Bob Hartley and the Coaching Staff Thread

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Icon

Devils advocate: So? We're still supposed to be rebuilding. Get positive seasons out of the young guys, draft a stud with a high pick. Overall for the future that's a win.

Personally I hope we're in the hunt all season like last year. It seems obvious that Hartley (or someone on the coaching staff) has something that drives the young guys, so canning him seems like a massively shortsighted move.

well this would be the issue this season, isn't it? That whatever it is - opposition playing them harder, team out of sync cause its early in the season, entitled egotistical athletes with new fat contracts, locker room mutiny or whatever you dream up of - its not working this year. Whats important probably isn't so much the wins, but wanting to make sure that your team is at least making progress towards something. If the team is taking a (major) step back and looks in disarray, that would probably be the concern. You don't want to throw away the season and just go for the draft pick, you'd like to see your players grow and get better.

(or maybe I'm all wrong, and we are in a "Win a cup for Gio" for all I know, ha)

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Gosh, that's such a convincing argument. When all else fails, attack the length of the other party's post.

Because, you know, the truth is always short and simple and requires no explanation.

Ugh.. I'm not the one dancing around your post. You are the one neglecting to acknowledge my entire post. I guess I win the argument if this is all you come back with.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Ugh.. I'm not the one dancing around your post. You are the one neglecting to acknowledge my entire post. I guess I win the argument if this is all you come back with.

OK, since you're all butthurt about it:

I hereby acknowledge your entire post. I think it's bollocks.

Is that short enough for you? Because if I actually engage your points, you'll whine about my post being too long and claim victory again. It's pathetic, really.

[Flames_F.T.W]

Not playing Bennett in overtime was a baffling decision by the coaching staff. I was at the game and he was EVERYWHERE and looked fantastic. Pair him with someone good defensively if they're worried about that. But he should have been on for overtime, he more than earned it.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Flames_F.T.W

Not playing Bennett in overtime was a baffling decision by the coaching staff. I was at the game and he was EVERYWHERE and looked fantastic. Pair him with someone good defensively if they're worried about that. But he should have been on for overtime, he more than earned it.

Yeah I was also waiting patiently for him to appear on the ice. I think the difficulty of line changes has something to do with it. Players seem to take longer shifts if no whistle goes just because they don't want to give up an odd man rush. But even after that play where one of our players lost a stick and the puck was deflected over, I was surprised to not see him jump out.

Then again it was mostly Johnny and 2 D in OT, so I'm cool with that.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

OK, since you're all butthurt about it:

I hereby acknowledge your entire post. I think it's bollocks.

Is that short enough for you? Because if I actually engage your points, you'll whine about my post being too long and claim victory again. It's pathetic, really.

I'm the one who is butthurt? Okay buddy. You once again choose not to debate the facts I've laid out before you. So either stop posting this nonsense or keep it on topic.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, but your responses are very juvenile. Grow up.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Questionable coaching choices last night:

- Raymond on the PP
- No timeout after Hiller let in 2 quick goals and the team was scrambling
- Bollig getting minutes over Grant just because an old Chris Neil was in the game
- Hiller not getting pulled after 4 goals on 16 shots. Even if it's not the goalies fault you still need to do something to send a message (It was the goalies fault though)
- No Bennett in Overtime even though he was 2nd star of the game and was a force with Gaudreau.

The positive was that we stopped doing stretch passes after about 10 minutes. Not sure if that was a coaches decision or mutiny. I'm willing to bet this was a record low for icings and a record high for puck possession this season.

[polak]

The allegiance that Hartley seems to have to Hiller, Bollig and Raymond is annoying as all hell.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by polak

The allegiance that Hartley seems to have to Hiller, Bollig and Raymond is annoying as all hell.

It sure is. Backlund is starting to cement himself in that group for me as well.

[polak]

At least Backlund has the capability to be useful, and is just playing like crap right now. Bollig and Raymond are playing as good as they have...

