PDA

View Full Version : RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

FreshFish
03-14-2014, 08:04 AM
When I say sub-standard culture, I refer to winning. Periods, games, seasons....etc. It's just not there.

I would respectfully disagree, in part, and reluctantly concur, in part. It seems to me that we lack appropriate focus. Priorities aren't clear or are too diffuse. Attention to detail is spread too thin compared to the available resources. Hence my consistent mention of the support staff. A head coach is more of a CEO of a mid-sized business these days. What OGC needs more than anything else, I'd suggest, is a good HR person.

In that regard, not so much a "consultant" as a "second opinion" might be helpful. That is exactly why even a small to mid-sized business has a board of directors, someone to provide perspective on long-term development. ANY coach has to deal with plenty of short-term tactical issues. There also has to be a process for long-term assessment as well. It seems to me that it is in this latter area that OGC is still learning and developing.

In my professional life, I'm quite good at what I do and am recognized for it. I've been at it longer than OGC and am still learning new things and am still getting better at it. No reason to think he won't continue to improve either.

RedWrister
03-14-2014, 08:19 AM
It's actually not a bad idea. Not sure if it would be 100% feasible but it's at least something developed using rational analysis.

Thanks.

sk8tronthepond
03-14-2014, 08:36 AM
In that regard, not so much a "consultant" as a "second opinion" might be helpful. That is exactly why even a small to mid-sized business has a board of directors, someone to provide perspective on long-term development. ANY coach has to deal with plenty of short-term tactical issues. There also has to be a process for long-term assessment as well. It seems to me that it is in this latter area that OGC is still learning and developing.

That is why you have Assistant/Volunteer Coaches (known as support staff)! Decisions whether it is tactical or administrative, should be made in collaboration. You don't know how open SA is to input from his Assistant/Volunteer coaches. Some coaches don't allow input due to the fact that they like to control everything.

Ultimately, game strategy, team play and systems, team personnel, in game adjustments, etc. are the head coaches responsibilities. Some are better at it than others.

FlagDUDE08
03-14-2014, 08:43 AM
That is why you have Assistant/Volunteer Coaches (known as support staff)! Decisions whether it is tactical or administrative, should be made in collaboration. You don't know how open SA is to input from his Assistant/Volunteer coaches. Some coaches don't allow input due to the fact that they like to control everything.

Ultimately, game strategy, team play and systems, team personnel, in game adjustments, etc. are the head coaches responsibilities. Some are better at it than others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHTLIi3erIg

turk181
03-14-2014, 10:28 AM
Brock Higgs signed to an ATO with the Worcester Sharks of the AHL....http://www.sharksahl.com/story.asp?story_id=3841

turk181
03-14-2014, 10:30 AM
Vote today...... http://www.seniorclassaward.com/vote/hockey_2013-14/

engineerhockeyfan
03-14-2014, 10:39 AM
I would respectfully disagree, in part, and reluctantly concur, in part. It seems to me that we lack appropriate focus. Priorities aren't clear or are too diffuse. Attention to detail is spread too thin compared to the available resources. Hence my consistent mention of the support staff. A head coach is more of a CEO of a mid-sized business these days. What OGC needs more than anything else, I'd suggest, is a good HR person.

In that regard, not so much a "consultant" as a "second opinion" might be helpful. That is exactly why even a small to mid-sized business has a board of directors, someone to provide perspective on long-term development. ANY coach has to deal with plenty of short-term tactical issues. There also has to be a process for long-term assessment as well. It seems to me that it is in this latter area that OGC is still learning and developing.

In my professional life, I'm quite good at what I do and am recognized for it. I've been at it longer than OGC and am still learning new things and am still getting better at it. No reason to think he won't continue to improve either.

