Quote:
Originally Posted by 868904
So maybe they should put him back in the AHL to develop more players because that is where his value is. Also, this “he developed this player” really undersells the player. Are you suggesting these guys would not have made the NHL if not for Huska being their AHL coach? NHL players find a way.
Anyways, the NHL is not for development, it is all about winning. Huska had 4 years as a head coach in pro hockey and his teams missed the playoffs 3 of 4 years and the one year they made it, they lost in the first round.
Huska might be a good pro coach but his results suggest he is a good “development coach”, because he sure has proven that he can’t win.
I don’t buy this “oh he didn’t have a good team to work with” argument; that is BS, a good coach gets a bad team to win especially at the minor pro level. An legitimate NHL head coach should be able to win in the minors.
All of the “first time” NHL coaches who went on to have success all won at the minor pro level. Cooper, Bednar, even Woodcroft won championships. Huska had a 25% success rate of just making the playoffs!
Love doesn’t have a championship at any level but at least in 6 seasons as a head coach, only one of those seasons has his winning percentage been less than .700
It seems to be the best arguments for Huska is that he’s “paid his dues” and that “he’s a good person”, which is one of the biggest problems with the Flames organization is that they emphasize “good people” too much when really they should be focusing on “winners”.
The job of an NHL head coach is to win, it’s just so odd to hire a guy who can’t win at the pro level.
|
Yup..
I don't know why we thought Conroy taking the GM's chair would help with the Flames promoting "good people" issue.
If we want a coach who wins, we need one with ample experience guiding teams to wins.
I don't trust relying on a guy to suddenly do something he doesn't have a history of doing.
His details and mind be damned. That doesn't always equate to results on the ice. Likability and smarts are great, but shouldn't be the attributes that make or break the candidate.