_
During the next few days, a lot of attention will be paid to the obvious differences between Martin Brodeur and Jonathan Quick -- most specifically their ages. A Stanley Cup Playoffs virtual newbie vs. a Cup veteran, Quick is the 26-year-old yin to Brodeur's 40-year-old yang, to be sure.

Upon closer examination, however, it is the similarity in each goalie's approach to stopping the puck that is the most relevant reason for their success this season. The two goalies left standing this spring are among the most creative and unpredictable goalies in today's game. Their resulting dominance is no coincidence.

In what is often a copy-cat league, the unorthodox styles of Brodeur and Quick may well serve as a tipping point in what may signal a new era in goaltending. Each goalie utilizes "old-school" reflexive techniques as a base, adding in modern butterfly play -- with Quick exhibiting more of the latter -- to be considered true hybrid goalies in an era dominated by straight butterfly stylists.

In fact, Brodeur and Quick's uniquely hybrid styles fly in the face of what has been the dominant trend in NHL goaltending.  In the past decade, a formulaic system highlighting size and "blocking" saves in place of skill sets such as agility and "reactive" saves has evolved into the norm.

STANLEY CUP FINAL - KINGS VS. DEVILS Devils look forward to home-ice adv. By Brian Hunter - NHL.com Staff Writer
With the New York Rangers out of the way, the New Jersey Devils will shift their focus to the Los Angeles Kings and the Stanley Cup Final. READ MORE ›

• Seven things the Kings need to do to win the Cup
• Kings, Devils start Cup Final Wednesday
• Follow Kings-Devils Stanley Cup Final blog

MORE KINGS-DEVILS SERIES STORIES › Coaches like Francois Allaire and his acolytes created something of a post-Patrick Roy religion based on this quasi-robotic goaltending style. Suddenly, goalies were squaring up and dropping to their knees on every shot, then using geometric probabilities to block the biggest portion of the net as possible.

This play-deep-and-let-the-puck-hit-you system has worked well for some of this generation's most dominant goalies -- Roberto Luongo, Antii Niemi, J.S. Giguere, Ilya Bryzgalov and Jonas Hiller. As a result, thousands of young goalies followed their leads, being churned out of goalie school factories like clones.

As such, goaltending became as predictable as a cup of Starbucks coffee.

But shooters, as they are prone to do, adapted.

Frustrated by goalies appearing to be too big and filling the net to the point where shots would almost always hit these goalies in the chest and pads, shooters began countering with more "deception" plays (head fakes and pumps), purposely bouncing rebounds off pads and crashing the net, and scheming with teammates to create tips and screens that forced these robo-goalies out of their comfort zones. The latter technique is the most dangerous to blocking-style goalies and, not surprisingly, is how most goals were scored on in this spring's playoffs.

Shooters paid attention to what goalies are doing and found the flaws in the drop-and-block predictability of many of today's netminders.

"Goalies have become way too predictable," says pro goalie coach Chris Economou, who operates his Goalie Guru training facility outside of Philadelphia. "It is forcing them to get back to more of the old school and use more athleticism and reaction to make saves."

Indeed, what the craftiness of the game's pure goal scorers has done is force goalies to react, to use instincts and reflexes to track pucks and hustle laterally from point A to point B. In other words, to break from "the system" and just do what it takes to accomplish the most important task: stopping the puck.

This is why Henrik Lundqvist makes head saves like a soccer player (something never taught at a goalie school, but should be!), Pekka Rinne bounces about the crease as if on a bungee, and Quick pops into the splits like a road hockey sprawler. These three goalies -- did I mention they are the three current Vezina Trophy finalists? -- aren't doing this to showboat. Rather, they are doing it to get the job done in the most effective manner available.

If Dominik Hasek is the godfather of this creatively chaotic hybrid approach, the grandfather is the anti-robotic Brodeur.

Marty has always defied the modern school and employed the old ways -- standing up on wide-angle shots rather than dropping, poke-checking rather than playing it safe deep in his crease, diving rather than sliding in a full butterfly. It's a hybrid style that looks a lot like that of the Cup-winning goalie of this past year; the Boston scrambler, Tim Thomas.

So if the dominance of Brodeur and Quick (and Thomas before them) during the 2012 Stanley Cup Playoffs signals anything, it is that the art of goaltending is back.

_A common misconception about Responsible Coaching is that it is soft on players. Coaching methods such as giving players a “Magic Ratio” of five specific, truthful praises for each specific, constructive correction certainly contrast with the archetypal, growling, my-way-or-the-highway, win-at-all-cost coach. 

But Responsible Coaching is not soft. It is every coach’s job to help players improve, especially Responsible Coaches, who also strive to teach players life lessons through sports and therefore must carry extra credibility on the playing field. After all, players who do not think their coaches can help them improve their games may tune out and miss their coaches’ life lessons, too. 

To be effective, Responsible Coaches must know when and how to correct players. In fact, the “Magic Ratio” works not because it helps youth athletes feel good about themselves, but because that good feeling keeps players open and receptive to the necessary corrections. 

When to Correct Players Almost all correction should occur in practice. In the heat of a game, technical skill correction rarely works. 

Especially in flow sports, such as hockey or soccer, a player in the game must focus on continuous action and stay aware and ready for the next play. Yet too often coaches yell or try to physically demonstrate corrections in technique, which only distracts players (who already are fighting distraction due to whatever mistake prompted the coach’s urge to correct). 

If a coach absolutely feels compelled to correct a player’s technique during a game, it should occur during a break in the action and should be no more than a minor adjustment that the coach has previously addressed with the player in practice and can reinforce with trigger words, a hand signal or other gesture that just serves as a reminder. 

Other opportunities for brief, simple corrections occur during timeouts, when players come out of a game and between periods. Each of those scenarios has its own challenges and balances to be struck. 

For example, during a timeout and even between periods, you won’t want to correct players at the expense of their understanding any discussion of strategy to be used when play resumes. You might just deliver the trigger words a certain player needs to hear and then keep the player included in the strategy discussion. And players coming out of the game, especially if they sense they are coming out because of mistakes, likely are not open to correction at all. 

In all the above circumstances, it is best to correct privately unless there are several players who will benefit from hearing the same correction at the same time. In summary, the more removed from action a player is, especially the action that requires correction, the more open to correction the player is. 

How to Correct Players Depending on players’ ages, skill proficiency and your team’s level of competitiveness, it often helps to ask players if they are open to correction. If you do so, and the player says “no,” then it is best to respect the player’s wishes and say something along the lines of, “OK, when you’re ready to talk about it, please let me know.” 

A “Criticism Sandwich” also can be helpful. Try to “sandwich” between two pieces of praise the “meat” of your message: calm, quiet, specific, constructive instruction. For example: “It was a great effort to get to the ball. If you peak over your shoulder to find your defender, you’ll be even more ready to do something great with the ball once you control possession. That little peak over your shoulder will really help you take advantage of the quickness you’ve worked so hard to develop.” 

In that Criticism Sandwich, notice the “if-then” statement. Rather than just telling the player what to do, the if-then structure gives power to the player. In the throes of a mistake and a correction, players regaining a sense of control can be critical to their absorbing the correction and implementing it as soon as possible. 

Determining when and how to effectively correct players is part art, part science. The suggestions here may make the correction more palatable for the player and thus more accepted. However, note that you, as a Responsible Coach, must provide the occasional hard-to-deliver, hard-to-hear truth that will improve your players’ performance and help them learn the life lesson of how to benefit from coaching on the field and beyond.