Gardiner: Where's he heading, career-wise?

[bustaheims]

I don't see this as overcoaching, or stifling offensive creativity; I see it as giving your skilled offensive talents an opportunity to do their thing by building a team structure that reduces the risk of jumping into the play. This is what good coaches should do: give players the opportunities to be their best.

That's the thing about creativity - if you're trying to use it for a specific purpose, it requires structure to back it up.

 

[hobarth]

I don't see this as overcoaching, or stifling offensive creativity; I see it as giving your skilled offensive talents an opportunity to do their thing by building a team structure that reduces the risk of jumping into the play. This is what good coaches should do: give players the opportunities to be their best.

That's the thing about creativity - if you're trying to use it for a specific purpose, it requires structure to back it up.

Exactly! For instance Carolina another talent void has an odd collection of forwards but a very promising young d. Peters encourages, maybe even insists that the d participate offensively in all zones, he doesn't rag on the d if they pinch and lose, he believes the forwards need to support the d, a d-man may lose the pinch so backup becomes the responsibility of a forward and he attributes the any breakdown in the play on lack of responsibility on the forward's behalf.

Structure can come in many forms and we've seen it gives poor teams opportunities to hang with the better teams, hang not win. Insisting that stars or potential stars play a game that makes them on top of everything responsible defensively even at the expense of their gifts is counter productive because no matter how good a team's structure, stars, the talented win games. Stars must be given license to express their talent at any and all times, winning team's structure needs to support the stars. If you have a Polak you get him to be as good a soldier of your team's structure as possible, a star should also understand structure  but it's the star's responsibility to win the game, they must be set free to do that.

By not playing Rielly on the PP Babs is saying he must be a good soldier, first, last and always. Gardiner altho playing on the PP is a shell of the original Gardiner and no matter what analytics say he could have been much more, all of which TO or any team needs. 

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I don't see this as overcoaching, or stifling offensive creativity; I see it as giving your skilled offensive talents an opportunity to do their thing by building a team structure that reduces the risk of jumping into the play. This is what good coaches should do: give players the opportunities to be their best.

That's the thing about creativity - if you're trying to use it for a specific purpose, it requires structure to back it up.

Exactly! For instance Carolina another talent void has an odd collection of forwards but a very promising young d. Peters encourages, maybe even insists that the d participate offensively in all zones, he doesn't rag on the d if they pinch and lose, he believes the forwards need to support the d, a d-man may lose the pinch so backup becomes the responsibility of a forward and he attributes the any breakdown in the play on lack of responsibility on the forward's behalf.

Structure can come in many forms and we've seen it gives poor teams opportunities to hang with the better teams, hang not win. Insisting that stars or potential stars play a game that makes them on top of everything responsible defensively even at the expense of their gifts is counter productive because no matter how good a team's structure, stars, the talented win games. Stars must be given license to express their talent at any and all times, winning team's structure needs to support the stars. If you have a Polak you get him to be as good a soldier of your team's structure as possible, a star should also understand structure  but it's the star's responsibility to win the game, they must be set free to do that.

By not playing Rielly on the PP Babs is saying he must be a good soldier, first, last and always. Gardiner altho playing on the PP is a shell of the original Gardiner and no matter what analytics say he could have been much more, all of which TO or any team needs.

So what you're saying is Bacock sucks, and you want Ron Wilson back. Got it.

 

[herman]

So what you're saying is Bacock sucks, and you want Ron Wilson back. Got it.

That is a helpful summary. Thanks!

 

[hobarth]

I don't see this as overcoaching, or stifling offensive creativity; I see it as giving your skilled offensive talents an opportunity to do their thing by building a team structure that reduces the risk of jumping into the play. This is what good coaches should do: give players the opportunities to be their best.

That's the thing about creativity - if you're trying to use it for a specific purpose, it requires structure to back it up.

Exactly! For instance Carolina another talent void has an odd collection of forwards but a very promising young d. Peters encourages, maybe even insists that the d participate offensively in all zones, he doesn't rag on the d if they pinch and lose, he believes the forwards need to support the d, a d-man may lose the pinch so backup becomes the responsibility of a forward and he attributes the any breakdown in the play on lack of responsibility on the forward's behalf.

Structure can come in many forms and we've seen it gives poor teams opportunities to hang with the better teams, hang not win. Insisting that stars or potential stars play a game that makes them on top of everything responsible defensively even at the expense of their gifts is counter productive because no matter how good a team's structure, stars, the talented win games. Stars must be given license to express their talent at any and all times, winning team's structure needs to support the stars. If you have a Polak you get him to be as good a soldier of your team's structure as possible, a star should also understand structure  but it's the star's responsibility to win the game, they must be set free to do that.

By not playing Rielly on the PP Babs is saying he must be a good soldier, first, last and always. Gardiner altho playing on the PP is a shell of the original Gardiner and no matter what analytics say he could have been much more, all of which TO or any team needs.

So what you're saying is Bacock sucks, and you want Ron Wilson back. Got it.

I had no issues with Wilson, I did have issues with the quality of team he was given to work with. For instance TO possession numbers were better with Wilson that an rendition of RC teams and maybe on par with Babs' Leafs. Wilson encourages offense and responsibility together, with emphasis on offense. I would prefer to see TO win a 6 to 5 game than a snorefest 1 to 0 game. I have a hard time getting excited about my or any team not being able to score because the whole purpose of any game is to clog up the neutral zone.

I remember TO losing to Edmonton years/decades ago 11 to 9, that was entertaining and exciting from first whistle to horn, today's game I feel I can go make a sandwich or whatever and come back and know I haven't missed anything. That sucks and it's not entertaining. I keep hoping that Edmonton gets it together at some point because we all know they're going to score lots and when they do like all good sheep most other teams will try to imitate the best.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I remember TO losing to Edmonton years/decades ago 11 to 9, that was entertaining and exciting from first whistle to horn, today's game I feel I can go make a sandwich or whatever and come back and know I haven't missed anything. That sucks and it's not entertaining. I keep hoping that Edmonton gets it together at some point because we all know they're going to score lots and when they do like all good sheep most other teams will try to imitate the best.

Toronto actually won that game if it's the one you're thinking of. January 13, 1986 - Toronto 11 Edmonton 10. The guy in the Oilers net that night was likely this guy... and looking a lot like this:

Now, there's no less talent in the league now than there was then. In fact, the players are much more talented on the whole. I would assume if you could put Andy Moog in net, with the gear he was wearing here, the scores would make 11-10 look like a trap game.

To your last point, I can promise you no NHL team will knowingly try to replicate Edmonton's model.