This is not a business, and cannot be run like one. If it were, we would pay the players and would not lose the best ones to the pros.
How do you have a long range forecast, when the players change every year?
As for the players, they are students first. A very small percentage of them go on to the pros so their focus should be in the classroom.
I don't envy any college hockey coach. There are a very few Yorks and Parkers.
Our coach seems to have a system that he believes in, and it appears that his players don't or can't play it.
It seems to me that the really good coaches adapt to the players that he has at his disposal. And I think that is where SA needs to change.
He needs to shape a system around the talent he has and not just the top five players. JMO

FlagDUDE08
03-14-2014, 11:14 AM
This is not a business, and cannot be run like one. If it were, we would pay the players and would not lose the best ones to the pros.
How do you have a long range forecast, when the players change every year?
As for the players, they are students first. A very small percentage of them go on to the pros so their focus should be in the classroom.
I don't envy any college hockey coach. There are a very few Yorks and Parkers.
Our coach seems to have a system that he believes in, and it appears that his players don't or can't play it.
It seems to me that the really good coaches adapt to the players that he has at his disposal. And I think that is where SA needs to change.
He needs to shape a system around the talent he has and not just the top five players. JMO

Technically it is a business because you have revenues (tickets/concessions) and expenditures. The players are "paid" in the form of scholarships.
Long range forecast is where you set up a flexible system where the flexibility lies in the players you recruit and their talents, and you simply reload year after year.
Obviously you've very much brought up the concept that Appert's system is too rigid. We've seen the same thing year in and year out. Just replace the players, and even the assistants, and it's the same thing. And if he can't understand that after eight years, patience dwindles quickly.

turk181
03-14-2014, 11:22 AM
This is not a business, and cannot be run like one. If it were, we would pay the players and would not lose the best ones to the pros.
How do you have a long range forecast, when the players change every year?
As for the players, they are students first. A very small percentage of them go on to the pros so their focus should be in the classroom.
I don't envy any college hockey coach. There are a very few Yorks and Parkers.
Our coach seems to have a system that he believes in, and it appears that his players don't or can't play it.
It seems to me that the really good coaches adapt to the players that he has at his disposal. And I think that is where SA needs to change.
He needs to shape a system around the talent he has and not just the top five players. JMOAs to the last sentence in your Post.....why recruit a player if you don't think he fits the system you want to run?

FreshFish
03-14-2014, 11:23 AM
How do you have a long range forecast, when the players change every year?

"Long" range = strategy over course of entire season, from 1st day of training to last day of playoffs.

Another excellent analogy, to which you allude indirectly, is that of a curriculum. Any good teacher has a curriculum for the entire semester / course year planned out ahead of time, including benchmarks (also known as mid-term exams, mid-term projects, etc.). While the curriculum is a guide, you cannot stick to it rigidly no matter what; you also have to adapt depending upon the progress of your students. Can you accelerate the curriculum based on better-than-expected progress? Do you need to include some remedial work due to less-than-expected ability or knowledge? etc.

Examples that could fit either the business analogy or the curriculum analogy (I merely used that with which I was more familiar):
"Here is your individual skill level today: here are the benchmarks for where we want your individual skill level to be at these key measuring points during the season."
"Here is the strategy we ultimately want to employ on the power play, once we succeed at certain benchmarks. Here are the steps we will take to get there, and meanwhile here are the interim strategies we will use until we do."
"Here is our practice schedule, a schematic for the season, which we will adjust depending upon actual development compared to target.
-- Here is the practice schedule for the month;
-- and for the week,
-- and for the practice session we are about to start.
... "xx minutes on these individual fundamentals, broken out into groups for forwards, defensemen, and goalies. Here are our coordination drills, for the forwards as a group, and defense + goalies as a group. Here are our situation-specific drills: how do we respond to a press, how do we break down opponents' defense x, y, z. Here are our special teams drills."


If you look at the size of the budget of many Division I programs, they have a larger budget to work with than many businesses do. and how can you say the players are not "paid" when many of them indeed do receive scholarships? that can be worth tens of thousands of dollars!


If you take any analogy too literally, it will eventually break down; the concept is to use it for guidance, not as an instruction manual.


At certain elements, we can be pleased and proud of the program. at other elements, we can be frustrated. It appears to me that there are two different and complementary considerations: the holistic overall strategic plan is incomplete, and the day-by-day tactics are inconsistent. Both can be fixed, and we do see signs that progress is ongoing, though we are frustrated in that it is occurring in fits and starts rather than smoothly.


