Let's talk about: Bob Hartley

[dissentowner]

It is because Hartley's coaching style fits the roster. The Calgary Flames are a skill team, look at the roster, it is filled with skill players. Sutter's system is fit to a crash and bang dump and chase system while Hartley's is a skill puck possession game. The system is suited to the roster.

[St. Pats]

I'm still more wait and see. We have seen the team with a much more offensive coach before in Keenan. They were more exciting no doubt and won games just like the last one 4-3. They gave up some juicy scoring chances and hoped Kipper would bail them out.

Looks to me that this is still the case.

I'm waiting for some actual balance. In the meantime boring hockey and losing is easily the worst combo. So if all it turns out to be is a return to Keenan hockey that's an improvement.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

It is because Hartley's coaching style fits the roster. The Calgary Flames are a skill team, look at the roster, it is filled with skill players. Sutter's system is fit to a crash and bang dump and chase system while Hartley's is a skill puck possession game. The system is suited to the roster.

that's true, Sutter would do well with the Blue Jackets. They are designed to be a dump and chase team. It was funny last year when people were screaming for Sutter to stop the dump and chase when everyone was saying we weren't skilled enough. Now we're averaging 3 goals a game

[FakenHaken]

While I am optimistic atleast I can watch a full Flames game right now as oppossed to looking forward to getting to bed early.

With that being said:

In: Cerevenka, Hudler, Baertchi, Wideman, Most part Brodie greater than Brodie last year.

Feaster has aquired a hell of a 3rd line/ really a 2nd line.

Yes the style is different much more up tempo but Hartley also has a ton more skill to work with and depth of skill than last years team as well. I am still go Flames go but lets not get too drunk on the Kool aid.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Brent Sutter was a very good 'talker' with the media. All his: "We have to play a certain way to win - this team can't score off the rush", "We need to get that wolf-pack mentality", "Look at Yzerman and how he became a defensive player".

1) We have to play a certain way to win: The Flames were having a tough time adjusting to this 'way' when Brent took over. They were I think 2nd in the west at some point, but not buying into the system as Brent so often would complain about in the after game pressers. Then they started losing. When the Flames made that 'big run' 2 seasons ago that nearly catapulted them into the playoffs, they weren't playing the system. They were scoring on the rush more. Brent's system was meant to cycle. Cycle.. cycle.. and then more cycling. Look at how many injuries occurred last season!

I argue the Flames were a better scoring on the rush team, than a better scoring off the cycle team - even without Hudler, Cervenka and Baertschi. The Flames did not have enough size or grit to cycle. Injuries start piling up. Teams get worn out playing that way all the time. They were forced to play this system that was NOT designed for them. Tanguay and Backlund DEFINITELY are not 'cycle' players. That is why Brent really loved Comeau last season.

2) We need to get that wolf-pack mentality: The 'standing shoulder to shoulder' speech that I admit.. I fell for. Yes, Brent was right about this - you do need that wolf-pack mentality. Look at LA after they bought into the Darryl Sutter system. I think this is still something the Flames need to work on a bit more, but it is coming around. It would never have happened under Brent. Just the injuries that were happening to this squad was insane.

3) The Yzerman comparison = Calling Iginla out in the media: Everyone remember this? So many posters called out Iginla, calling him a 'coach killer', etc. Look at him under Hartley. Slow start offensively again, but look at him buying into something. Backchecking, playing on the PK, and just being a more involved leader out there. It is always hard to turn around and say: "Iginla was not buying in, he is a coach killer" when you perhaps don't factor into that perhaps there were many times he did buy in. Seeing the Flames get shut-out, or unable to ever come from behind to tie a game. I am sure he felt the scrutiny of both losing and not scoring. That is a lot of pressure for him. Did he ever 'not buy in'? Who really knows? Could Iginla have bought in more? Probably. Sure seems to be buying in a WHOLE lot more under Hartley.

This team lost their identity a long time ago. They used to be very much like the LA Kings (though with less talent, obviously). Darryl kept trying to balance this team in terms of offence/defence, and skill/grit. There was no question that the '04 Flames needed more skill, and he added them over the years. Then Offence.. then defence.. etc.. In my opinion, Darryl's biggest shortcoming as a general manager was his inability to hire a good coach (or at least, the right one). Playfair was a poor choice. He was not ready to handle NHL players. Keenan was semi-retired on the job - definitely NOT the 'Iron Mike' that we were all expecting. Brent was not a strategist - he had ONE system apparently that he knew, and tried to force teams into it. Sure, this team may be 'hard to coach', but they are not 'coach killers'. They (like every other team) needs the RIGHT coach to come in and maximize their abilities, and limit their weaknesses. This is what Hartley is trying to do.

