Re: LSSU Laker Hockey 2012-2013, Part 2
When some posters complained about how a player is treated, Lakers2Glory just happened to be in class with him, or saw him drunk in a bar, or saw him being horrible at practice. At the end, he persistently backs the gentleman coach.
He is just doing his job, but I just wonder why nobody is calling him a sister, a girl friend or a frustrated friend ?
We have feedback from the same pro players, but we don't seem to be getting the same story (may be because they know you are doing your job … unless it is just as true as the class, the bar etc.).
Back to root causes which doesn't seem to be a popular subject.
AnchorsAway, how can you be so candid ? Would it be different if he was manipulating ? I am just asking.
Being a player’s coach is not a weakness. It is actually becoming a must, but if you don’t like "players coaches", you will love Roque who has never been "players coach" even when he was assistant (when he was supposed to be); why would he be a "players coach" now ?
Some corridor chit-chatting is totally irrelevant, and no player is fooled. When failing to meet the minimum rules that apply to any coaching style, like integrity, consistency, self-control, exemplarity, empathy or communication, being too tough or too friendly is not the problem.
When behaviors vary from morning to evening, weekdays to weekend, pet to scapegoat, enthusiasm to anger, without any known reason, players just don’t pay attention anymore. Can someone suggest a better cause for inconsistency?
Players leave, but the coaches don’t. The coaching job market is small, and if winning may take care of everything when in place, employers hiring a new headcoach (or even assistant) will avoid borderline personalities, even with significant sporting achievements.
Players don't leave just because of a distaste for the coach. Only a few really hate him, which shouldn’t happen anyway. The others just don't give a d@mn, although they have fun mocking him. Nobody gets respect without showing respect.
They leave when they have an opening and consider their chances are peaking. “Advisors” take care of the openings. Some may put their studies and potential degree in the balance, while it won’t make any difference for others.
Recruiters also consider they will do a better job maturing and developing the player, which they might not do when dealing with many other schools.
Comparing with recognized coaches and exceptional players is just stupid, and picking a few exceptions doesn’t make a trend, especially when a player doesn’t display the same performance level before-during-after his stay in the custody of of the current coach.
Those who are still waiting for the next season to make up their mind, they make me think about a blind man shooting arrows at a target and incidentally hitting it after misses.
Statistically it may take him nine other shots before he incidentally scores again, but there will also be people telling that he can now see … and some will buy it.
There is an awful lot of ground on the spectrum that lies between being a "players coach" and being "manipulative". Nowhere did I suggest that he become a spectacle of a coach whose behavior flys off the handle, is illogically inconsistent or anything close to manipulative. You claim that Roque is anything but a "players coach" now or when he was an assitant; to that I would offer my thoughts on what I mean by a players coach and what I see out of Roque. I consider a players coach to be someone who when push comes to shove is more likely to ensure that the players are eschewed from the conversation of blame, and more often than not runs things the way the majority of players would ideally have it done, even if they may not be what is best for them.
I know this about Jim Roque, he has presided over several seasons where the Lakers season arc takes a decline in the second half of the season. There are several possible explanations for this, one being fatigue, something that is directly attributed to conditioning, which in hockey includes long, puckless skating drills, line to line, etc. which everyone knows players hate to do...why? Because they're grueling and no fun....but what is fun? Drills with shooting, and competitions. Have you ever been to any Jim Roque practices at Taffy? I have, and I have yet to see any grueling conditioning drills that build those much needed late season legs and stamina...what I have seen is a lot of standing around, with every drill involving pucks, not to mention the well publicized shootout competition where the winner eats the apple and the loser eats an onion....that is a really cute idea for a pee-wee team but this is division 1 hockey. I have never heard any anecdotes of great coaches at any serious level of hockey involving such a juvenile practice regimen on the regular. If the players were being driven into the ground day in, day out at practice then I could see it but they are not and until they are, to use an analogy, if the kids aren't eating their veggies then why are you letting them eat dessert anyway? This is what I mean by being a players coach.
The Lakers have had their fair share of disappointing losses during the Roque era where the caliber of play was sluggish, lazy, undisciplined, etc. Being a former hockey player myself (and a human for that matter) I know that no one likes to be blamed for poor results, even if you may very well be culpable, and it is easier to look for someone else to throw the blame at instead. It is even worse to have blame placed on you from one of your own, a coach or a teammate; that can be a trying, but often sobering experience. Time and again when interviewed after said types of losses Roque has refused to scold his players publicly...he rarely even takes the blame himself; he has instead repeatedly made disparaging comments about officiating, or neglects to acknowledge that there is anything negative to answer for whatsoever, saying the team played nice, or had some bad luck, etc....Now I don't want the man to blame the players for each and every loss or use them as his regular shi**ing post but there have been times where they have played poorly, and a strategically placed public comment every once in a while might light a fire under some of these guys....at the very worst what can it hurt to try? His play nice method clearly doesn't work. This is what I mean by being a players coach.
Simon Gysbers and Kellan Lain are talking fondly about the coaches at Lake State and their time there...That looks great on paper but what are they really thanking coach Roque and his staff for? The experience they gained from the journey of consistent great team success?? Nope, the team has been past the second round of the playoffs just once in Roque's time at the helm (and that time he made it to the Joe with a team that included 17 underclassmen, which would suggest greater things to come, however they never came to fruition)...
Are they thanking him for helping their game take great strides under him and improving markedly under him each year? Doubtful when you consider that of the 9 Players from the past 5 Roque teams to stick at the AHL level for any considerable amount of time (Oleksy, Perkovich Gysbers, Acton, Schofield, Trotman, Jean, and assuming Lain and Robinson) only 3 saw their offensive point totals improve by more than 2 points greater than their previous peak in their final year under Roque (2 had point decreases from their peak in their final year, 1 equaled his peak point total his final year, 2 only improved by one point over their previous peak in their final year and another beat his previous peak by 2 points during his final year under JR)...this does not scream player development (you called it silly to use examples involving a few exceptional players as a means for identifying trends silly, to which I counter if there is a pattern, or lack thereof, among the players that should be a coach's foremost examples of development then what can you expect from the larger, more average talent-wise group?)
The main thing the 9 mentioned AHL level players should be thanking anyone for (and it wouldn't be Coach Roque) is their physical size....8 of the 9 previously mentioned pro players are 6'2 or taller and around 200 pounds or more, Jim Roque is not responsible for that. The one player was not that large and still made a go of it in the pros was Oleksy, who wasn't an AHL regular until last season, 3 years after his final year as a Laker, so there's not much of a case to be made on Roque's behalf for developing him or making him pro-capable either......All this objective information is devoid of a single shroud of eveidence proving that JR has significantly helped these players further their careers yet they still have so many great things to say about Coach Roque...
You said that nobody gets respect without showing respect, but the same can be said for kindness; If Roque showed these players more respect and less kindness and coddling he may lose some of their affection and friendship but would certainly gain their respect once they realize that being hard on them may have not been the easy or nice thing to do but it was what was necessary to get the best out of them to produce the desired results, which is wins and team success, of which individual success and improvement is also a subsequent product. I imagine they would also respect that he recognized their talent and pushed them to refine it to give them the best chance at progressing their careers instead of letting them always have fun and shielding them from criticism at all costs....
