Jump to content

Recommended Posts

it's funny how montreal has a coach that's not popular and dont even know anything about him and they are in the final four, it says alot about how it's more on the players than just having the big prize coach because they are a deep team and i actually picked them to make the playoffs. i mean no disrespect to trotz but i think if islanders signed JT i think the islanders would have been in trouble because they wouldnt be a deep team as a result of all the money being spent on JT.

 

i think cooper was another person i had no clue on who he was and he won a cup last year because tampa's roster was so deep and had great goaltending in visky.  i mean you look at the most popular hires in coaches like joel q, he couldnt get florida past the first round because their roster is not very deep. if you just look at the rosters in the final four, they are all very deep rosters and great goaltending.

 

my point is i think we have to stop looking at stars and popular hires when it comes to coaches and players and just look at the goaltending and how deep the roster is to compete because i dont think it matters how great the coaches are, if the roster isnt deep and you dont have great goaltending. coaches are not miracle workers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. What makes a good team is a lot of parts working together well- a coaching team (don't ignore the other coaches!) with a good game plan, a leadership core, good defence, depth to last the distance and be able to respond to what other teams are doing, and lastly a winning culture. These all work together and being hyper fixated on any one to the detriment of the others will only be a short term salve. It's the good GMs who manage to keep an eye on the big picture and understand how changing individual parts influence the whole.  

 

So a coach can walk into a team that has been under utilised for various reasons, or work with the GM to work out where things need to change, but of course as you said, they're not miracle workers. I don't think even the best coach in the world could have coached the sharks into the play-offs this season considering their ageing core, to give an example. A good coach is an important part of the mix, but one that still needs to work with the other parts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tucson83 said:

 

i think cooper was another person i had no clue on who he was and he won a cup last year because tampa's roster was so deep and had great goaltending in visky. 

 

A lot had to do with Yzerman and his connections in Russia that started way back in 2010 when Kucherov was damn near an unknown and drafted in 2011.

 

He took over a team with a few good pieces and built it into what we see today but it took almost a decade to finally reach the chalice.

 

Do you really think the Flyers fans can wait that long....hell they can barely stand it for an offseason period...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

A lot had to do with Yzerman and his connections in Russia that started way back in 2010 when Kucherov was damn near an unknown and drafted in 2011.

 

He took over a team with a few good pieces and built it into what we see today but it took almost a decade to finally reach the chalice.

 

Do you really think the Flyers fans can wait that long....hell they can barely stand it for an offseason period...

nope and that's the big problem with the coach hatters, they cant face reality this team isnt good enough, they still think everything can be savaged and cup can be won and the problem with that is, you have an aging not good enough core, questionable goaltending, i mean you cant have these questions and expect to win.

 

i think vasilevskiy is awesome goalie, i think he's a big part of tampa's success, i dont think we give him enough credit, he reminds me of young bernie, he's so hard to score against. the guy is a machine.

 

hopefully carter hart can rebound next year.

Edited by tucson83
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SCFlyguy said:

Coaching can put you over the last 10%, but talent is the other 90%.

 

Hard work can beat talent. But talent and hard work is usually what makes a champion.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2021 at 12:37 PM, tucson83 said:

it's funny how montreal has a coach that's not popular and dont even know anything about him and they are in the final four, it says alot about how it's more on the players than just having the big prize coach because they are a deep team and i actually picked them to make the playoffs. i mean no disrespect to trotz but i think if islanders signed JT i think the islanders would have been in trouble because they wouldnt be a deep team as a result of all the money being spent on JT.

 

i think cooper was another person i had no clue on who he was and he won a cup last year because tampa's roster was so deep and had great goaltending in visky.  i mean you look at the most popular hires in coaches like joel q, he couldnt get florida past the first round because their roster is not very deep. if you just look at the rosters in the final four, they are all very deep rosters and great goaltending.

 

my point is i think we have to stop looking at stars and popular hires when it comes to coaches and players and just look at the goaltending and how deep the roster is to compete because i dont think it matters how great the coaches are, if the roster isnt deep and you dont have great goaltending. coaches are not miracle workers.

 

I don't think coaches are overrated, and I actually would have pointed to Montreal as a terrific example of the coach making a huge difference.

 

But I'm with you on its not being necessary to chase the star or popular hire.  In many cases, it's simply the right coach for the right team in the right moment.  And each of those ingredients are often of equal importance.  The perfect cake isn't about the eggs or the sugar or the flour, but in the absence of either, the cake fails.  You could use that analogy in talking about a cup winning team in general and that is also true, but it's true about the coach.

