I love reading this kind of stuff. It puts a big smile on my face. Company culture is so unrated and most times its the difference between success and failure. This new culture that management has instilled in the players is awesome. The bond on this team is going to get so strong over the season, that these guys won't think twice about going to war for other. You saw a bit of that bond after Bouma's crazy shift.
^^^^^^
Glencross & Giordano (and the rest of the team, to be fair) all left Hanowski alone ithe dressing room after his first practice (first day on the team, in the pros, in a new city etc). Wasn't the most heart-warming welcome.
It's safe to say our vets have learned their lesson. Think about it this way: for the last decade there was a 'core' of Flames leadership who ran the show, but in a quiet way. Giordano & Glencross (and the rest) came into the team as secondary pieces & weren't expected to be vocal or do much leading. Now that the whole dynamic has changed & they know what is expected of them I'm sure they're contributing to this new positive vibe in the team.
This is getting blown out of proportion as well.
I doubt Hanowski was in corner of the locker room in the fetal position bawling his eyes out because Giordano or Glencross didn't invite him for lunch.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Fire For This Useful Post:
Actually, after watching the speech Hartley gave at the start of training camp last year about the firetruck and everyone getting on board, I hate to say but it falls on Iginla for not buying in to what the coach was preaching.
It is obvious that the current leadership is however, which is nice to see.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Why do some posters go to great length to stymie discussion about some topics, like the change in leadership? It's pretty clear that the new leadership on this team is having an effect and that the old leadership well, maybe wasn't leadership. Why can't we talk about that?
Why do some posters go to great length to stymie discussion about some topics, like the change in leadership? It's pretty clear that the new leadership on this team is having an effect and that the old leadership well, maybe wasn't leadership. Why can't we talk about that?
Agree. We can talk a change in defensive style or anything else. It's fair game. It might make some uncomfortable because it raises one of the weaknesses that Iginla and other beloved veterans perpetuated (knowingly or not.)
Why do some posters go to great length to stymie discussion about some topics, like the change in leadership? It's pretty clear that the new leadership on this team is having an effect and that the old leadership well, maybe wasn't leadership. Why can't we talk about that?
We can. The team is finally following their coach instead of the responsibility of leadership and everything else in between being put onto Iginla.
It's clear Bob Hartley is the leader of his team, which is the way it should be. Iginla probably shouldn't have been captain in the first place. Regehr (while very vocal) wasn't a leader. Bouwmeester sure as hell isn't a leader either. The Flames haven't had someone who could find them an identity and make them work hard since Darryl Sutter.
Saying Iginla isn't the most awesome leader the Flames have ever had isn't a knock on anything he's accomplished. I think a lot of the fans who have harsh/hyperbolic criticisms would be less vocal had the Flames beaten Tampa Bay.
Even if you view Iginla leaving as addition by subtraction, it's all speculation on who was the most toxic. My opinion is this new iteration of the Flames would be nowhere near as cohesive with Brent Sutter still coaching them, even minus Iginla.
We can. The team is finally following their coach instead of the responsibility of leadership and everything else in between being put onto Iginla.
It's clear Bob Hartley is the leader of his team, which is the way it should be. Iginla probably shouldn't have been captain in the first place. Regehr (while very vocal) wasn't a leader. Bouwmeester sure as hell isn't a leader either. The Flames haven't had someone who could find them an identity and make them work hard since Darryl Sutter.
Saying Iginla isn't the most awesome leader the Flames have ever had isn't a knock on anything he's accomplished. I think a lot of the fans who have harsh/hyperbolic criticisms would be less vocal had the Flames beaten Tampa Bay.
Even if you view Iginla leaving as addition by subtraction, it's all speculation on who was the most toxic. My opinion is this new iteration of the Flames would be nowhere near as cohesive with Brent Sutter still coaching them, even minus Iginla.
I have almost the completely opposite point of view. I think Brent would be an even better coach than Hartley (not actually a knock on Bob because I think he's doing well right now). I see Brent as an incredible teacher and mentor for the young roster we have now. He's devotion to accountability to the game, the system, and each other was well known.
