the same way, no matter what the circumstance - whether in a game, or in a series. Up a goal? Down a goal? The same. Up a game? Down a game? The same.

Now, you can't just have a playoff team because you still need to win those regular season games.

But, at the same time, if you can only play the game one way, you might be an easy out for a team that handles that system well.
 
MiscBrah said:
A coach is a coach. What kind of a coach? It's a coach. And when you have a good coach, it's because he's coaching.
Click to expand...

WTB Jean Chrétien and his relations to Power Corp for new arena deal, rsvp.

To answer the question, the system needs to be in place and explained to the players. Players that cannot fit into the system are sat or sent away. I just have the think about some of the stuff Babcock has been saying since arriving in TO:

Talk of "Set pieces" for player positioning;
Rielly talking about "boxing out" and "Square zones";
Using young "D" in more defensive roles so they learn how to play well in their zone, then rewarding them with powerplay time etc.

The last good system coach was Jacques Martin and it is no surprise we had the most sustained success under his tenure. Yes, we got to the finals under Murray but that was a peak event that was not repeatable. I'd love to have a bunch of 100+ point seasons and trips to the conference finals and so on.
 
For me one thing that really brothers me about this team is the apparent lack of coordination and support between players: our passing game seems to be off far too often and players often don't support each other other than in the most basic fashion (a forward covering for a pinching D).

The amount of the time this team is one'n'done in the offensive zone is mind boggling to me.

Seems like two things that the coach should be able to improve.

Maybe I'm wrong but if I am then, and I go back to this a lot these days, something is fundamentally wrong with the roster, whether it be players themselves or lacking at certain positions.
 
It's both just look at what trotz has done in Washington with ovechkin. He's made him more defensively responsible when he doesn't have the puck and let's him play his own game when he does have the puck
 
Stylizer1 said:
Should a coach make the players he has fit into his system or should the coach develop a system based on the players he has?

If you have a highly skilled team but the coach wants to play a defense first system is he wasting his resources?
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by "system".

The coach should design his systems to suit the skillsets of the players he has. Different lines should have different systems, or roles or styles of play. If you have highly skilled players who can skate very well and are highly creative, the system should be designed to make the best use of those players' skillsets. And for those with lower skillsets, you would have a different "system" such as a checking line defensive approach (e.g., cover your man, go up and down your wing).

You would not use the same system for the Gretzky, Kurrie, Anderson line as that used for slower bigger less skilled players. For the Gretzky line freedom was provided so that any of the players on that line could skate on any side or part of the ice surface, reading and reacting to their own linemates creativity and the opportunities (weaknesses) provided by the opposing team.

That "system" was modelled on the system style of play used by the Winnipeg Jets on the famous Hull, Nillson, Hedberg line with offensive support from highly skilled "offensive" defencemen like Lars Eric Sjoberg. The other lines would have to use a different approach as they did NOT have the skillsets of the first lines.
 
Although im not sure there is that much variance in the systems that teams use anymore, other than perhaps in nuance and focus.

In the abstract, you would think coaches should try and use a system that brings the most out of their players, especially football coaches where the variance would seem more wide.

Coaches i always figured focused more on defensive responsibility. Suggesting a player is too skilled to lean towards defensive reads, well you better be Karlsson or forget it, it wont fly with many coaches.

In terms of practicalities though, im not sure im understanding how the differences between the two poll questions works in reality. What kind of system wouldn’t suit certain players? Too skilled to trap when called for? Too slow to forecheck, too weak for board battles or a wing lock? I cant imagine there is any team that doesnt use all of those as required and expects its players to be able to execute them if needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom