Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdonkey
The thing that bothers me about this isn't necessarily the decision itself, per se. Like, I'm not enthusiastic about Huska as a coach, but I don't think even Scotty Bowman could squeeze results out of the mess Treliving left behind, so ultimately the coach won't matter until this team has a better, younger core to build around.
But what concerns me more is the philosophy being put on display here. How focused the local media and even the statements from Conroy himself are on Huska's tenure above his actual results, like this was some kind of loyalty hire for a guy who "paid his dues." That's such a spectacularly stupid way to do business, and completely on brand for this organization. I was really hoping that the off-ice changes would have herladed a change in approach from what we're used to, but it sounds exactly like what we've come to expect from the Edwards regime. Cheap out, take half-measures, hope to sneak in, and see what happens.
The team isn't taking any risks here, so I don't see why we should expect anything but more of the same.
|
Love could be the better hire but he has to demonstrate that through the interview process. Think about it, the Flames probably had a list of things they wanted to hear. Conroy said that during his second interview he realized he needed to come in with a clear plan. Huska can tell you what he plans to do with certain players, that Love has never coached. If he is smart, Love would see that opportunities at the NHL are not easy to acquire and he could strengthen his opportunity if he chooses to be an assistant with the Flames. My hope is he still will be on board when we find out who is part of the coaching hires.