An Open Letter to Coach Umile

[JB]

Re: Friends

I think I would go to them too if (at age 50) my other option for a Friday/Saturday night was going home to my mother .

???

[RockTheWhit]

Re: Friends

???

Lassonde lives with his mother and catches some flak about it.

[WildKitty]

In re to publicity, and coaching philosophy

Actually, something that's stuck in my craw for a few years now...

On a radio interview, Umile was asked about the postseason - unfortunately, my mind is a sieve and I don't remember the exact question - and Umile told the radio personalities that he doesn't (or didn't, at the time) consider it his job to get the team excited in the post-season.

If he considers it his job now, our last game certainly didn't show it. Maybe the Cornell game, but certainly not the RIT fiasco.

Now, I know in my heart that, barring some gross misconduct, UNH will not dismiss Umile except on his terms. I have seen (IMO): stellar goalies, average to better-than-average forwards, and average to less-than-average defense-men. Break that down amongst assistants as you will. I don't think I need to state that I agree some coaching needs to change. Aside from the assistants (who probably won't change, just a gut feeling), how about just the perspective Umile takes? How long was it before he started using a time-out strategy! Or the near-complete lack of 4th line use in the last two Vermont games. We (a few friends, rather, I've more been an observer) mock his crossed-arm, leaned-back stance, particularly when he isn't working the team up in low situations.

One can (and many probably will) argue that it is the job of the captains to work the team up. Yes. That is the case. And when the captains get disheartened - which happens, when you're not prepared for an opponent and realize it three minutes into the first period - whose job is it then? Second period of the RIT game, towards the middle/end, the team on the bench was sitting. Umile was leaning. The play was sucking. Okay, we can say we expected to win it, and therefore did not prepare well enough. You cannot blame that all on the team, or on the captains, or on the coach. Everyone was at fault. Who is in the position to prevent that from happening?

In summary, (for those with AD(H)D ) I truly doubt our current coaching staff is going anywhere, and I feel it is high time (three seasons ago or more) that this staff seriously reconsider their philosophy. Leaning back against the glass in a tied game at the NCAA Regionals isn't gonna bring us anything.

Vent over. Sorry for the steam.

[ChinaHockey]

Re: An Open Letter to Coach Umile

I would like to see UNH be more of a hard working team and not so transition hockey based. I would like to see them out work teams, not get a goal off a break. I love a speed game, don't get me wrong. But you can't win 'em all on mid ice turnovers. The run and gun is a great way to win in the regular season, but they need adjust this style when games really count. I hope the existing staff can adjust. I also would love to know why star players that are choosing the college route decide on the BC's/BU's (etc.) and not UNH. You don't need the best players in the world to make the Frozen Four, history has taught us that much. But what is missing when it comes down to UNH and another school? Is it the coach? Is it the style of play? Just wondering.

[Chuck Murray]

Passive philosophy

On a radio interview, Umile was asked about the postseason - unfortunately, my mind is a sieve and I don't remember the exact question - and Umile told the radio personalities that he doesn't (or didn't, at the time) consider it his job to get the team excited in the post-season.

Assuming this quote is even close to accurate ... this could explain a lot.

One can (and many probably will) argue that it is the job of the captains to work the team up. Yes. That is the case. And when the captains get disheartened - which happens, when you're not prepared for an opponent and realize it three minutes into the first period - whose job is it then? Second period of the RIT game, towards the middle/end, the team on the bench was sitting. Umile was leaning. The play was sucking. Okay, we can say we expected to win it, and therefore did not prepare well enough. You cannot blame that all on the team, or on the captains, or on the coach. Everyone was at fault. Who is in the position to prevent that from happening?

I think the argument - if there is one - about who is ultimately responsible for motivating a team turns on several factors. Head and shoulders above ALL factors though, is the experience level of the players, and whether players themselves are mature and experienced enough to fully grasp the mantle of leadership. Just because you slap a "C" or an "A" on a kid's sweater does not necessarily bestow magical leadership qualities upon them. Players who are so-called "born leaders" are a rare breed; players who learn leadership traits are far more common, but usually it doesn't happen overnight. And a large majority of players in ANY sport are probably better followers than leaders.

At the pro level, I've always found the example of the Detroit Red Wings of the 1990's to be instructive. From the outset of that decade, the Wings had amassed an amazing collection of talent that would go on to serve as the core of a team that would be at or near the top of the NHL for maybe longer than any NHL team in the post-expansion era. But in the early years of that run, it was a team most associated with great regular seasons that turned into premature post-season exits against lesser opponents year after year.

