3/12/2013 Bruins v. Penguins- Official Game Thread

[Desiato]

The onus is on the coach to teach how to overcome, yes, but the onus is on the players to actually go out and do it.

Again, I don't think the Pens have a motivational issue. However, hypothetically, if the players refuse to listen to the coach, then the coach is still the problem. Getting people to do what you want them to is a basic tenet of coaching, regardless of the personnel. If he can't do that, he's gotta go in favor of someone with the tools necessary to work with that group of players.

Typically, coaches are hired according to rosters, not the other way around. Rosters are dictated by the vision of the management. A roster may be tweaked, but a complete remake mid-tenure is unlikely. Like coaches, management usually only have so many chances to put the pieces together before they gotta go too. A notable exception as a coach, but not a manager, was Mike Keenan. No thanks.

It's basic accountability. But that's just my humble opinion.

But why is it always "The players refuse to listen to the coach" if it doesn't work? Do the players not have a responsibility to control themselves? Is it the coach's fault if the players listen, but can't adjust themselves?

It isn't 'always'. I said if. If you're not referring to a motivational issue, but an inability to execute, then the onus is still on the coach. He has to design a system that his roster is capable of executing and enables his team to succeed. Even if the roster is fundamentally flawed, it is still his job to figure it out. Like I said, basic accountability. If the roster is that bad, chances are his boss isn't going to last for very long and the new boss will want to replace the coach regardless. On the same note, the coach has to hold his players accountable too.

Now, again, this is completely hypothetical. But like everyone else here, I have an opinion about the Penguins' troubles and happen to believe they have the personnel to overcome their apparent shortcomings. I think this is a roster that can be improved--obviously Shero didn't do everything he intended last summer--but a roster that most, if not all, coaches would be thrilled to work with.

I don't want to be accused of being negative after a win. I was thrilled with tonight's victory and the past two games have clearly been strong wins; as opposed to ugly wins unbefitting of a legitimate cup contender that I've been critical of before. GO PENS!

[MRandall25]

If you're not referring to a motivational issue, but an inability to execute, then the onus is still on the coach. He has to design a system that his roster is capable of executing and enables his team to succeed.

So the coach makes players turn it over, is what you're basically saying here.

[Lt. Dish]

My heart leaped seeing Sid, Sutter, and the guys celebrating that third goal. Jumping up, I felt like I was in the pile with them.

So good.

[Desiato]

If you're not referring to a motivational issue, but an inability to execute, then the onus is still on the coach. He has to design a system that his roster is capable of executing and enables his team to succeed.

So the coach makes players turn it over, is what you're basically saying here.

No. I'm saying the coach is ultimately responsible for what the players do on the ice. If they are making mistakes, it is his job to figure out why and correct it, one way or another. Maybe they need better training, maybe they need to address a personal issue, maybe they need to be benched, or maybe the system needs to be adjusted for their shortcomings if they are not easily replaced.

Hal Gill was an excellent example of this. Seemingly made obsolete by the 'new nhl', his role was adapted to minimize the impact of his very apparent shortcomings and maximize his equally apparent strengths, enabling him to be a key contributor to a championship.

I'm not saying every issue on every team is because of the coach. But I am saying it's the coach's job to find solutions with the available tools. Some teams, obviously, have personnel issues--which are actually management issues imo--which the coach may not be able to resolve, but he remains liable nonetheless. Just as is true of a middle manager who is handed a bad team in a corporation or the captain of a leaky ship.

In the case of the Pens, I think they have the personnel to play sound defense, therefore I put the onus squarely on DB to resolve their issues.

[MRandall25]

If you're not referring to a motivational issue, but an inability to execute, then the onus is still on the coach. He has to design a system that his roster is capable of executing and enables his team to succeed.

So the coach makes players turn it over, is what you're basically saying here.

No. I'm saying the coach is ultimately responsible for what the players do on the ice. If they are making mistakes, it is his job to figure out why and correct it, one way or another. Maybe they need better training, maybe they need to address a personal issue, maybe they need to be benched, or maybe the system needs to be adjusted for their shortcomings if they are not easily replaced.

So you are saying the coach is responsible for the players turning it over...

I... just...

And before you say it, yes, I understand that stretch passes are part of the system. However, I highly doubt Bylsma is telling the players to throw it right into a defender's pads. The onus is on the players (or should be, anyway) to 1) make the right decision, and 2) execute. Neither of those are controllable by Bylsma (decision making, perhaps to a point, but for the most part, that's on the players).

[Desiato]

So you are saying the coach is responsible for the players turning it over...

I... just...

That's a very poor summary of what I said. But anyway.

What the player does with the puck is based on the system. The system determines the available options and priorities; where his teammates are, and who to prioritize. When a player turns the puck over, how do you know if it's because the player made a bad decision or because he was following orders? You may see a better option, but was that better option supposed to be there in the first place? The system has to become instinct.

If the player is making mistakes, whether it is a turnover or the player is out of position, the coach has to figure out why and fix it, one way or another, as I described earlier.

I get the feeling you think players make decisions according to their whims. I doubt that is the case for most in the NHL. It's hard for us, as fans, to know exactly where the problem lies in a lot of cases. Even success in goaltending relies on the rest of the team playing in a way makes the opposition as predictable as possible and limiting the kind of shots the goalie may struggle with.

edit to your edit:

And before you say it, yes, I understand that stretch passes are part of the system. However, I highly doubt Bylsma is telling the players to throw it right into a defender's pads. The onus is on the players (or should be, anyway) to 1) make the right decision, and 2) execute. Neither of those are controllable by Bylsma (decision making, perhaps to a point, but for the most part, that's on the players).

It's definitely controllable by Bylsma. There's a reason why the player is making the mistake. Either they are unable or unwilling. Assuming they are unable, he can train them, make an adjustment to the system that's within their abilities, or not play them. If he doesn't have personnel who can play his system, then he must adjust until management provides him with players who can. But he has to assume that his roster will not change and make the best of it.

This is how Larry Murphy went from being booed in Toronto and written off by basically everyone in hockey to being a key contributor to cup wins in Detroit. This is the difference between good coaching and bad coaching.

[Pens Fan Since 1970]