Quote:
Originally Posted by danimal
I'm still trying to figure out how a guy can be only the 2nd coach to take the team past the first round of the playoffs in 26 years,, winning the coach of the year award in the process, and then a year later he's fired for not being "relatable" to younger players. He sent a few guys home for showing up hungover to practice after the Super Bowl and their feelings were hurt. Boo-hoo.
I was a big Hartley fan and saw nothing wrong with what he was doing. Replacing him with a rookie head coach was the wrong move in my opinion. I know a guy has to start somewhere but why does it always have to be Calgary? It's never worked out before (Gilbert, Button, Hay, even Dave King to a degree.)
|
I think last year proved a lot of the talking heads right, the system wasn't sustainable in today's NHL. Even if you hate all the advanced stats, the problem is that stats are correct over the long term. Other coaches learned how Hartley's system worked and found ways to defend against it while Bob didn't seem to adjust his system much to adapt. The run and gun style with no possession worked because no one was expecting it, but failed once the word got out and he did nothing to fix that.
Also he wasn't BT's guy, he was Feaster's. I think that's a big thing for a GM especially as the team starts to progress beyond the rebuild. He was building the team based on a style of hockey and I don't know that Hartley was the guy to coach that style.
Plus GG isn't a rookie coach, he had 130 games under his belt with Dallas. Not as experienced as a Bob Hartley but not the guy's first time behind an NHL bench. (And Don Hay had a year in Phx, Button was never coach)
Good move? Yet to be determined, but it makes sense from more than just a "players upset cause Dad was mean" point of view.