Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Cow Disease
Huska was my choice in the poll a few weeks back as I think he's a pretty logical choice (though I foresaw Love getting promoted to an assistant position so will be bummed if he isn't around any longer). I get some of the consternation people may have but I think it's important to guard against some of the biases that can tend to creep in here. Dude's always seemed to be well-regarded and sounds like a great hockey mind, and was our prior "up and comer" in the days when the farm team was pretty Wolf-less and weak.
Some posters are casting him off almost solely due to the fact that he was on the bench this past season and don't want anyone with that "stink" to lead the team going forward. Fair enough, but I don't think that's how it works and don't view it to be a responsible means by which to assess who should receive the job. Darryl was the one manning the rudder last the past couple seasons, not Huska. He will have been assessed on his own merits as an individual as they pertain to giving this team a chance to succeed, nothing more. Learning under the tutelage of a coach like Darryl may end up working in his favour, as he'll be able to incorporate the bits he likes and hopefully discard the outmoded crap that made the environment so toxic.
Also, the fact that he hasn't been poached by another team or made HC here yet doesn't mean squat. For one thing, he's spent his time in this organization under the leadership of Brad Treliving, whose strengths didn't seem to reside in the realm of hiring top notch head coaches. For all we know he has been a decent candidate all this time and was overlooked (and we do know Huska's talked to other teams in the past at some point). People have been making light of the whole notion of tenure and "paying one's dues" but I do think it counts for something, and we shouldn't simply covet options that reside outside the organization because of the tendency to think everything within it is bound to be mediocre.
If people are enthused about Conroy and his vision then they should trust in this hire for the time being. There's a tendency to perceive some unifying thread between the years and decades that causes people to say stuff like "of course this organization would hire this guy" or "just more status quo for the Flames", but it's a new manager, new era. The fact that they haven't demolished the Dome, changed the jerseys, and traded everyone this past month doesn't mean Conroy isn't looking at things differently or preparing to learn from the mistakes he's witnessed over the years.
|
It's hard to trust in anything this team does since it's alternated between a slow trainwreck and a series of missed opportunities for many, many years.
We've got one terrible 2nd round appearance against the Ducks and one terrible 2nd round appearance against the Oilers to show for all the efforts, trades, draftings and coaching hires since 2004.
What about hiring Conroy and now Huska is going to be different from everything that's happened in this last 20 year stretch is what I'd like to know?
Not a question that any of the professional yet sheepish media in this town would be bold enough to ask in a press conference, but that's what I'm wondering.
Is the goal to play it safe and have continuity (of a system and product that's only got the team as high as 2nd round fodder), or is the goal to be a consistent threat that teams actually hate facing and that networks will rave about and have highlighted on their dockets?
We need to turn an entirely new page here, organization-wide.