Second Thots

I'm sure that people have heard of the term armchair quarterback. Well, what I'm doing in this current blog post I'll refer to as being an armchair writer (even though I'm a professional freelance writer myself — shameless self-promotion plug alert). That's because I'm going to perform a small critique of this article about Philadelphia Flyers coach Peter Laviolette.

The article is what it is. It provides a unique angle on a storyline that's getting a bit old, which is the continuing success of the Philadelphia Flyers in this year's Stanley Cup playoffs — and their current thumping of the Montreal Canadians in the conference finals.

So, in that context, Toronto Sun writer Chris Stevenson does a decent enough job of telling us how the Flyers have gotten here — with the help of a coach who's won big before, including the Stanley Cup for the Carolina Hurricanes.

However, this is a kind of article where I was hoping for more. Instead of just telling us that Laviolette has a track record of winning, why not try and tell us what qualities as a coach has allowed him to win before? Is he a great motivator, tactician, psychologist? Anything?

I find that this aspect of sports does not get covered enough by the sports media. I'm not sure why. Yet I do think sports fans would be interested. In an age where every single detail can be covered, from sports injuries to celebrity wives, getting some insight into what kind of coaching delivers results I think would be in demand by sports audiences.

For example, in addition to learning that Laviolette has won big games with other teams, would it also not be of interest to know, even in passing, why those same teams ultimately found his services no longer of use? Isn't this fascinating stuff to know? I think so.