Cory Sarich - Bob Hartley "was the worst coach I ever had"

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Bob Hartley is not Scotty Bowman. It's one thing to be hated and win wherever you go and something different to be hated and only win at only one of your NHL stops and that on a stacked team that probably would have won the cup with any competent head coach.

Hartley is surely no Bowman, however Bowman and Sutter examples show that being hated by the players by no means implies that a coach is awful.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgarygringo

Doughty said it loud and clear on national tv a few weeks ago. Didnt pull any punches on it.

"Darryl's an awesome coach, and I absolutely love him," Doughty said. "He's awesome for me. He taught me a lot of things as well. But if there is a problem with the team, or if you had a problem with Darryl, you'd be intimidated to go knock on his door and say, 'Hey Darryl, I don't like this or I don't like that.'"

https://www.thescore.com/news/136923...1ae58c56e29b94

[GioforPM]

Nm

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Hartley is surely no Bowman, however Bowman and Sutter examples show that being hated by the players by no means implies that a coach is awful.

People use the word hate pretty liberally. There is hate, and there is hate.

When Robinson was talking about Bowman, he was doing so with respect. I don't think there was much respect in Sarich's comments.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

People use the word hate pretty liberally. There is hate, and there is hate.

When Robinson was talking about Bowman, he was doing so with respect. I don't think there was much respect in Sarich's comments.

Similar to the comments on Sutter, theres respect there as well.

But I dont think its any secret that coaches like Sutter have a shelf-life, similar to Hartley, you cannot have players operating at 110% all the time, you simply cannot do it for very long because they get tired, injured and will eventually hate you.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

People use the word hate pretty liberally. There is hate, and there is hate.

When Robinson was talking about Bowman, he was doing so with respect. I don't think there was much respect in Sarich's comments.

Sarich is no Robinson either. At that point Sarich was basically a defenseman version of Troy Brouwer.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Hartley is surely no Bowman, however Bowman and Sutter examples show that being hated by the players by no means implies that a coach is awful.

I don't think Darryl Sutter was hated by many players. Haven't heard much out of the Kings locker room since he got fired nor did you ever hear anything from Sharks or Flames players. Everyone knows he's demanding but fair. That's the main difference is that Hartley was also demanding but not fair with all players. I really can't believe posters are defending the guy as he is what he is and the fact he's out of the NHL just goes to show that teams feel his bully tactics aren't going to fly with their players.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Not that I think Hartley was a good coach, but I wonder if he would say Sarich was the worst defenseman he ever had?

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Bob Hartley is not Scotty Bowman. It's one thing to be hated and win wherever you go and something different to be hated and only win at only one of your NHL stops and that on a stacked team that probably would have won the cup with any competent head coach.

TBF, Bowman's cups were on stacked teams also. Probably more stacked than Colorado's 01 team. Detroit he had Yzerman Fedorov Shanahan Lidstrom. Wasn't his stint in Buffalo a huge failure?

[dino7c]

Great players usually make great coaches...Babcock is supposedly the greatest of our time...left Detroit when they were no longer a stacked team, dead last in TO the first year.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Great players usually make great coaches...Babcock is supposedly the greatest of our time...left Detroit when they were no longer a stacked team, dead last in TO the first year.

I disagree I find great players get frustrated pretty easy coaching and can’t communicate or understand how simple things can’t be done.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I disagree I find great players get frustrated pretty easy coaching and can’t communicate or understand how simple things can’t be done.

Not sure if that's a joke...poor phrasing ony end. I mean that a coach is usually about as good as the talent he puts out on the ice.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Not sure if that's a joke...poor phrasing ony end. I mean that a coach is usually about as good as the talent he puts out on the ice.

that statement suggests that a coach is irrelevant. Simply not true.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

People need to keep things like this in mind when they discuss the Superbowl incident, and attempt to imply that Gaudreau, Monahan and Bouma may have an attitude problem.

None of us are in the room, so we can't know the facts or how things actually transpired. And this type of stuff should remind us that we should not be drawing any conclusions about the players from incidents like that because we don't know the whole story.

Did Hartley freak out because it was a huge problem and the tip of the iceberg? Or did he freak out because he is somewhat irrational on the subject? Or (likely), something in between?

We can't know, so be careful before judging or commenting is all I'm saying.

I wonder if a player drinking - even just a little - might have been a uniquely troubling thing for Hartley to grapple with?

