EA Forums - Banner

Coaching and Chemistry Recommendations

First off, I have to say that I like coaching staff and line chemistry. I like that you can try to match staff that wil fit your team the best or build a team around coaches that mesh well with key players. I like that we have visual representation for how players like to play instead of just guessing at how to adjust strategies and hoping for the best.

That being said, I feel like the current system is unrealistic and could be better. Now I've never played hockey, or team sports for that matter, so someone with experience working with coaches or being a coach can correct me on what I'm about to suggest.

Players fitting with coaching strategy should be about team strategy, not line strategy. You may have a cosch that likes aggressive play, or conservative, or balanced. They might prefer specific forecheck or neutral zone strategies because they think those strategies work well. It makes sense to me to try and have chemistry between your head coach and players for those strategies and that's where I think the coach-player synergy needs to come into play.

With line strategy, that should be all player and type based. As long as your first line players are all happy to be as aggressive or conservative as the coach wants them to be, who cares if they prefer to cycle or shoot? Line synergy should improve when lines are balanced well in play style so they don't leave gaps in their play and the players' strategy preferences conpliment each other.

So let my coaches dictate the team strategies, let my players dictate the line strategies, and if all of that synergizes well and players are playing in their proper roles and positions then I should have a pretty successful team.


  • Also, I feel like young and developing layers should be able to adapt to the preferences of their coach and more experienced line mates. This would give the optiin of making high value trades when players just aren't a good fit but also opening the door to really work with a prospect who's an ok fit and mold them how you need them.
  • What would also make a lot more sense is player chemistry grows because you keep lines or defense pairings together, getting better chemistry the longer they are together. It would make a better incentive to not trade or resign players to keep that boost.

    When you look at players profile and it says who they get a long with, often times it make little sense that they do and trading away some AHL guy lowers morale with your top pairing defensemen.

    Also, coach hiring needs to be reworked. They ask for too much money and unreasonable demands. And coach ratings really make little sense. How can a good teacher have no influence and vice versa. If you had teaching ability it would make you more influential. Its one and the same.
  • Coaching and chemistry is a cool idea.

    Too bad they butchered it. They implemented it just awfully, and then haven’t bothered to try and fix it or tweak it and make it worthwhile.

    In its current state it’s useless. And I don’t think they’ll be doing anything with it either. If anything they’ll just remove it. Easier than fixing it. Less stuff to worry about and gives them more time to focus on online modes
  • Its almost impossible to grow your coaching budget. If you want a good coach, then thats all you can get. Basically have to leave everything else empty. They should re work the ownership budget. There should not be a cap on what you can spend when it comes to the arena, scouts, coaches, marketing. It should only be predicated on how well the teams revenues are. As of now, I don't adjust prices or even look at the revenue screen.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.