Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeway
The issue with Hartley is that he was a motivator, but he was atrocious at strategy or insight. His philosophy was "just work harder."
|
Are you sure about that? I seem to recall Hartley making changes in the lineups, line matching much more frequently, and he seemed to have a better read on the pulse of the team.
Yes, he did expect 'work harder' - he demanded everyone keep working harder all the time, but lost in all of this was the fact that he was an incredible on-ice teacher. His practices ran long not just because he made his players work, but because he would frequently take players aside and teach them. Countless play-by-play and color commentators around the league were very impressed with how he actually coached and how much he seemed to actually be teaching in practices.
Yes, I wouldn't say he is at Darryl Sutter's level of being a tactician, but he was good at it. Calling him just a motivator is something I really can't agree with. Even his defensive side of the system - though not providing great CORSI numbers - seemed better as well. Heck, he gave up less shots against while generating more goals.
People say that Gulutzan is a really great hockey mind - are people sure about that? I wouldn't call Dallas Eakins a great hockey mind, and he was 'playing for CORSI' for a stretch (likely grasping at straws there).
The Flames under Gulutzan are slower, less offensively capable, and (here's the real kicker) are at BEST the same defensively. Hartley (while running 12 different defencemen in a season, and having a much lower talent level overall) allowed LESS shots on goal than Gulutzan's system has been this year.
The last (and worst year) of Hartley's tenure had these numbers:
29.0 shots against/game
229 Total goals for
Gulutzan's Flames this year have:
31.2 shots against/game
209 total goals for
Remember, these numbers got Hartley fired. These raw numbers are still better than Gulutzan's, on a worse team, with worse goaltending, and at a time when the Pacific was arguably a tougher division. Hartley had injuries and some horrible goaltending issues to deal with.
People like to continue saying that Hartley had no defensive system, or that he relied on 'river hockey'. He had a sound defensive system for the team at the time, but his best year found him to have average goaltending. CORSI wasn't good - but then again, can one expect to have really good CORSI when a team is young and lacking in overall talent?
Gulutzan's defensive system seems to be a 'push' at best, and when considering the quality of the team overall, especially the defencemen, it seems like an actual step backwards.
Hartley wasn't a bad coach. He was smart. He implemented a system that seemed to fit the team. He knew (until the last season) how to manage his goalies. He line-matched fairly well (Hitchcock would own him it seems, however). He was a good, all-around coach. It was his personality that got him canned. And if it wasn't, then having slightly worse results on a much improved team leads me to believe that Treliving is going to fire Gulutzan imminently, and that he is not wavering in the slightest.
And yes, Hartley was a damn good motivator, and he did get his team to 'work harder', but he was so much more than that. Not an elite coach, but incredibly underrated here.