rkarete wrote:my problem with MT is as follows: he is not obviously a "scientific" coach. Hence we have Malkin taking faceoffs in his own end in the closing stages of games. Hence when i went to see the two games in Stockholm, it was not obvious MT could force the Pens to adapt to bad ice and hence they were playing the wrong sort of game vs. the Sens. Hence the Sharks (admittedly an excellent team) could force its players to re-commit to defence and limit the Pens to 11 shots the game after they had a total 7-6 run n' gun. Hence the late 3rd goal given up to the Rags.
MT may be a Mr Motivator and everyone can respect the way he handles his own kids (I have three so I know its hard work!) and the Pens kids (though some, like Staal, can clearly use a bit more mentoring). But when you look at the applied intelligence that comes from the coaches at Det, Dal, SJ, NYR, ANA, Montreal and other elite teams.. you dont see any Mr Motivators, you see cerebral students of the game, who play percentages, who think matchups matter, whose teams don't suffer the kind of letdowns the Pens have shown last season and this, etc.
those teams also didnt have a young sidney crosby and evgeni malkin
did they have stars? for sure, but their stars are vets who know how to play the game so the coach will reinforce the team concept
at this stage, i believe MT is going for team cohesiveness while trying to implement a system for the penguins to fall back on, and is then relying on crosby being crosby and malkin being malkin. what those guys can do now and also the things they will be able to do in the future is going to be far more potent than any in game strategy put in play by the coach.