The big problem with Brent was, as I read the situation, Iginla didn't buy in. And not only did he not buy-in he actively undermined Brent. Brent's big diatribe explained it as clearly as he could. For Brent's system to work everyone needs to play the system and some players weren't.
Anyway, I'm sure people will ask for proof as to why I think this way of which there is none. It's just my interpretation of the events which no one has any proof of. But, I mean all the smoke is there.
If you'd remember, Hartley was the coach last year too and all the same problems were there in the first 2/3rds of the season. They looked like a team with the exact same problems between the two coaches. All of sudden the leader is shipped off and the team goes on a run, and not only that starts playing system hockey. Weird coincidence.
Skeet shooting is where clay discs shoot out from two fixed positions and you shoot them with a shotgun. Pretty fun actually. Skee ball isn't fun, I always went for the big points and ended up with 10.
Although it would be funny to roll into chuckie cheese and see the flames hogging all the skee ball lanes seeing which team could collect the most tickets.
I have almost the completely opposite point of view. I think Brent would be an even better coach than Hartley (not actually a knock on Bob because I think he's doing well right now). I see Brent as an incredible teacher and mentor for the young roster we have now. He's devotion to accountability to the game, the system, and each other was well known.
The big problem with Brent was, as I read the situation, Iginla didn't buy in. And not only did he not buy-in he actively undermined Brent. Brent's big diatribe explained it as clearly as he could. For Brent's system to work everyone needs to play the system and some players weren't.
Anyway, I'm sure people will ask for proof as to why I think this way of which there is none. It's just my interpretation of the events which no one has any proof of. But, I mean all the smoke is there.
If you'd remember, Hartley was the coach last year too and all the same problems were there in the first 2/3rds of the season. They looked like a team with the exact same problems between the two coaches. All of sudden the leader is shipped off and the team goes on a run, and not only that starts playing system hockey. Weird coincidence.
Here's the real crux of the discussion then. Hartley only had 48 games last season, so the results of the remainder are simply just speculation on anyone's part.
I'm not going to ask you to prove it because you can't anyway, but that's not really what I'm aiming for either. Thinking Brent would have been an even better coach than Hartley for this team is an even greater stretch than saying Iginla refused to buy into Brent's or Hartley's system.
The problem with Brent is he didn't understand that certain things can't be changed. You can't teach skill. Chris Butler is ABSOLUTELY NOT a top pairing defenseman, yet where was he found every game?
Jay Bouwmeester had half his entire goal total (6) in just 33 games under Bob Hartley (with Iginla still on the roster) and from game 1 Hartley started coaching, he knew Stajan didn't belong centering the 4th line.
Honestly I just want to know why some fans have this opinion that Brent would be a great coach for young NHL players (not junior players, please see the difference here.) His Devils teams were laden with veteran players.
In any case, Iginla is gone. There's no need to keep returning to discussions about Jarome's lack of leadership. People's opinions aren't going to change. I've always maintained that the coach should be the foremost leader on his team, and I just didn't see any of that from Brent. Hartley has it in spades.
^^^^^^
Glencross & Giordano (and the rest of the team, to be fair) all left Hanowski alone ithe dressing room after his first practice (first day on the team, in the pros, in a new city etc). Wasn't the most heart-warming welcome.
It's safe to say our vets have learned their lesson. Think about it this way: for the last decade there was a 'core' of Flames leadership who ran the show, but in a quiet way. Giordano & Glencross (and the rest) came into the team as secondary pieces & weren't expected to be vocal or do much leading. Now that the whole dynamic has changed & they know what is expected of them I'm sure they're contributing to this new positive vibe in the team.
Oh that's brutal. Something similar happened to me when I joined a new team and it's pretty telling. Especially if you're the guy their captain was just traded for
Bold statement by Flames captain, Mark Giordano this morning: "This is the closest knit team I've been on in my time as a Flame"
__________________
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