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Questionable coaching choices last night:

- Raymond on the PP
- No timeout after Hiller let in 2 quick goals and the team was scrambling
- Bollig getting minutes over Grant just because an old Chris Neil was in the game
- Hiller not getting pulled after 4 goals on 16 shots. Even if it's not the goalies fault you still need to do something to send a message (It was the goalies fault though)
- No Bennett in Overtime even though he was 2nd star of the game and was a force with Gaudreau.

The positive was that we stopped doing stretch passes after about 10 minutes. Not sure if that was a coaches decision or mutiny. I'm willing to bet this was a record low for icings and a record high for puck possession this season.

There are questionable coaching calls in every single game. But if they turn out positive, no one questions it.

Sometimes you can't always have your 1st and 2nd PP units ready. And sometimes a coach feels a player is ready to contribute so he throws Raymond in. THe PP hasn't been stellar, so shaking it up is not a questionable coaching decision. May I remind you Raymond has a great wrister.

Besides Bollig's boneheaded penalty, he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do. He's improved his skating and is able to backcheck and forecheck adequately.

As for Hiller, it's neither here or there. Maybe the coach was sending a message to his players by keeping him in?

Bennett is 19 years old and despite having a great game last night, he hasn't shown that he's Mr Responsible in his own end yet. He is hungry to score goals and likely would be too eager in an OT period and would put himself out of position trying to score, allowing the other team to break the other way.

Odd how Hartley could do no wrong last year, and this year he can do no right according to some here.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

There are questionable coaching calls in every single game. But if they turn out positive, no one questions it.

Sometimes you can't always have your 1st and 2nd PP units ready. And sometimes a coach feels a player is ready to contribute so he throws Raymond in. THe PP hasn't been stellar, so shaking it up is not a questionable coaching decision. May I remind you Raymond has a great wrister.

Besides Bollig's boneheaded penalty, he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do. He's improved his skating and is able to backcheck and forecheck adequately.

As for Hiller, it's neither here or there. Maybe the coach was sending a message to his players by keeping him in?

Bennett is 19 years old and despite having a great game last night, he hasn't shown that he's Mr Responsible in his own end yet. He is hungry to score goals and likely would be too eager in an OT period and would put himself out of position trying to score, allowing the other team to break the other way.

Odd how Hartley could do no wrong last year, and this year he can do no right according to some here.

How many more embarrassing losses before you stop making excuses for this coaching?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

How many more embarrassing losses before you stop making excuses for this coaching?

A good few more.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

How many more embarrassing losses before you stop making excuses for this coaching?

We get it, you hate Bob Hartley. If they Flames fire him right now, who do they replace him with?

I'm not sure what the current crop of available coaches looks like, but are any of them an instant upgrade on Hartley?

Too bad Torts is taken already.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Questionable coaching choices last night:

- Raymond on the PP

Raymond has the best wing one-timer on the team, maybe second to Wideman and Hudler who play on a different unit. If someone else would set him up you would see it more often.

- No timeout after Hiller let in 2 quick goals and the team was scrambling

Which coaches take timeouts in situations other than icing calls with players tired or right before attempted comebacks with two minutes to go?

- Bollig getting minutes over Grant just because an old Chris Neil was in the game

Did Hartley trade for Bollig?

- Hiller not getting pulled after 4 goals on 16 shots. Even if it's not the goalies fault you still need to do something to send a message (It was the goalies fault though)

Sometimes Hartley does that, though. Not like there is a persistent refusal to do so. Who pulled Hiller in Game 6 against the Canucks after only two goals?

- No Bennett in Overtime even though he was 2nd star of the game and was a force with Gaudreau.

The plan on 3 v 3 is to limit mistakes. Bennett is 19. He'll get on 3 on 3 eventually. It didn't cost us the game, Gaudreau had a chance to bury the game.

The positive was that we stopped doing stretch passes after about 10 minutes. Not sure if that was a coaches decision or mutiny. I'm willing to bet this was a record low for icings and a record high for puck possession this season.