Finally, there is no dishonor in doing your absolute best and having forced someone better to extend themselves to win. I have played on teams that won over opponents who were exerting themselves to the very best of their abilities, and I have played on teams that played to the very best of our abilities yet were beaten by someone even better.

To the extent that we did not beat teams we could have beaten by better mental effort, that is the source of our discontent.

FreshFish
03-14-2014, 11:27 AM
Hmm....I guess I just put about a month's worth of drivel into one post! :o

turk181
03-14-2014, 11:56 AM
Brock Higgs signed to an ATO with the Worcester Sharks of the AHL....http://www.sharksahl.com/story.asp?story_id=3841congrats also to Beef who signed an ATO with the Bridgeport Sound Tigers of the AHL... http://blog.ctnews.com/fornabaio/2014/03/14/poulin-home-leboeuf-in-friday-morning-skate/

hockeymascot
03-14-2014, 11:57 AM
"Long" range = strategy over course of entire season, from 1st day of training to last day of playoffs.

Another excellent analogy, to which you allude indirectly, is that of a curriculum. Any good teacher has a curriculum for the entire semester / course year planned out ahead of time, including benchmarks (also known as mid-term exams, mid-term projects, etc.). While the curriculum is a guide, you cannot stick to it rigidly no matter what; you also have to adapt depending upon the progress of your students. Can you accelerate the curriculum based on better-than-expected progress? Do you need to include some remedial work due to less-than-expected ability or knowledge? etc.

Examples that could fit either the business analogy or the curriculum analogy (I merely used that with which I was more familiar):
"Here is your individual skill level today: here are the benchmarks for where we want your individual skill level to be at these key measuring points during the season."
"Here is the strategy we ultimately want to employ on the power play, once we succeed at certain benchmarks. Here are the steps we will take to get there, and meanwhile here are the interim strategies we will use until we do."
"Here is our practice schedule, a schematic for the season, which we will adjust depending upon actual development compared to target.
-- Here is the practice schedule for the month;
-- and for the week,
-- and for the practice session we are about to start.
... "xx minutes on these individual fundamentals, broken out into groups for forwards, defensemen, and goalies. Here are our coordination drills, for the forwards as a group, and defense + goalies as a group. Here are our situation-specific drills: how do we respond to a press, how do we break down opponents' defense x, y, z. Here are our special teams drills."


If you look at the size of the budget of many Division I programs, they have a larger budget to work with than many businesses do. and how can you say the players are not "paid" when many of them indeed do receive scholarships? that can be worth tens of thousands of dollars!


If you take any analogy too literally, it will eventually break down; the concept is to use it for guidance, not as an instruction manual.


At certain elements, we can be pleased and proud of the program. at other elements, we can be frustrated. It appears to me that there are two different and complementary considerations: the holistic overall strategic plan is incomplete, and the day-by-day tactics are inconsistent. Both can be fixed, and we do see signs that progress is ongoing, though we are frustrated in that it is occurring in fits and starts rather than smoothly.


Finally, there is no dishonor in doing your absolute best and having forced someone better to extend themselves to win. I have played on teams that won over opponents who were exerting themselves to the very best of their abilities, and I have played on teams that played to the very best of our abilities yet were beaten by someone even better.

To the extent that we did not beat teams we could have beaten by better mental effort, that is the source of our discontent.

Now why didn't I think of that? Bottle it, sell it, and then retire. Any buyers?

Ralph Baer
03-14-2014, 12:08 PM
Brock Higgs signed to an ATO with the Worcester Sharks of the AHL....http://www.sharksahl.com/story.asp?story_id=3841

Renssealer :rolleyes:

FreshFish
03-14-2014, 01:47 PM
Any buyers?

Wooden, John. Auriemma, Geno. Brooks, Herb. Harkness, Ned. Jackson, Phil. Auerbach, Red. Belicheck, Bill. Lombardi, Vince. Saban, Nick. Probably a few dozen more. Ask FS23, he's got a whole list.

vicb
03-14-2014, 02:19 PM
Less than 4 hrs to game time you 5. You have until 7PM tonight.

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.ph...-Playoffs-2014

1st round contestants who have not submitted picks:

arickeo
Jack T. Ripper
Nyhockeyguy
ufanbill
UnionTDX04

engineerhockeyfan
03-14-2014, 02:23 PM
As to the last sentence in your Post.....why recruit a player if you don't think he fits the system you want to run?

