Brett Hull's Mike Keenan Story Raises Questions

I don’t always agree with Howard Berger, but I always read his hockey writing. Although his most recent post focused on Chris Tanev and the Maple Leafs’ lack of stellar defence, he ended it with a Brett Hull story about head coach Mike Keenan. One thing I've never understood about hockey is the idea that being a tough coach means being a mean one.

We hear stories about coaches who embarrass players, belittle them, and make sure everyone knows who's to blame when things go wrong. Sometimes, that's defended as old-school leadership. It's hockey, after all. The players are professionals. They can take it.

Maybe NHL players can take it, but should they have to?

Brett Hull recently said some pretty harsh things about his former coach, Mike Keenan. Hull described Keenan as spiteful and said he had a habit of blaming players for problems the coach himself had helped create. One example involved a struggling power play. According to Hull, Keenan blamed the players even though they hadn't practised it in a month.

Hull also said Keenan treated good people, including Brendan Shanahan and Curtis Joseph, terribly. That's the part that stayed with me. Shanahan and Cujo were good people, and whatever mistakes they made as players, they deserved respect.

Of course, we're hearing Hull's recollection, and that's worth keeping in mind. But his story raises a question that goes well beyond one coach.

What's the difference between holding an NHL player accountable and making them feel small?

I'm not suggesting coaches should be gentle all the time. Hockey is demanding, and players need to hear the truth when they're not doing their jobs. Sometimes a coach has to make a difficult decision or tell a player something he doesn't want to hear.

But there's a difference between challenging someone to be better and humiliating him. One is about helping a player improve. The other can become more about the person doing the humiliating than the person supposedly being taught a lesson.

I've watched enough hockey to know how easily blame gets passed around. After a loss, it's often somebody else's fault. The players didn't execute. The goalie needed to make a save. The defence made a mistake. Sometimes those things are true. But what about the coach? Did the team have the right plan? Was it prepared? Could something have been done differently?

Good NHL coaching means being willing to ask those questions, too.

I think the best coaches understand that accountability works both ways. They don't need to win every argument or make sure everybody knows who's in charge. They build trust, tell the truth, and take their share of the responsibility when things go wrong. That's not weakness. It's leadership.

Hockey will always be a tough business. It doesn't have to be a mean one. And if we're going to judge coaches by the teams they build, perhaps we should pay a little more attention to how they treat the people who play for them.