Take note as he describes the bracelet that was in his pocket for every single game he coached as a Flame and listen closely to why it was given to him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcK6AXG9i_s

Maybe he deserves some slack on the subject?

An earlier poster made the point by simply asking the question of what Micheal Ferland would say about Hartley. So I thought I would just amplify that a bit:

Coaches can make their most significant impacts off the ice. Hartley experienced tragedy in Atlanta when Dan Snyder died in a car crash. During Snyder’s hospitalization, Hartley and his wife brought meals so his player’s family would not have to eat hospital food. Hartley was attending an Atlanta Braves game when Snyder’s mother called the coach with the news that her son had died. Years later in Calgary, Hartley recognized that Micheal Ferland needed help with his alcoholism. “I told Ferly, ‘I already saw one of my players buried, I don’t need a second. We’re here to help you,’ ” Hartley said. “Ferly started to break up. Cried like a baby. He came around my desk, gave me a hug, and said, ‘Please, help me. I don’t know what to do.’ ”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/br...XqJ/story.html

I am not going to doubt player accounts of what they personally experienced, nor am I making a case one way or another about his coaching style or tactics. But maybe Hartley can be both the worst coach Sarich ever had and also a fantastic, yet flawed, human being who made it to the NHL as a coach on merit and happened to pick up a Stanley Cup and Jack Adams award along the way?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Bob Hartley is not Scotty Bowman. It's one thing to be hated and win wherever you go and something different to be hated and only win at only one of your NHL stops and that on a stacked team that probably would have won the cup with any competent head coach.

I would not be so easily dismissive of any coach that wins the cup.

Sure, the Avs were stacked. How many other coaches fail to win with stacked teams? How many disappointments happen? Tonnes.

Also, because they were a stacked team, how do you manage that? How do you manage those personalities? How do you come up with line combos, assign responsibilities, design a system that helps that team win, and manage the personalities of guys who want the ice time and puck touches? How do you go in there and tell a Sakic or a Forsberg that your game stinks right now, and you need to be better?

People gloss over the whole 'stacked team', but don't consider that it is probably really difficult coaching a team that is so stacked. During the playoffs, you also have to account for injuries and deciding who you should limit, how to counter what the opposing team is doing, decide on what lines to break up and try to shake up a team before it is too late, etc.

In my opinion, there are two ways that I look at coaching and see who is a good coach, and who is a poor coach. First - championship wins. Secondly, how often that coach got a crap team turned around.

Hartley won the cup with the Avs. Check.
Hartley got the crappy Atlanta team turned around, and got Calgary turned around (during a rebuild no less).

That's fairly impressive. You might argue Atlanta, but every season under Hartley was an improvement, and after he was fired early in his last season, that team did worse.

You can disagree on his methods, you might be right that he has a short shelf life, but you can't dismiss the fact that he won a cup, and generally everywhere he goes he makes a team play better than what the expectations are. That's a good coach to me.

Look at the Calgary Flames. Where does he rank all time? Yep, Calgary has been a team with a long track record of hiring terrible coaches, but they have some very good ones also.

If I am going to order my list, it would probably be something like:
'Badger' Bob Johnson -> Darryl Sutter -> Bob Hartley -> Terry Crisp -> Dave King

I would have put Crisp much higher on the list since he won a cup (especially here!), but look at his record in Tampa - it was atrocious. I would argue that if there was a coach who got 'lucky' in winning a championship, it was him with Calgary, but I am sure he still made the right decisions to see the Flames through to the end that season. His other seasons in Calgary? I can't say the Flames were better than the expectations, and I can't say that they were running like a well-oiled machine either. They were a top team that seemed disjointed to me from what I remember, but it came together for them in '89.

Badger had those teams running really well - above expectations - and later went on to win a couple of cups in Pittsburgh (should have won a couple in Calgary).

Sutter came in and got the Flames turned around and playing way above expectations, and they were a well-oiled machine.

Hartley's tenure? He took a rebuilding squad with this roster:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...000432015.html and he turned that into a playoff team.

That's damn good in my opinion. He has somewhat of a history of turning a poor roster into a competitive one. He has a history of taking a good team all the way. That to me is a proven coach. He has done both.

He is better IMO than a Bruce Boudreau who takes stacked teams and makes them into playoff disappointments. Who has never taken a crap team and made them strong. There are a lot of over-hyped coaches who haven't won anything, and haven't ever went to a poor team and made them better.

