The Jefferson thread got me thinking a bit, so I'd like to add another dimension to our discussion of coaching ideology.
It has been argued by some observers of high school sports that the coaches who produce the most successful teams are, in fact, not that great at producing players who are successful at higher levels. They claim this is because these coaches are intent on teaching players a system and finding each player's niche within that system, regardless of the player's development. On the other hand, coaches who are more development-oriented might not be using their players in a way coheres into a great team.
I'm not saying I agree with this; I really don't know if it's right or not. But I'd be curious to hear others' observations are on this, and if you think it's applicable to cases in MN HS hockey. And, if we do find support for that theory, is one path to be preferred over the other?
Coaching Theory
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
karl(east)
- Posts: 6480
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
- Contact:
-
midwesthockeyscout
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:14 am
Karl. Very "meaty" subject. It is in my opinion that the best coaches are the ones that HAVE a system, implement the system, teach the system, but if there is/are exceptional player(s) on that team, the best coaches will adapt and tweak the system and philosophy that, in the end, creates a better team philosophy, yet, creates a environment that will still captialize on the skill of the individual, and that individual generally will have a chance at a higher level.
Hockey is so unique, because one just doesn't know where the puck will be, and it's sometimes difficult to create opportunities wiwthin a system, no matter how much talent.
I guess the only clear correlation I can conjure up is that below average coaches refuse to make changes. They ONLY run their system, and that's it. It happens in HS football alot. I think HS football coaches fail to recognize when a kid has superior arm as a QB, and continue to pound the run game, not taking advantage of a player's talent, and also, still allowing teams to have better preparation to defend.
So, the coaches that have recognition skills, realistic evaluations of player talent, along with a solid system that can be flexed are the types of coaches that succeed.
On the hockey front, I can tell you from one experience I had with a coach that "labled" one of his players that he "can't play penalty kill" whereas this kid was a superior PK at the youth level. In a conversation with this coach, I asked why he didn't use the kid in that capacity of PK.
Next game, at some point, due to penalties, the coach was forced to use this player on PK and his first shift as a PK, the player scored a shorthanded goal, and was relentless on the ice in PK situations after that.
It was the coach's labeling which held the player back, but the coach made the adjustment, and it was successful.
Hockey is so unique, because one just doesn't know where the puck will be, and it's sometimes difficult to create opportunities wiwthin a system, no matter how much talent.
I guess the only clear correlation I can conjure up is that below average coaches refuse to make changes. They ONLY run their system, and that's it. It happens in HS football alot. I think HS football coaches fail to recognize when a kid has superior arm as a QB, and continue to pound the run game, not taking advantage of a player's talent, and also, still allowing teams to have better preparation to defend.
So, the coaches that have recognition skills, realistic evaluations of player talent, along with a solid system that can be flexed are the types of coaches that succeed.
On the hockey front, I can tell you from one experience I had with a coach that "labled" one of his players that he "can't play penalty kill" whereas this kid was a superior PK at the youth level. In a conversation with this coach, I asked why he didn't use the kid in that capacity of PK.
Next game, at some point, due to penalties, the coach was forced to use this player on PK and his first shift as a PK, the player scored a shorthanded goal, and was relentless on the ice in PK situations after that.
It was the coach's labeling which held the player back, but the coach made the adjustment, and it was successful.
This was what i was trying to get at in the Jefferson thread I wasn't merely trying to knock Coach Lindquist but merely talk about coaching styles that work.
I believe his does not because his teams consistently fail in the later months of the season. The flip side of that would be Hill Murrey where they excel in the later months and go beyond people's expectaions. I believe this is becuase the players at Hill believe in the coach and his strategies to get them throught the hard times, at Jefferson I don't see the gatta win mentality (SECTION CHAMPIONSHIP 5-0 loss). The coaches that can bring out all the heart and will of a team when it matters most have the most success.
As far as systems or individual oriented coaches it would appear that not always the individuals can pull it off (EDINA) a system is the way to go. However, a necessity for that system to work is the players believe in that system.
I believe his does not because his teams consistently fail in the later months of the season. The flip side of that would be Hill Murrey where they excel in the later months and go beyond people's expectaions. I believe this is becuase the players at Hill believe in the coach and his strategies to get them throught the hard times, at Jefferson I don't see the gatta win mentality (SECTION CHAMPIONSHIP 5-0 loss). The coaches that can bring out all the heart and will of a team when it matters most have the most success.
As far as systems or individual oriented coaches it would appear that not always the individuals can pull it off (EDINA) a system is the way to go. However, a necessity for that system to work is the players believe in that system.