Exit Bryan Murray, whose assortment of puzzled post-season "deer in the headlights", what-just-happened-to-us-again looks became a bizzare rite of Spring. Enter Scotty Bowman, someone who knew how to win when the rubber hit the road. Through the transformation of Steve Yzerman (who'd already been wearing the "C" for a decade into his early 30's by the time Bowman arrived) from a very talented yet one-dimensional offensive player to a legitimate two-way, team-first, leader-by-example type, the Wings learn how to win the big ones. Yzerman goes from being a guy who got cut from Team Canada at the apex of his scoring years, to a national icon who wears the "C" for his country when he is well past his prime (and now acts as the GM of the 2010 gold-medal Olympic champions). Does any of that happen without the introduction of Bowman to "teach" the Wings - and especially Yzerman - about true leadership and the ethos of winning? I doubt it.

OK, you say ... but the Wings were loaded with world-class talents, so it's not comparable to UNH's situation. And that's probably right. So let's look at the world of the NFL, and the example of Vince Lombardi, who walked into a Green Bay team that was the dregs of the league, quickly turned them into a winning team in his first year (1959), came up about 10 yards short in the 1960 NFL title game (his only post-season loss EVER), and then led them to an unparalleled string of five (5) NFL titles over the next seven seasons. All by transforming basically the same core of players his predecessor had left for him after the 1958 season. And the funny thing is, after taking a year off after retiring in the wake of SB II, he was basically in the process of doing the same exact thing with the Washington Redskins, when cancer claimed him on the eve of the 1970 season, allowing George Allen to eventually take over where Lombardi had left off, turning that moribund franchise around.

He did it without Johnny Unitas ... without Jim Brown ... without Dick Butkus or Gayle Sayers, or Deacon Jones, or even freakin' Homer Jones. No flash, no blue chips (save possibly the mercurial Paul Hornung) ... but Lombardi taught his teams how to win on AND off the field, and by the time his era in Green Bay was at a close, his players probably didn't need him to motivate them. But he was still out there regardless, leading from the front.

Bringing that forward to the current state of UNH hockey ... it's easy to say that, yeah, the seniors should lead, and the coach shouldn't have to be the rah-rah guy. But usually in college sports, your team's leadership is going to be experiencing their first year as captains when they hit their senior year. If I'm the head coach ... does it feel right for me to passively delegate all motivational leadership functions to a kid/kids who are half your age (less?), and have a fraction of your big-game experience (win or lose) at this level?

If you haven't come to the same conclusion as me yet ... next time you see Jack Parker behind the bench at the Beanpot or in an NCAA tourney game, tell me what you see. And tell me if you EVER see one of his teams come out flat or unprepared. BU obviously doesn't always win those games, but they never ever get caught by surprise or downright embarrassed. You can say the same thing about BC under York (although his style is more restrained), and you used to be able to say the same thing about UMaine under Walshy.

Talent and tactics definitely play into the picture, no doubt. But there is a HUGE piece of the game that gets played in the players' heads and hearts - especially in hockey - and to not maximize your efforts to get the most out of your players on the motivational front is a major oversight. And if Coach Umile's approach is to delegate that stuff to kids who are still beginners in the leadership game, I think he's missing the boat, and badly. JMHO.

[unh_hockey]

Re: Passive philosophy

Talent and tactics definitely play into the picture, no doubt. But there is a HUGE piece of the game that gets played in the players' heads and hearts - especially in hockey - and to not maximize your efforts to get the most out of your players on the motivational front is a major oversight. And if Coach Umile's approach is to delegate that stuff to kids who are still beginners in the leadership game, I think he's missing the boat, and badly. JMHO.

agreed.

I made a thread about it with a few helpful books on tactics and leadership. Fact is Umile is a general of an army that gets routed continuously on the battle field at the highest level. Yet, he seemingly refuses to change any of his tactics. This is why he gets beat by superior generals. York on the other hand is a master tactician who gets his troops on the same page, understands the landscape on a scrupulous level, and can adjust when needed in order to win time and time again.

Victories in warfare are remembered by the actions of the leaders, not individual efforts of the troops. Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Hannibal, etc.

okay, i'll stop with the military analogies.

[Gibber]

Re: An Open Letter to Coach Umile

Our good friend Gibber has been on the board of directors for several years because he took the time to make himself known, and put the effort in to earn a spot on the board.