 

You have coaches that have won a cup and maybe a few bookending years in which the team has success.  But that passes--due, in part, to the team losing ingredients due to cap or age or whatever or often due to the game changing some and other teams rising and sometimes due to team revolt or fatigue.

 

Often that coach goes on to another team and success doesn't follow them.

 

In other cases--Trotz, Q, Lavy, and even V--you see success follow them.

 

Some of that is the timing thing I mentioned. I think the above-refernced are good at dealing with groups that are in a certain stage of their progression arc. Similarly, you have teachers that are very successful at high school level but not in elementary and vice versa.

 

I think V will struggle with the Flyers as a result of that concept.

 

I think the "yes and no" answers you've received are probably on point, because it occurs to me that in some respects even my answer can be used to argue the other day.

 

I don't think the coach is overrated necessarily. But I think it is by those who think coaches can come in, wave a wand  and suddenly make a bad team good.

 

None of the above coaches would have made Detroit or Anaheim or Buffalo good.

 

Conversely, it's hard to prove a negative, but I don't think the Islanders and Canadians are still playing if there's a different coach behind the bench  specifically for those current groups.  Does that make sense?

  • Good Post 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Hard work can beat talent. But talent and hard work is usually what makes a champion.

Yeah, I don't believe they talent (depending on how it's being defined here) is 90%.  And it's not just hard work.  Both are important ingredients, but it's the group working together in a cohesive way that enhances the talent.  And that part is coaching and I don't think that's limited to 10%.   

 

People will instantly tell Barzal in response to this, but I don't think the Isles have a tremendous amount of talent (as typically defined by "skill" in terms of offense).  But they're even this far because of hard work in a coordinated way on defense and counterpunch.  Mid-ought a Sabres almost.  

 

Conversely, the Leafs have a lot of talent (again, as commonly defined) yet every season they sit home early because of lack of cohesion that gets exposed by the teams that have it.

 

I suspect @SCFlyguy is defining "talent" a bit more broadly than this and I'm probably more on board if so, but I still think 10% is a bit low either way.    It's hard to define that number and probably varies between situations, but I'd guess closer to 25%

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

 

I don't think coaches are overrated, and I actually would have pointed to Montreal as a terrific example of the coach making a huge difference.

 

But I'm with you on its not being necessary to chase the star or popular hire.  In many cases, it's simply the right coach for the right team in the right moment.  And each of those ingredients are often of equal importance.  The perfect cake isn't about the eggs or the sugar or the flour, but in the absence of either, the cake fails.  You could use that analogy in talking about a cup winning team in general and that is also true, but it's true about the coach.

 

You have coaches that have won a cup and maybe a few bookending years in which the team has success.  But that passes--due, in part, to the team losing ingredients due to cap or age or whatever or often due to the game changing some and other teams rising and sometimes due to team revolt or fatigue.

 

Often that coach goes on to another team and success doesn't follow them.

 

In other cases--Trotz, Q, Lavy, and even V--you see success follow them.

 

Some of that is the timing thing I mentioned. I think the above-refernced are good at dealing with groups that are in a certain stage of their progression arc. Similarly, you have teachers that are very successful at high school level but not in elementary and vice versa.

 

I think V will struggle with the Flyers as a result of that concept.

 

I think the "yes and no" answers you've received are probably on point, because it occurs to me that in some respects even my answer can be used to argue the other day.

 

I don't think the coach is overrated necessarily. But I think it is by those who think coaches can come in, wave a wand  and suddenly make a bad team good.

 

None of the above coaches would have made Detroit or Anaheim or Buffalo good.

 

Conversely, it's hard to prove a negative, but I don't think the Islanders and Canadians are still playing if there's a different coach behind the bench  specifically for those current groups.  Does that make sense?

 

Spot on post nothing more for me to add except well done. I hope the Flyers have the right coach the dead weight needs to be remove still regardless of the coach...no one has ad success with it yet.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess by 10% I am saying the last 10% that puts you over the top.

 

Let's put it this way, when's the last team that you thought wasn't very talented but had amazing coaching that won the Stanley Cup?

 

You could have injected Scotty Bowman's DNA into the eyeballs of every Flyer this year and they still weren't winning a Stanley Cup.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blocker said:

The best "coach" usually has the best goalie.

 

Good to see you, sir.  Been awhile. Hope you're well.

  • Good Post 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SCFlyguy said:

Bump.

 

Talent, goaltending, and luck are far more important factors than coaching.

last night's game pretty much proved everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...