The Flames this season are getting some sort of identity now - a fast, skilled and puck-possession oriented team. They are not gritty. They are not a good defensive team. When you look at the roster, they NEED to be offensive. Can you imagine if Brent Sutter was here still? Trying to play that cycling game with the current forwards? Baertschi was told to not hit as much by Conroy - that would never have happened if Sutter was coaching.

I do have a question, however. Last season, you kept hearing about how Brent wants to 'activate his defence' over and over. That 'finally' Bouwmeester has the go-ahead to jump into the play offensively. Never worked out really. This season, it does seem much better. Why?

Oh, and for those of you who are saying that Hartley never liked toughness, you are wrong. Apparently Hartley likes toughness in his teams. I think Feaster is still looking for that out there in the trade market, but it is pricey at the moment.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Seeing this team under Hartley is making me second guess the idea that Brent Sutter is a good NHL coach. I'm starting to think he was a big reason this team has been stagnant. Because right now I see a team that looks as talented as every team they've faced and is putting in good efforts every night.

Seeing Canada bow out in the quarter finals of the Worlds to Slovakia was a pretty good indicator, imo. That roster was infinitely more talented than the ones he had in Calgary.

[Dime_On_Flames]

Positives
-more fluid, attacking system
-general positivite attitude
-fewer shots against
-entertaining product
-getting more out of Bouw & Stajan
-out of the box thinker (putting Tanguay at C)
-SUTTER FREE!

Negatives
-poor PK

I'm definitely aboard the Hartley train!

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by vektor

that's true, Sutter would do well with the Blue Jackets. They are designed to be a dump and chase team. It was funny last year when people were screaming for Sutter to stop the dump and chase when everyone was saying we weren't skilled enough. Now we're averaging 3 goals a game

I think we did see a bit of this last year when the Flames had all those injuries. They hung around despite not being to ice much of an NHL lineup. Which would seem to indicate that the system he was playing could work with lesser skilled guys buying in and doing their jobs. But that wasn't neccessarily the system that the more veteran guys on the Flames were interested in playing night in and night out with a healthy lineup. I guess we'll see how this lasts. So far it does seem to have the team playing better hockey, maybe it eventually leads to them being a more confident group and being able to play better with the lead, and not fold in pressure situations the way they tended do at times the last three years.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Zee

Sutter coached this team like he knew better and the team was there to learn from him, to mold each and every player into his rigid system.

Hartley treats them like the professionals they are, and coaches and guides them where needed, capitalizing on their strengths.

Fully agree here. Anyone remember this quote?

It’s like a bad disease that you have to try to fight off and get through and get a cure and get going. The individual has to take responsibility and say, ‘This isn’t good enough. It’s not acceptable.’ Yet, the only measure you have is through play. - November 22, 2011.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Seeing Canada bow out in the quarter finals of the Worlds to Slovakia was a pretty good indicator, imo. That roster was infinitely more talented than the ones he had in Calgary.

I still can't believe that. Canada with the lead and that group of offensive starts sitting back against SLOVAKIA!

[dammage79]

I like the cut of Hartleys jib. But now with all these injury piling up, he has his hands full trying to get the best out of the bottom six guys who slot into the top six now.

[kirant]

Some general notes I have on Hartley:
1) It's absolutely critical that you can skate with Harley as coach. The team plays so little in the neutral zone that you have to be able to go from defence to offence in the blink of an eye. For this reason, I'm not too surprised Sarich is getting scratched.
2) An offensive system where the defence contribute. Be it Bouwmeester, Giordano, Wideman...whoever. Hartley asks the defence to pinch a lot. It's very similar to Alain Vignault's approach to the defence for the Canucks.
3) Heavily carries the puck into the offensive zone. Dumping the puck now looks like a secondary option.
4) Decreased emphasis on a physical game. Players are not expected to check unless it benefits the team now. It seems Hartley encourages the poke check or the stick lift over rubbing the guy off the puck as long as it results in the same thing.
5) Emphasis on owning the puck. Brent Sutter talked about it, but Hartley plays it. Players will hold the puck and look for an opening instead of throwing the puck at the net.
6) More mental stability. The Flames are still inconsistent, but for much of last year, the running joke I had was "Flames are down by 2. Game's over.". Now, the team seems to at least give a fight if they're down.

On the flip side...:
1) Weakness down low. The defensive system doesn't pursue players in the corners or behind the net much, almost as if they had gone back many, many years and fallen into the "Well, he's behind the net. What could he do from there?" mentality.
2) Odd man rushes. Like with the Canucks, the increase in defensive attack also causes situations where the Flames get caught up ice.
3) PK. Dunno who's running it, but they may want to look it over a bit.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Sutter preferred dump and chase, board play and cycling until a scoring chance would occur. Hartley seems more inclined to allow higher risk plays to allow for scoring chances (as Bingo mentioned "no-no" passes) and defenseman seemingly being given more rope to join the offence. Hartley also seems to adapt well to situations. It's not like we haven't seen defensive hockey this season.

Hartley also just seems more charismatic and likable. Make no mistake though, when he gets angry, the players will know. He is no pushover.

Plus, who doesn't love a good Northern Ontario French accent? He sounds like a fur trader.

Bolded point for truth. Me and some friends called it "humping the boards" a trademark of the Brent Sutter Flames. I absolutely hated it. Just the most boring uninspiring and uncreative hockey you could possibly watch. Probably took all the joy out of the game for the players too.

I agree with most, this still may be a mediocre team, but at least its not horrible to watch anymore. The Brent Sutter Flames were amongst the most boring I've ever seen in my 25 years of watching this team.

[doozwimp]

Thought this was a really good interview and also illustrative of Hartley's positive influence. Especially Tanguay's answer to the question "are you having fun?" Good sign I think. http://video.flames.nhl.com/videocen...sole?id=199824

[moon]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Seeing Canada bow out in the quarter finals of the Worlds to Slovakia was a pretty good indicator, imo. That roster was infinitely more talented than the ones he had in Calgary.

I know it is cool to hate on Sutter here but it is beyond ridiculous to blame him for that loss.

I am sure he told Getzlaf to give the puck away to the Slovak player and then take a stupid 5 minute penalty. In fact I heard he was more pissed that the dozen other NHL stars didn't similarly make boneheaded decisions to cost the team the victory.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by moon

I know it is cool to hate on Sutter here but it is beyond ridiculous to blame him for that loss.

I am sure he told Getzlaf to give the puck away to the Slovak player and then take a stupid 5 minute penalty. In fact I heard he was more pissed that the dozen other NHL stars didn't similarly make boneheaded decisions to cost the team the victory.

Clearly you do not know the depths of what Sutter can do to a hockey team. The Flames would be 8-0 this year if not for Brent Sutter, such is the lingering negative effect that Brent Sutter can have. That WC team would have won the gold medal game 8-0 if not for Brent Sutter, let alone the Slovakian game which would have been 15-2.

[puckluck2]

Just feels like the guys are more positive even when losing.

Confidence is back I think. Brent made them feel like crap after a good game where they lost. As long as the effort is there and they are committed to the game plan then I think the coach should point out the positives.

The problem with Brent is that he didn't realize his game plan sucked, and rarely took blame.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Iginla

Just feels like the guys are more positive even when losing.

Confidence is back I think. .Brent made them feel like crap after a good game where they won As long as the effort is there and they are committed to the game plan then I think the coach should point out the positives.

The problem with Brent is that he didn't realize his game plan sucked, and rarely took blame.

Fixed

[Northendzone]

Can we now talk about bob's sister - nina?

[Dion]

A definate improvement over Brent Sutter. The team looks more relaxed under Hartley and more focused on the details. Then there's the creativity you see on the ice surface with players creating chances. It's fun to watch Flames games again.

Hartley seems way more relaxed and composed as opposed to the volitile Brent Sutter. His personality seems to have had a positive effect on the players. They don't get nervous when they make mistakes and we haven't seen any of the late collapses we saw under Sutter.

Best of all is he has a good read on all the players and who plays best with each other. IMO It's the reason why we've seen a resurrgence in Jay Bo's game. he doesn't have to cover up the mistakes of Butler and playing with Gio gives greater opportunity to create more offensive chances.

Finally I look forward to seeing how Beartschi matures under Hartley this season.