Yes, the players mutinied against Hartley by making adjustments.

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

How many more embarrassing losses before you stop making excuses for this coaching?

Look, I have been a critic of Hartley's moves in more threads than most of the rest of CP. I've faced the "Hartley is the best coach in the league" rebuttals all last season when Hartley would make boneheaded decisions.

Hartley is not responsible for these "embarrassing losses" (the last three of which have been mostly well-played hockey-games.) The players lost those games, and the only thing the coaches can control is ice time of a bunch of question marks.

Bench Russell?
Bench Wideman?
Bench Hamilton?
Bench Bollig?
Bench Raymond?
Bench Backlund?
Bench Jones?
Bench Jooris?

Brilliant. Hartley needs to bench half the roster to keep people happy, and play guys like Derek Grant (who, before two games ago, people thought was a career AHLer and were confounded at his callup) and Jakub Nakladal (0 NHL Games Played)

Right now the Flames have a lot of question marks. No Ferland and no Bouma. No reliable middle pair. Their best (read: only) shutdown center has struggled to the point of people talking about trading him and replacing him with a guy playing on AHL Stockton's fourth line. No secondary scoring prior to last night (who put last night's line combos together?). No goaltending to steal some wins and give players some confidence.

Firing Hartley might be the necessary eventual decision if and when he loses the locker room or gets clearly out-coached in the playoffs or a clearly better replacement is there on the market. Right now he's not the problem, he's a scapegoat for the roster makeup. He's doing a lot of things right and his share of things that we don't agree with. All good coaches do that. We could give Babcock and Quennville some Potara Earings and we'd get still frustrated to hell by that coach.

As for Hartley's system? I'd take it over Brent Sutter's stay-at-home, always, system any day. Hartley doesn't tell guys that their only option is to treat the puck like a hot potato and go for impossible stretch passes. Guys (really, Engelland and especially Russell) do that because they're not very consistently good passers.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Raymond has the best wing one-timer on the team, maybe second to Wideman and Hudler who play on a different unit. If someone else would set him up you would see it more often.

You realize how silly this statement is right? Raymond has a hard time scoring against anyone but the Oilers. The most frequently scratched player is getting PP time. That just doesn't make any sense no matter how you try and spin it.

Which coaches take timeouts in situations other than icing calls with players tired or right before attempted comebacks with two minutes to go?

Every coach in the NHL does.. I can't believe this is your rebuttle. You can't regroup in the locker room, so you do it by calling a timeout. It gives time for the goalie to settle down along with the rest of the team. Catchers do the same thing in baseball to calm down the Pitcher.

Did Hartley trade for Bollig?

No but he did dress him and give him ice time. 2 games in a row he's taken dumb penalties with what limited ice time he gets. Always when the Flames are showing some form of momentum too.

Sometimes Hartley does that, though. Not like there is a persistent refusal to do so. Who pulled Hiller in Game 6 against the Canucks after only two goals?

2 goals on the first 3 shots. It doesn't take a rocket scientist...

The plan on 3 v 3 is to limit mistakes. Bennett is 19. He'll get on 3 on 3 eventually. It didn't cost us the game, Gaudreau had a chance to bury the game.

The plan on 3 v 3 is to dress your best players. If the plan was to limit mistakes you would never see Wideman on the ice in OT. With the jam Bennett last night he earned his time. He was great defensively too last night. Made some real veteran looking plays in his own end.

Yes, the players mutinied against Hartley by making adjustments

That was a tongue in cheek comment and obviously wasn't serious. You do agree that we stopped the stretch passes though right? So the Flames playing some of their best hockey of the year was a result of not playing Hartley's system?

Rather then comment on the rest of your edited post, I'll leave you with this. Either 22 of 23 players forgot how to play hockey this year, or Hartley is not doing what needs to be done to get this team turned around. Which is easier to believe? I can tell you which is easier to fix.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Odd how Hartley could do no wrong last year, and this year he can do no right according to some here.