Can you believe its already been 11 years!?

[Greg Ambrose]

Re: Passive philosophy

If you haven't come to the same conclusion as me yet ... next time you see Jack Parker behind the bench at the Beanpot or in an NCAA tourney game, tell me what you see. And tell me if you EVER see one of his teams come out flat or unprepared. BU obviously doesn't always win those games, but they never ever get caught by surprise or downright embarrassed. You can say the same thing about BC under York (although his style is more restrained), and you used to be able to say the same thing about UMaine under Walshy.

Chuck, I love your references to Homer Jones and George Allen (father of the Macaca guy). How many people on this board know who they are?

Don't take too much offense Chuck when I tell you that your description of Parker is ridiculous. Given their performance this year, or that of the last few years (save 1999), BU teams have frequently come out flat, and perhaps unprepared. You only have to look at their abysmal performance against UNH in Janaury, or the way they laid down against Maine in the HE semis. Personally, I think Parker is not the dynamic coach he once was. He still brings in a boatload of blue chippers, last year's team is evidence of that, and he still gets his teams to the NCAA's (except this year), but last year he was lucky to get out of Manchester, never mind the luck involved in winning the whole thing. Ever read Parker's rants after a losing effort. I've never seen a coach throw his team under the bus more than him. Something Umile never does BTW.

I'll use this as a jumping off point for Umile. First, let's can the military analogies. He is coaching a college hockey team, not Patton's army. Umile has been the coach for 20 years and he is what he is at this point. He is a pretty fiery guy (I've been on the receiving end a couple of times) and exudes blue and white to these players all the time. Just go into the locker room and see how the history of the program is displayed. That sort of think is very important to Umile. But ultimately I think that, always, it is up to the players to go out there and do what they are supposedly capable of doing. Umile, or any coach, can give the old Knute Rockne speech, but if the players aren't listening and/or aren't capable, what's a coach supposed to do.

Without naming names, UNH has had a lot of players (including some great ones) run through the program in the nearly 40 years I've been watching, who had the "attitude" from day one. On the other hand, we've had players, not always the greatest ones, who would go through a brick wall to get the job done. Guys like Gould, Mitrovic, Thomson, Krog, Haydar, Gare, Prudden, Saviano come to mind. The bottom line is that I have seen enough of UNH Hockey over the years to know that you can't always peg the guy who is going to be the team leader. But, ultimately, it does have to be the guys on the ice who get it done, not the suits behind the bench.

As far as Umile on the PR stuff, he's better than he used to be. He's gotten the coach-speak stuff down pat now, and he is good at schmoozing one-on-one, but he is never going to let it all hang out. He's loyal to his players to a fault, so to ask him about a specific player, or a specific play where there might be some criticism involved, he's not going to respond in a way that most of us would like. I've gotten used to that when I talk to him and proceed accordingly. He can be a good interview, but only on his terms. I guess that's no different than any other CEO, politician, or coach, is it?

Ultimately all the criticism of the coach and the program comes down to talent. If we had it at the level we did 10 years ago, we'd probably be planning that trip to Detroit right now. Let's face it, the last two years Umile got more out of his teams that one could ever expect, especially when you consider how poor or thin the senior classes were. I will admit that 2008 was a huge disappointment, but is it Umile's fault that (not to single him out) that Kevin Regan picked the game vs. ND to have his worst performance of the season? Stuff like this still drives me crazy, but given that my disappointments with outcomes began in March, 1974 with the overtime loss to RPI, I've been hardened a little bit.

Carry on.

[RockTheWhit]

Re: An Open Letter to Coach Umile

When talking about coaches, I think we need to remember that this is hockey and not football or basketball. What I mean is that Umile cannot coach every play from the bench. He cannot pause the game during a 2 on 1 and tell player A to shoot low blocker side and for player B to crash the net. His job is to get the guys in the right position to succeed. By getting his team to the tournament every year, he is putting them in that position.
Additionally, the reason we are talking about having him step down is because he has not gotten it done in the ncaa tournament. We're not talking about a best of seven series where UNH was swept. We're talking about single elimination playoff hockey where one bounce or the inside of a post vs. the outside of a post can mean all the difference in the world (see 1999).
New blood in the form of new young assistants is definitely needed, but those who feel Umile needs to go because he can't get it done in the tournament should probably reevaluate things.