-
council member retired
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:12 pm
- Location: Nordeast Mpls
Re: Coaching Theory
[quote="karl(east)"]The Jefferson thread got me thinking a bit, so I'd like to add another dimension to our discussion of coaching ideology.
It has been argued by some observers of high school sports that the coaches who produce the most successful teams are, in fact, not that great at producing players who are successful at higher levels. They claim this is because these coaches are intent on teaching players a system and finding each player's niche within that system, regardless of the player's development. On the other hand, coaches who are more development-oriented might not be using their players in a way coheres into a great team.
I'm not saying I agree with this; I really don't know if it's right or not. But I'd be curious to hear others' observations are on this, and if you think it's applicable to cases in MN HS hockey. And, if we do find support for that theory, is one path to be preferred over the other?[/quote]
this is silly
It has been argued by some observers of high school sports that the coaches who produce the most successful teams are, in fact, not that great at producing players who are successful at higher levels. They claim this is because these coaches are intent on teaching players a system and finding each player's niche within that system, regardless of the player's development. On the other hand, coaches who are more development-oriented might not be using their players in a way coheres into a great team.
I'm not saying I agree with this; I really don't know if it's right or not. But I'd be curious to hear others' observations are on this, and if you think it's applicable to cases in MN HS hockey. And, if we do find support for that theory, is one path to be preferred over the other?[/quote]
this is silly
There are probably as many differnt opinions on this as there are people on the board. I coached HS football for years and I learned that my way wasn't always going to work, I liked the Wishbone but if I didn't have the athletes it wouldn't work. Same with the QB example, even the kid with a great arm will suffer if he doesn't have receivers or a line to protect him (not to mention the weather). I'll take a 3 yard gain over an incomplete pass just about everytime. Hockey is the same way, I imagine most coaches have a vision of how they want to play the game but the kids dictate on whether you can play that game or not. Far too often I see coaches and teams who won't ever dump and chase even though they don't have enough kids who can carry the puck in at the high school level, they continually turn the puck over and worse, set their kids up for failure. Part of coaching is taking what you have and realizing what the limits of your talent is and adjusting from there. You can't expect what is not possible and hope to succeed.
The other part of coacing is exploiting your opponents weakness. Two great examples come to mind from the 2007 and 2008 state tournaments. In 2007 Roseau was a very offensively skilled team but was struggling with a deep and skilled Rochester Century team. Roseau tried to play pretty end to end hockey but was having little success after having loads of it through the year. Then Roseau found a weakness in Century, their defense had great trouble handling a forecheck so Roseau began to play dump and chase and scored 3 goals off of Century defensemen turnovers en route to a 3-1 win, the side bar to that was Century who could fly up and down the rink (as was seen in their wins over HM and Burnsville) was now stopped from doing just that. Was dump and chase what Roseau wanted to play? No, but they changed styles to win a game. In 2008 Hill Murray was a very skilled team that ended up pounding all 3 opponents with their size en route to their title. In their game with South they threw themselves at South players, took a few penalties but realized the refs wouldn't put them 2 men down and continued to physically pound South, same in the Roseau and Edina games, no one could touch the puck without getting hit, it's very demoralizing to be hit repeatedly and HM did just that because they had the size and speed to do it. That's not typical of HM hockey but turned out to be very successful in 2008. Those are just 2 examples of coaches that changed their style to beat their opponents.
The other part of coacing is exploiting your opponents weakness. Two great examples come to mind from the 2007 and 2008 state tournaments. In 2007 Roseau was a very offensively skilled team but was struggling with a deep and skilled Rochester Century team. Roseau tried to play pretty end to end hockey but was having little success after having loads of it through the year. Then Roseau found a weakness in Century, their defense had great trouble handling a forecheck so Roseau began to play dump and chase and scored 3 goals off of Century defensemen turnovers en route to a 3-1 win, the side bar to that was Century who could fly up and down the rink (as was seen in their wins over HM and Burnsville) was now stopped from doing just that. Was dump and chase what Roseau wanted to play? No, but they changed styles to win a game. In 2008 Hill Murray was a very skilled team that ended up pounding all 3 opponents with their size en route to their title. In their game with South they threw themselves at South players, took a few penalties but realized the refs wouldn't put them 2 men down and continued to physically pound South, same in the Roseau and Edina games, no one could touch the puck without getting hit, it's very demoralizing to be hit repeatedly and HM did just that because they had the size and speed to do it. That's not typical of HM hockey but turned out to be very successful in 2008. Those are just 2 examples of coaches that changed their style to beat their opponents.