Bobby Orr did not fit the Boston Bruins system when they brought him in. Do you think they should have passed on him?

FreshFish
03-14-2014, 02:52 PM
why recruit a player if you don't think he fits the system you want to run?

It's quite interesting to look at the UCLA teams under John Wooden. It's a tricky difference between "system" and "style of play." They had a short fast team in their earlier years, then a big-man dominated team with Alcindor/Jabbar and then another different kind of team with Walton.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wooden#UCLA


in 1964, the final piece of the puzzle fell into place when assistant coach Jerry Norman persuaded Wooden that the team's small-sized players and fast-paced offense would be complemented by the adoption of a zone press defense.[31] The result was a dramatic increase in scoring, giving UCLA a powerhouse team that went undefeated on its way to the school's first basketball national championship.
....
The Bruins' 1967 incarnation returned with a vengeance with sophomore star Lew Alcindor, reclaiming not only the conference title, but the national crown with an undefeated season, and then retaining it every season but one until Wooden's retirement in 1975.
The 1970 squad proved that nobody was indispensable to the success of the UCLA program, not even Lew Alcindor, as Sidney Wicks, Henry Bibby, Curtis Rowe, and John Vallely carried the Bruins to their fourth consecutive NCAA title
The 1972-1973 season was one of the most memorable campaigns in the history of UCLA basketball. Freshmen became eligible to play varsity ball for the first time, and the Bruins went 30-0 and stretched their winning streak to a record 75 straight in breezing through the NCAA tournament [with freshman center] Bill Walton.

So four completely different incarnations as far as "style of play": short and fast then tall and dominating then all-around athleticism then tall and quick.

However, did Wooden adapt to his players, or was Wooden's "system" so thorough and so comprehensive that any collection of talented, coachable athletes could succeed with it??

I only remember the last few years of Wooden's career, I was too young to pay attention to most of it.


I did get a chance to watch a coaching genius closely for about twelve years (and counting), though. When we first moved to Connecticut, I was idly changing channels (not nearly as many back then), and checked to see what was on public television. Much to my surprise, it was a women's college basketball game. What is women's college basketball doing on public tv??? it was surprisingly entertaining, much more fascinating than I had imagined possible. They have a unique situation at UConn, a "head coach" and an "associate head coach." They have had specials that televise how practices work, interviews, the coach had a weekly show that broke down that week's games in detail. an incredible amount of detail.

Here was a man (actually, a man / women co-head coach tandem) that had a "system" that could work with any players who were willing to cooperate. the style of play was quite different from one year to the next, but you could always count on three things no matter what.
-- they'd work really hard no matter what the score was, because the goal was not to win, it was to be the best you possibly could be. you were competing against your own weakness, not the other team. you see players diving after loose balls when they are up by 30 or down by 10. be in the moment and focus on what was in front of you in that moment, and always do your best and never make excuses. the hardest part of the game is mental, your toughest opponent is always your own temptation to be lazy every now and then.
-- They'd always have a ferocious defense.
-- if you watched closely during the course of a season, you could see how individual players would improve their fundamentals: footwork, boxing out, setting picks. they are particularly good at taking a gangly awkward teenage girl and turning her into an athletic, skilled, polished young woman.

Lots of people will point to his stars, and of course they are important. but it is the way they develop and utilize role players year after year that makes the program so dominant.

and even after 29 years, he keeps getting better. he is still learning, still experimenting, still adding new material to his repetoire.

Yeah, these are some of the most exceptional coaches who have ever coached in any sport. if you pay attention to the details you can really learn a lot that is transferable to other parts of life or to other sports.

turk181
03-14-2014, 03:09 PM
Beef.....http://www.rpiathletics.com/news/2014/3/14/MHOCK_0314144633.aspx?path=hockey .............and Higgsy....http://www.rpiathletics.com/news/2014/3/13/MHOCK_0313143007.aspx?path=hockey

Ralph Baer
03-14-2014, 03:09 PM
Less than 4 hrs to game time you 5. You have until 7PM tonight. Stop rubbing it in. :(