Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F
I don't agree with the bolded bits being credits to Burke.
The way this team is on the ice and in the dressing room is 100% Hartley. Whether Hartley changed between his first season and 13-14 is an academic question not really relevant to this debate, because the way he tried to get the Flames to play and they way they responded were established before Feaster was fired, IMO. As for not firing Hartley when Feaster was let go, if you believed Burke didn't want to be GM, there's no way you would have thought that he wouldn't let his hand picked GM have a say in the new coach. As it was, by the time Treliving was fired, the Flames product on the ice was recognized league wide as a huge credit to Hartley, making the choice to let him continue something that wasn't in any way bold.
So, since the way the team plays on the ice can't be attributed to Burke, nor can the vast majority of the players playing within that system, he deserves virtually no credit for the Flames surprising performance thus far, IMO. If there are some culture changes within management, he can take credit for that, but that's the limit so far.
|
The one small adjustment I would make is that, certainly, Hartley is responsible for the Xs and Os and the game to game work. However, GMs play an important role in back-stopping coaching decisions and ethos, lending additional authority and credibility to the coach. This includes making it clear to the roster that anyone can sit at any time, you're not above being benched, etc...
Don't forget that GMs can indirectly undermine coaching decisions by putting their thumbs on the scale, such as the talk surrounding Jiri Sekac in Montreal. From the outside, it should looks like Burke is doing a fine job.