Well, count me in as shocked that this happened today. I don't see the Flames as contenders this year, and thought Hartley actually had most of next season to turn the team around.
There are 2 basic things that I am upset about in regards to losing Hartley today:
1) He was a developmental coach. Remember, teams lauded him for the last 2-3 years for how much time he took in practice in actual 'teaching'. He ran practices harder than perhaps any other coach in the league, but continually would pull players out to teach them. That means a lot to a young team. I thought he was absolutely perfect because he held them both accountable, but would actually teach them as well. I actually think that is going to be difficult to replace.
2) When I look at the Calgary Flames, I don't see a contender yet. I don't see anything more than a bubble-team right now - but I see loads of potential. What I am more concerned about in regards to this team (and I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet either) is that the 'core' young guys seem to be coming along rather well. I would say better than expected. How many had career years? Work ethic is there for them too, which is just as important. Bennett not putting up points? Well, Hartley made sure he was playing the right way and the points came. Stuff like that is huge, IMHO, for a young developing team.
I think Treliving is just taking the opportunity to replace Hartley this year with someone who he feels is a better fit. I am not sure that he can find a 'better fit' so to speak - not until the Flames get beefier. I actually think Hartley has made the most out of the type of team he has been given. Everything is created off the rush (way more than the long stretch passes by the way). This is still not a team that can cycle. With that in mind, I don't hate Hartley's system.
Defensively, yes, I think it could have used more work without question. Again, we have to look where it collapses. Is it because other teams are generating off the cycle? Not always, but the Flames seem to be almost helpless when the big teams come in and cycle the puck in the Flames' zone. I don't think that a new defensive system is going to solve that particular issue. There were a number of times that defensively they were just completely out of position.
I thought Hartley would stick around for another year at least (if the team did poorly again, he would be removed - lame duck or not), and if they did well, he would be re-signed for another 2 year period. I think at that point one can realistically expect the Flames to start competing. I thought that Hartley would have been given one of those competing years before the Flames showed a lack of patience, which I think would be fair. Surprised it came today.
It just leads me to believe that it is a combination of not liking the defensive system Hartley employs - I am sure a more defensive-oriented coach can come up with a better defensive system for sure. I am just not sure he can do that without neutering the Flames' offence - they generate so much from the backend.
I do think that Treliving might be seeing this off-season as the right time to move on from Hartley. Burke seemed to really like Hartley - I think Burke supported Hartley actually. Treliving always seemed a bit more luke-warm to him, which is fine. With LA out, Anaheim out, and if St. Louis loses this round (or even next), this off-season MIGHT prove to have a number of very experienced coaches who are more of the 'defensive' types. I believe that Treliving doesn't have anyone in particular in mind - I just think that a combination of not liking Hartley's system, and with Boudreau and some other coaches already available, plus the possibility of some experienced and respected coaches available this off-season - there might be a better fit.
Still sad to see Hartley go. I don't really care if the players don't like the coach. This team has been rumored to be such a 'coach killer' team since Darryl Sutter left the bench, that I want Treliving to stick to his guns about whomever he hires.
I also think that teams benefit enormously from consistency in coaching. I don't agree with "These types of coaches wear out on players" or "have a short shelf-life". Please list some examples. Sutter is doing really well in LA, Hitchcock has been doing well in St. Louis. Babcock. Quenneville is about as hard-ass as they come. It actually seems more like the "Player's coach" have shorter shelf-lives - Bylsma for instance, if you really wanted to make that argument.
Teams just have to find the right fit for their team. I think based on the composition of the Flames, this is going to be a difficult search. Flames need to get bigger in a hurry.
|