Re: Coaching Theory
From my limited experience and observations, I'd say that the best coaches take what they have and work with it. Developing one player for talent only helps the team. Successfull coaches seem to look at the team realistically and develope a plan around the personel.karl(east) wrote:The Jefferson thread got me thinking a bit, so I'd like to add another dimension to our discussion of coaching ideology.
It has been argued by some observers of high school sports that the coaches who produce the most successful teams are, in fact, not that great at producing players who are successful at higher levels. They claim this is because these coaches are intent on teaching players a system and finding each player's niche within that system, regardless of the player's development. On the other hand, coaches who are more development-oriented might not be using their players in a way coheres into a great team.
I'm not saying I agree with this; I really don't know if it's right or not. But I'd be curious to hear others' observations are on this, and if you think it's applicable to cases in MN HS hockey. And, if we do find support for that theory, is one path to be preferred over the other?
Opinion: The coach of a team has a responsibility to the team, not just one player....(or parent...).....I would think it would be his responsibility to attempt to develope every player... Every player is at a different stage, ...you can kinda see where this is going....a big circle. However, developing any single player should never happen at the cost of the team.
One quality of a truly great player is his ability to be "coached".
-
hockeyfanatic29
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:13 am
Systems are extremely important. No one player is greater than the team or the game. At the beginning of every season I think coaches have a plan on how they want their team to play, whether or not they have the personel is another thing. Adaptation is obviously a key to being successful as hockey is a game of adlibbing. Ultimately it comes down to what the coaches goals are or what he/she wants their team identity to be. Do I want to focus on the individuals and get them to the next level, or do I want to focus on winning state titles and focus on the team which will attract good players and keep my program going?
-
TTpuckster
- Posts: 2783
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:26 am
- Location: State of Hockey
I'll add 1 more thing.
I agree that a good coach will adjust the system for the players they have.
I'm not trying to start another controversy here, but there is one more aspect that makes this possible.
The coach has to be strong and keep the parents at bay.
Taking a team and adjusting to the player skills may mean, for instance, that hot shot stick handler may need to do more grinding, if needed. This will upset some parent somewhere.
The coach has to be strong enough to deal with it.
nuff said!
I agree that a good coach will adjust the system for the players they have.
I'm not trying to start another controversy here, but there is one more aspect that makes this possible.
The coach has to be strong and keep the parents at bay.
Taking a team and adjusting to the player skills may mean, for instance, that hot shot stick handler may need to do more grinding, if needed. This will upset some parent somewhere.
The coach has to be strong enough to deal with it.
nuff said!
-
karl(east)
- Posts: 6480
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
- Contact:
Thanks for the responses; this is definitely a topic that is both dense and a bit abstract.
I think everyone's contributed something here; I would agree that the best coaches fit a system to the available talent and develop everyone from there. And as we've noted, hockey is a much more fluid sport than, say, football, where it's much easier to get caught up in a system. People skills are also crucial for a coach, as he has to communicate why his actions are the best to players, parents, and people within the school as well.
I'm glad exploiting opponents' weaknesses was brought up, because that's also very important. But at the same time, focusing too heavily on opposition strengths and weaknesses can cause problems, particularly if one's team is better than the opposition. There are times when a team should simply go out and play its game, no matter the opposition. This leads into another key trait, which is the ability to recognize when things aren't working and make an adjustment on the fly. Hockey coaches are forced to do that far more often than their counterparts in football or basketball, as there aren't nearly as many long stoppages or timeouts to play around with. If I had to choose a single trait that I'd want most in a coach, it might be the ability to make quick adjustments.
I think everyone's contributed something here; I would agree that the best coaches fit a system to the available talent and develop everyone from there. And as we've noted, hockey is a much more fluid sport than, say, football, where it's much easier to get caught up in a system. People skills are also crucial for a coach, as he has to communicate why his actions are the best to players, parents, and people within the school as well.
I'm glad exploiting opponents' weaknesses was brought up, because that's also very important. But at the same time, focusing too heavily on opposition strengths and weaknesses can cause problems, particularly if one's team is better than the opposition. There are times when a team should simply go out and play its game, no matter the opposition. This leads into another key trait, which is the ability to recognize when things aren't working and make an adjustment on the fly. Hockey coaches are forced to do that far more often than their counterparts in football or basketball, as there aren't nearly as many long stoppages or timeouts to play around with. If I had to choose a single trait that I'd want most in a coach, it might be the ability to make quick adjustments.