[huesie]

Re: An Open Letter to Coach Umile

Perhaps the reason that UNH doesn't get top flight talent with any regularity is that the program repeatedly fails on the big stage. The players change on a yearly basis (with defections and graduations) but the coaching staff and game planning remains the same.

Even casual observers are probably aware of UNH's repeated short comings in tournament play.

I often wonder how Umile's sometime deer in the headlight looks, when on ice play is awful play on TV to prospective recruits, parents and advisers?

Given the lack of an NC or even a HE championship since 2004 and poor showings when the chance to shine is there why not choose a program with a championship history instead of just a contender/pretender?

[Chuck Murray]

Success begets success - heart and soul

Don't take too much offense Chuck when I tell you that your description of Parker is ridiculous. Given their performance this year, or that of the last few years (save 1999), BU teams have frequently come out flat, and perhaps unprepared. You only have to look at their abysmal performance against UNH in Janaury, or the way they laid down against Maine in the HE semis.

I should have been more clear, having re-read what I wrote. I meant to say that Coach Parker's teams never come out flat or unprepared for a Beanpot or NCAA tourney game. I'm sure that's still probably a little flattering overall, but the larger point I'm going for there is that the BU program does not lay these monstrous eggs in their high-profile games. Neither does BC in recent seasons, and when Walshy was still with us, neither did UMaine. Any team can have a bad game in the spotlight once in awhile. Unfortunately, it's a *trait* that has become synonymous with UNH over the last decade.

Personally, I think Parker is not the dynamic coach he once was. He still brings in a boatload of blue chippers, last year's team is evidence of that, and he still gets his teams to the NCAA's (except this year), but last year he was lucky to get out of Manchester, never mind the luck involved in winning the whole thing. Ever read Parker's rants after a losing effort. I've never seen a coach throw his team under the bus more than him. Something Umile never does BTW.

We probably agree more than you might think on the above ... but in the end, Coach Parker gets these talented kids for a reason ... and it's not just because they're a big city school, or else Northeastern would be a perennial HE powerhouse. And it's hardly a secret that Parker can turn quickly on a player that falls out of favor, for whatever reason. Yet that doesn't seem to stop more top-talent kids from coming anyway. Maybe because perception has become reality at this stage of the respective careers of Coach Parker and Coach Umile, which leaves Parker admired for being an outwardly feisty and demanding winner in the big games, and Umile discounted and scorned at times for being an outwardly passive and resigned also ran? I think that's what huesie is driving at in the previous post ... and it's tough to dispute.

But ultimately I think that, always, it is up to the players to go out there and do what they are supposedly capable of doing. Umile, or any coach, can give the old Knute Rockne speech, but if the players aren't listening and/or aren't capable, what's a coach supposed to do.

Agreed. But isn't Coach Umile ultimately responsible for choosing most/all of the players who come to play at UNH? It's not like he's a public HS coach who is at the whim of his town's general enrollment, and the quality of the town's grass roots programs in his sport(s). He ultimately gets the final say on admittance to the program if they're not capable, and he can say "yes" or "no" to icetime (or even dressing) IF they aren't listening.

Without naming names, UNH has had a lot of players (including some great ones) run through the program in the nearly 40 years I've been watching, who had the "attitude" from day one. On the other hand, we've had players, not always the greatest ones, who would go through a brick wall to get the job done. Guys like Gould, Mitrovic, Thomson, Krog, Haydar, Gare, Prudden, Saviano come to mind. The bottom line is that I have seen enough of UNH Hockey over the years to know that you can't always peg the guy who is going to be the team leader. But, ultimately, it does have to be the guys on the ice who get it done, not the suits behind the bench.

I bet if we both wrote down our respective lists of the "attitude" kids from the last 10 years of the program, there would be lots of identical names on both lists. It's not really that hard to see, if you know what to look for.

Now at the risk of some derision, I'm going to wander in with my personal experiences (admittedly on a much lower level) on the huge importance of correctly identifying leadership within any given team. I'm not sure that a coach faces a more important and critical task than to identify its leaders, and put them in leadership roles for the present and/or future of the team. Getting those decisions right or wrong will impact the chemistry of a team accordingly. And in the end, it is a coach's job to get to know ALL of their players, and in doing so get a clear sense of who your true leaders will be.

If you get your chemistry right, and you have your true leaders setting an example on AND off the ice/field/pitch, your job gets exponentially easier. There are players that thrive on the extra responsibilities that come with leadership, and couldn't give a toss about their stats - only about team *stats* like wins and losses. Likewise, there are sometimes mega-talented kids who are not good fits for leadership roles. Overlooking a true leader, or anointing a non-leader can both have similar consequences for any team.