This is why I sometimes shake my head at people saying Hartley was a bad coach, and who was just simply 'lucky' in winning a cup. Lots and lots of other coaches don't do it. Lots and lots of other coaches don't get bad teams to play well either.

Short shelf-life or not, it is difficult to deny that Hartley gets results when he coaches. If I am a GM and I feel that I am in the hot seat, I may take a look at Hartley and feel he is my best shot to remain employed by taking my under-performing squad further.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

that statement suggests that a coach is irrelevant. Simply not true.

Well not exactly...you couldn't just put me out there but I am talking a qualified professional coach. They certainly make a difference but it's pretty minor IMO.

Babcock is/was the best coach in the NHL with his stacked Wings team. Dead last with a ####ty Leafs roster...now they have an average roster and are average.

On topic you can't take Hartley's cup away from him because he had a great team. Most winners do.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

Another coach who was almost universally hated is Scotty Bowman.

Larry Robinson's famous quote:

364 days of the year you hated Scotty Bowman and on the 365th you picked up your Stanley Cup ring.

A few years back, I spent time with a former NHLer and assistant coach to Scotty Bowman. This guy would become unhinged at the very discussion of anything relating to Bowman and would only refer to him as “that f@cking cu#t.” It was a visceral rage decades after they worked together.

I get that winning is important in sport, but some of these coaches can really screw up the people they’re leading... in some cases for a lifetime.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by MBates

I wonder if a player drinking - even just a little - might have been a uniquely troubling thing for Hartley to grapple with?

Take note as he describes the bracelet that was in his pocket for every single game he coached as a Flame and listen closely to why it was given to him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcK6AXG9i_s

Maybe he deserves some slack on the subject?

An earlier poster made the point by simply asking the question of what Micheal Ferland would say about Hartley. So I thought I would just amplify that a bit:



http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/br...XqJ/story.html

I am not going to doubt player accounts of what they personally experienced, nor am I making a case one way or another about his coaching style or tactics. But maybe Hartley can be both the worst coach Sarich ever had and also a fantastic, yet flawed, human being who made it to the NHL as a coach on merit and happened to pick up a Stanley Cup and Jack Adams award along the way?

What a thoughtful write-up! Mass props for this. If Hartley's only legacy with the flames is taking the time to help Ferland, and the Ferland we have seen this year is the direct result of that effort, Sarich's thoughts on the matter can pound sand.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by mikeecho

A few years back, I spent time with a former NHLer and assistant coach to Scotty Bowman. This guy would become unhinged at the very discussion of anything relating to Bowman and would only refer to him as “that f@cking cu#t.” It was a visceral rage decades after they worked together.

I get that winning is important in sport, but some of these coaches can really screw up the people they’re leading... in some cases for a lifetime.

Anybody who has that much rage in them after that period of time has a problem period dealing with disappointment and anger magement issues.

[GreenLantern2814]

Bob Hartley is a coach in the NHL (Or was, anyway). He knew he had a finite amount of time. He didn't seem the sort to have patience with a veteran like Sarich not doing things he expected of a veteran.

Sarich says he was scratched 11 straight games. Well, as a professional, as a veteran, as someone with a Stanley Cup ring, what is Sarich doing to get back in the lineup? After a month's worth of games off, the coach catches wind that you've had a couple when you shouldn't have, and he throws you in the game.

This is pro sports. What if someone catches an edge in warmup? Now Sarich still has to go in, he's still half in the bag, and he's still unprepared and unprofessional. Maybe he was traded because of his exit interview, but he also was scratched 11 games in a row in year 1 of a 2-year deal.

I like Sarich, he'll always have a place in my heart for the Marleau hit. But he was traded with another malcontent for Shane friggen O'Brien and David Jones. That's what getting 'shot into the sun' actually looks like.

Hartley had won a Stanley Cup. He knew what he expected from his veteran players, and he didn't get that from Sarich. He knew what he expected from his rookies, and he didn't get that from Sven.

He got it from Gio, Brodie, Backlund, Monahan, Johnny, Bennett, Hudler, Russell, Wideman, Byron, Bouma, Jones, even Josh Jooris.

Hartley was here for four years, and I thank him for his service. Had he received Mike Smith level goaltending at any point in his tenure, he might still be the coach.