What about youth organizations? Sure it can be hard, but I am assuming that organizations that can start to incorporate systems at a younger level have more success later. The teams will have already adapted the system to the strengths and weaknesses of the players on that team. With high school programs that get players from many different youth organizations, they could be thrown into a completely different style.
In my coaching years (around 35 - 36 years), I have always been told (by outsiders) what a great coach I was in those years when I have had 'great' players.
To tell you the truth the best year I had (in terms of accomplishemnts) was when I had a good 'team' and only one good 'player'.
To be truthful, the best year(s) were those year(s) in which I could motiviate (if it was me) the kids to work harder and give it their all.
I always coach my system, but always vary from it.
But success (in terms of winning) comes when I have better players willing to work hard.
To me the greatest coaches (at High School and below) are thsoe that teach respect. For the game, for the opposition, for the refs, the coaches, their teammates and the fans.
Every year my team(s) have the same basic goal - give 100% effort, 100% of the time. If we can come close to that goal we will be successful.
So my job is to teach the game, induce the effort, and teach the young players to respect all involved.
To tell you the truth the best year I had (in terms of accomplishemnts) was when I had a good 'team' and only one good 'player'.
To be truthful, the best year(s) were those year(s) in which I could motiviate (if it was me) the kids to work harder and give it their all.
I always coach my system, but always vary from it.
But success (in terms of winning) comes when I have better players willing to work hard.
To me the greatest coaches (at High School and below) are thsoe that teach respect. For the game, for the opposition, for the refs, the coaches, their teammates and the fans.
Every year my team(s) have the same basic goal - give 100% effort, 100% of the time. If we can come close to that goal we will be successful.
So my job is to teach the game, induce the effort, and teach the young players to respect all involved.
Great thread - great comments and insight from years of coaching experience. Too many coaches do yield to their star player(s) and their parents which is understandable given the lack of respect given to coaches these days. Successful coaches are the coaches that have a system, can vary the system if they find it's not working against an opponent and have a viable Plan B, don't underestimate their opponents and know their strengths and weaknesses (take the time to figure them out), instill confidence, trust and respect in their players and work to develop all of them - not just the super stars. The super stars will look out for themselves, but a team full of hard working team players with confidence, trust and respect in their coach and his system, will be the most successful in March. (this is not to say that some of the great high school players are not also great team players - they're just the ones with high assist counts versus goals and the ones that play strong defense even in forward positions and don't just worry about putting up points) Elliot - from your post, you should offer coaching clinics. Great philosophy and very interesting points on this thread.
I help guide D16 and Bemidji Youth Baseball.Doglover wrote:Great thread - great comments and insight from years of coaching experience. Too many coaches do yield to their star player(s) and their parents which is understandable given the lack of respect given to coaches these days. Successful coaches are the coaches that have a system, can vary the system if they find it's not working against an opponent and have a viable Plan B, don't underestimate their opponents and know their strengths and weaknesses (take the time to figure them out), instill confidence, trust and respect in their players and work to develop all of them - not just the super stars. The super stars will look out for themselves, but a team full of hard working team players with confidence, trust and respect in their coach and his system, will be the most successful in March. (this is not to say that some of the great high school players are not also great team players - they're just the ones with high assist counts versus goals and the ones that play strong defense even in forward positions and don't just worry about putting up points) Elliot - from your post, you should offer coaching clinics. Great philosophy and very interesting points on this thread.
Re: elliott
I played hockey through for what would now be considered bantams.dakota12 wrote:not to burst his bubble, but elliott never played hockey,,,,he just put himself into a postion heading up Bemidji Youth Hockey...to get himself involved,,,nothing wrong with that...but he's not a hockey mind, but a hockey mouth....
The HS coach was a friend of the family and later a good friend of mine.
He told me to try something else as I could not skate well enough to play in a traditonal hockey town amidst eventual college hockey players.
The feet may not have been any good but the mind is fine.
And I was not the one to put myself in any position. My positioning has been at the request of others.
And I do not come on here and take jabs at other people and hide behind a psuedonym.
-
TTpuckster
- Posts: 2783
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:26 am
- Location: State of Hockey
Re: elliott
elliott70 wrote:I played hockey through for what would now be considered bantams.dakota12 wrote:not to burst his bubble, but elliott never played hockey,,,,he just put himself into a postion heading up Bemidji Youth Hockey...to get himself involved,,,nothing wrong with that...but he's not a hockey mind, but a hockey mouth....
