RainbowsAndCottonCandy wrote:no name wrote:Luckybreak:IMO HCDB has failed several players by ignoring their strengths in favour of 'getting to our game' (other examples being Martin and Michalek).
Intresting i never thought of this but can't argue with it. But could it be Shero mis-identified their playing styles as to how they would fit into Dan B's system. Cause Tangradi never seemed to be fit for the pens style either.
I would agree that it is more about finding a player that fits your system rather than building around their talents in the PENS case. We already have enough guys to define our team and our systems.
On a team that does not have this luxury it becomes important to focus on your core players skill sets and go from there. There are coaches who are excellent tacticians like HCDB and there are coaches that excel at doing with what they got, Hitchcock.
Then there are guys who are good at both...Babcock.
Shero wanted to bolster the D and identified M+M as being relatively mobile skaters who would fit the 'system' thinking he had the blueprint. Whilst they failed to adapt, Niskanen (similar size and considered a good skater) flourished. I think there are many reasons for this but it is clear that Bylsma's system doesn't suit everyone and you cannot attempt to pick 'clones'.
I don't want to start a debate on which coaching style is best (all can be successful), but I have always wondered how the players the Pens had/have would respond to a more 'Hitchcockian' coach? I hope this season HCDB learns from past inflexibility and lacking a 'plan B'. Perhaps Shero has removed Dan's blinkers? Perhaps the love affair with CFA will come to an end? Perhaps Tangradi's positive attributes will be utilised more effectively?