But going back to a point I tried to make a few posts ago ... regardless of where you go with your leadership decisions, as a coach, you cannot just delegate away your own leadership and (yes) motivational responsibilities. It's just too important to leave for a relatively young player to shoulder that burden alone, or even share with a small collection of young teammates.

I've been very fortunate to have had the opportunities to see how this all plays out on a very personal level over the last several years. I can say with no qualms that teams I've coached have often come up against opponents with better tactical coaches having far more technical experience than me, and many of those teams have probably had better talent than we did, too.

But our teams have somehow managed to overcome those obstacles more often than not, and I can't ever remember an instance where our teams have failed to show up for a big game (albeit at their level). All I will say is that a coach in ANY setting has a great opportunity to set the framework for their team/program in all areas of its operation. And the ultimate level of success in any sport is rarely as simple as just having the best talent, or using the best tactics. Players need to buy in with their heads and hearts, too. And if you can't make that connection with your players ... then you owe it to them to ask yourself some very tough questions about why they're not buying in.

Again ... I'm not advocating for Coach Umile to step down, but I do think he has to selflessly ask himself those tough questions about what HE needs to do better to get where he so clearly would like to be. It would be a great story of perseverance if he were to somehow get to the pinnacle someday. And even if he doesn't, he deserves nothing less than our total respect for what he's done over the last 20 years. It's been a remarkable run for sure.

But getting to the pinnacle isn't going to happen by accident, just continuing down the path the UNH program has been trending over the last few years. And "puck luck" has little to do with an almost unprecedented run of lopsided losses to big fish and little minnows alike in spotlight games that can make or break the competitive reputation of your program. JMHO.

[unh_hockey]

Re: Success begets success - heart and soul

Ever read Parker's rants after a losing effort. I've never seen a coach throw his team under the bus more than him. Something Umile never does BTW.

Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.

[Chuck Murray]

Success begets success - heart and soul

and on, and on, and on...Were the first 9,000 posts as long as the last 50?

Probably.

Since you first posted this thread with the gall to presume you had heartfelt advice that Coach Umile needed to listen to, this thread has been more about you than anything else.

If you say so.

Do you honestly think that coaching adolescent soccer teams qualifies you to advise any NCAA Division 1 hockey coach? This is a fan forum, not the coaches' corner.

No, it doesn't. But then again, I do know what it's like to have won the last game of the season - several times actually. But I should ignore that, right?

If anyone really needs to remind themselves how vital and successful Coach Umile has been and continues to be, I suggest you look up some of the interviews with JvR about why he came to UNH and what Coach Umile meant to his career (not to mention the many former players who continue to speak very highly of him).

That's a swell idea. After all, JvR's UNH career was dotted with big-time performances in the games that mattered most. Oh, wait ...

I've been genuine and honest in my praise and appreciation for what Coach Umile has accomplished; looking at your tag, I'm guessing that you remember all too well what most of the '80's looked like for the UNH program during the final years of Coach Holt's reign. Not pretty, was it? Maybe you don't agree that there are parallels between then and now? Fair enough. But I do, and I haven't seen you contribute anything to convince me otherwise.

Coach Holt's former players were/are virtually unanimous in praise of their coach, too. So while it's great that many of Coach Umile's former players continue to speak very highly of him too, I'm not sure it goes to the point here? With all due respect, it does nothing to address concerns about a gradual yet steady decline of the program in recent seasons.

... drats, I was doing so much better with brief responses 'til that last paragraph

[Onion Man]

Re: An Open Letter to Coach Umile

I also would love to know why star players that are choosing the college route decide on the BC's/BU's (etc.) and not UNH.

Are you serious? Boston College and Boston U. play in Boston, they have proven track records to get kids into the NHL, they play in the Beanpot, they are fantastic academic institutions, and both are coached by two of the greatest coaches to ever wear a whistle. UNH has none of those.

Besides that, I can't imagine why else...

[unh_hockey]

Re: An Open Letter to Coach Umile

Are you serious? Boston College and Boston U. play in Boston, they have proven track records to get kids into the NHL, they play in the Beanpot, they are fantastic academic institutions, and both are coached by two of the greatest coaches to ever wear a whistle. UNH has none of those.

Besides that, I can't imagine why else...

sorry but riverstone > beanpot.