Well, maybe. It's hard to say categorically. The important thing with a softy or a hard ass or someone in between is that they communicate and teach effectively and do it from a strong conceptual understanding of the game.
This team's fundamentals have been poor for so long that a coach that merely strengthens those areas of the game and raises their collective maturity levels would make a huge difference. There are a lot of ways in going about doing that so maybe a softer approach works. Maybe a softer approach just leads to them slacking and pushing the envelope in what they can get away with (getting back to the maturity questions).
Again, I would err at this point towards more of a disciplinarian but whoever it is will need to be able to use a multitude of tactics to push the right buttons. That's what good coaching is all about. Even if the core is altered a good bit, which is likely a bit of a reach in a single off-season, it has been clear that this team doesn't really police itself. Ovechkin is a problem in that regard but overall that's part of the culture change needed. It's hard to achieve that with an overly player's coach and I don't think that's something the players really deserve (or need).
I would regard that "in between" as someone who knows when to use the carrot and when to use the stick.
It's not just discipline in a punishment sense, it's motivation to do the right things in the first place so punishment is rare and always fair.
It's not just being a player's coach in that you're nice to the players and hope they do their jobs, it's motivation through demonstrating you know a player better than he knows himself and will do what HE personally needs to do to achieve his full potential.
It's getting the most out of people. That's leadership.
Oates thought leadership was some ****** mish-mash of film study and conflicting messages about positivity psychology while looking "professional". Motivation was assumed.
What a horrible, backwards way to run a team.