The HS coach was a friend of the family and later a good friend of mine.
He told me to try something else as I could not skate well enough to play in a traditonal hockey town amidst eventual college hockey players.
The feet may not have been any good but the mind is fine.
And I was not the one to put myself in any position. My positioning has been at the request of others.
And I do not come on here and take jabs at other people and hide behind a psuedonym.
Not to burst your bubble dakota, but I played a lot of hockey, and still do, and Elliott usually is right on. So, back off...........
-
east hockey
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7428
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
- Location: Proctor, MN
Re: elliott
To say you're out of line would be the understatement of the year.dakota12 wrote:not to burst his bubble, but elliott never played hockey,,,,he just put himself into a postion heading up Bemidji Youth Hockey...to get himself involved,,,nothing wrong with that...but he's not a hockey mind, but a hockey mouth....
Lee
PageStat Guy on Bluesky
-
karl(east)
- Posts: 6480
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: elliott
Not only is it horribly out of line, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, or any other thread on here.east hockey wrote:To say you're out of line would be the understatement of the year.dakota12 wrote:not to burst his bubble, but elliott never played hockey,,,,he just put himself into a postion heading up Bemidji Youth Hockey...to get himself involved,,,nothing wrong with that...but he's not a hockey mind, but a hockey mouth....
Lee
Good to know that defamation is alive and well on the bored.
likewise tt
Likewise tt,,I'll compare resumes,,,,I'm sorry,,it sounded worst than was said,,,it's easy to talk so highly about your credentials,,when you actually might not have any, that being said,,,I do apologize for what I said, but still doesn't change my feelings on his knowledge.
As far as coaching theories, we all have our own. My design is plain and simple...keep the kids playing as long as you can, let them enjoy summers, and put the checkbooks away, because far too many people are making money off of promised dreams and overrated hockey players. The checkbook leagues are dads running hockey programs, no skill developement, too many games, and too many teams. And Lee, if you want me to join your little glee club,,that won't happen, hate to be bashing on your cronies...but sometimes the facts have to brought out.
As far as coaching theories, we all have our own. My design is plain and simple...keep the kids playing as long as you can, let them enjoy summers, and put the checkbooks away, because far too many people are making money off of promised dreams and overrated hockey players. The checkbook leagues are dads running hockey programs, no skill developement, too many games, and too many teams. And Lee, if you want me to join your little glee club,,that won't happen, hate to be bashing on your cronies...but sometimes the facts have to brought out.
Re: likewise tt
Sorry dakota (?) you are too late...dakota12 wrote:Likewise tt,,I'll compare resumes,,,,I'm sorry,,it sounded worst than was said,,,it's easy to talk so highly about your credentials,,when you actually might not have any, that being said,,,I do apologize for what I said, but still doesn't change my feelings on his knowledge.
As far as coaching theories, we all have our own. My design is plain and simple...keep the kids playing as long as you can, let them enjoy summers, and put the checkbooks away, because far too many people are making money off of promised dreams and overrated hockey players. The checkbook leagues are dads running hockey programs, no skill developement, too many games, and too many teams. And Lee, if you want me to join your little glee club,,that won't happen, hate to be bashing on your cronies...but sometimes the facts have to brought out.
I have never claimed anything...
Anyone wants to know I speak up...
and I have, on here and elsewhere...
But I do agree with you on most programs being overdone, with or without knowing your credentials (they are not important)...
-
mnpuckster
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:33 pm
-
muckandgrind
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am
I believe the best coaches are those that can find the right balance between individual development and team skills/systems. Finding that right balance is not as easy as it might seem. IMO, most coaches go too far one way or the other...some focus almost exclusively on developing individual skills and the result is many times a team full of individuals....and those types of teams are rarely around at the end of the season. Coaches that go too far in terms of implementing systems at the expense of developing individual skills create a team of robots who play slot-hockey with no creative ability to handle the puck.
The coach who finds just that right balance depending on the make-up of his team is the one I want coaching my kids.
I also agree that one doesn't need to have a great hockey playing resume to be a great coach...I can think of coaches who were great players who turned out to not be very good coaches, and I know of a few great coaches who have very little playing experience.
The coach who finds just that right balance depending on the make-up of his team is the one I want coaching my kids.
I also agree that one doesn't need to have a great hockey playing resume to be a great coach...I can think of coaches who were great players who turned out to not be very good coaches, and I know of a few great coaches who have very little playing experience.
-
TTpuckster
- Posts: 2783
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:26 am
- Location: State of Hockey