Re: Boston University 2010-11 Part III - Is That So Much To Ask?
Based on what I've seen, what I've heard from players and what I've heard from Parker, this year's captains (and other leaders) have done a much better job than last year's. There's no doubt that last year's team struggled with the championship hangover all year, and the captains certainly weren't exempt from that. Some of the upperclassmen had the NHL looming on the horizon, and I think the combination of looking back on the title and looking ahead to the NHL resulted in them not being focused enough on the here and now. Having been around that team as much as I was, I'm honestly not sure what Parker could've done differently. He tried pretty much everything to get the ship righted and it just seemed like none of it sunk in. You could say that's evidence of him not being able to connect with players any more, but I think it was more that guys just didn't care enough to let it sink in. Shattenkirk even admitted after the season that he could've been a much better captain. As Parker put it at one point, their "give-a-**** lever" was way down.
This year's team is completely different. Connolly and Pereira aren't looking behind them or ahead of them. Their effort and focus are always there, and I think because of that, most of the younger guys' effort and focus are usually there. I think some of the underclassmen have certainly been inconsistent at times, but I can't think of too many players who were consistently very good as freshmen. I do think this team's struggles are mostly because of its youth. That's not a knock on any of the freshmen, just a statement of fact. They're a young team that's still learning as it goes. Obviously none of this excuses the losses to Brown and Harvard, but stinkers happen. No sense dwelling on them.
I think next year's team will be very good and will be back to the level BU fans expect it to be at. I don't anticipate there being more than one early departure, and obviously Connolly will be back as captain, so there shouldn't be any dropoff in leadership.
At the end of the day, be it a coach or a manager, you are ultimately responsible for whatever the result may be. When you have 100% control over who gets recruited, who gets signed, who stays and goes etc. then anything that happens stops at one desk.
If the captains are not leaders there are a few things that come to mind: who recruited them, why does the team or staff think they should be captains, what has he done to set expectations for them, how often do they meet with the coach in a small group; the idea of having multiple captains makes sense only if there are multiple qualified candidates.
In 38 years one should develop the capability to sniff out and avoid certain problems...maybe one of Parker's strengths was managing the hard-nosed southie guys and when we started going to national development players etc. (which is necessary in my mind) he doesn't have the same understanding of what shoes they have walked in and what shoes they hope to walk in. It is possible the 'you'd be painting bridges' type mentality from the 70-80's doesn't apply to a kid who grew up in New Jersey or LA and has played on an elite travel team since he was 7.
A team can afford some issues with its head coach's ability to relate to the players if the assistants are really strong in that area. If the assistants aren't getting it done then the HC better be firing on all cylinders all the time
The job description doesn't say win only when nothing goes against you and the real measure of a coach isn't winning when you have the best squad, it is also winning when you don't have all the studs.
And I can tell you I'd never go into anybody's office and tell them "gee the staff I hired and lead just doesn't seem to care"...it would be easier to replace me than the whole staff and if the whole staff did need to go then, since I hired them, I'd still be the first head to roll.
Personal accountability is one of the simplest, yet challenging, things to accomplish.