And there you have it. What if Hartley is exactly as good a coach as many people thought he was before last year? Which I would suggest is basically average.

The Jack Adams is great, but its generally an award for the team that exceeds expectations.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

You realize how silly this statement is right? Raymond has a hard time scoring against anyone but the Oilers. The most frequently scratched player is getting PP time. That just doesn't make any sense no matter how you try and spin it.

It makes perfect sense. Raymond's most useful ability is his shot, so he gets (2nd unit) power play time. Regardless, Raymond only saw PP time in Backlund's place, the unit was originally Colborne-Backlund-Hudler.

Every coach in the NHL does.. I can't believe this is your rebuttle. You can't regroup in the locker room, so you do it by calling a timeout. It gives time for the goalie to settle down along with the rest of the team. Catchers do the same thing in baseball to calm down the Pitcher.

You only get one time out, which in this era of coach's challenges is even more valuable. Just because the color guy was talking about Hartley potentially taking a time out doesn't mean the team needed one. They regrouped themselves and lo and behold, they tied up the game.

No but he did dress him and give him ice time. 2 games in a row he's taken dumb penalties with what limited ice time he gets. Always when the Flames are showing some form of momentum too.

Know a good way to keep Hartley from dressing him?
- Trade him away
- Waive him and assign him to Stockton
- Not waive Paul Byron, who Hartley clearly didn't want to lose.

As for dressing him at all, do you think another coach would surely have scratched Bollig? Bollig is an enforcer, as much as we hate him NHL coaches all play guys like that, and it took the Rangers waiving Tanner Glass to get him off Vigneault's rotations. Vigneault, who's a pretty good coach.

2 goals on the first 3 shots. It doesn't take a rocket scientist...

Hartley pulled goaltenders plenty last season. That wasn't the only time. It's a judgement call, it's not a science at all. Just because you would have made a different judgement call doesn't make yours more correct than his.

The plan on 3 v 3 is to dress your best players. If the plan was to limit mistakes you would never see Wideman on the ice in OT. With the jam Bennett last night he earned his time. He was great defensively too last night. Made some real veteran looking plays in his own end.

Great defensively? He was great defensively for his age, but he was far from great defensively. You didn't see him defending often because he spent most of his time (by design) in the offensive zone.

Maybe Bennett should have played in 3 v 3. But there is no indication that he absolutely should have played in 3 v 3. No point armchair micromanaging such a minor thing. When Bennett establishes himself as a consistently reliable two-way player, he'll play 3 on 3.

You do agree that we stopped the stretch passes though right? So the Flames playing some of their best hockey of the year was a result of not playing Hartley's system?

Hartley's system is not "swing for a home run every single damn time". He encourages the stretch pass if it's there. The players are the ones who need to judge better whether it's there.

I believe in the importance of possession. But possession is only part of the game. The Kings last year dominated possession but were awful at getting easy scoring opportunities. The Flames were the opposite, hemmed in a lot, but relied on the stretch pass to only get odd-man rushes.

Both approaches are highly flawed. But you can't default to blame the coaches, who have a combined 3 Stanley Cups between them.

Good teams have a good balance of stretch pass, 5-man-carry-ins, and everything in between. Not one or the other, and I've watched this team have good balance at times and less good balance at other times.

Hartley doesn't even put Russell in the defensive zone to start. Russell is, in terms of zone starts, our most sheltered player for the last handful of years. Hartley doesn't put him in situations where he should be making the breakout pass at all. He puts Giordano and Brodie almost exclusively in those positions. But the Russell-Wideman pair which is inherently flawed gets started in the offensive zone but ends up in the defensive zone where they are a tire fire.

Should Hartley break up Russell and Wideman? That definitely was the intent when Hamilton was brought in. Hamilton finds his game and it's likely we see a Hamilton-Wideman pair and Russell faces the competition he's better suited for. That, or Russell-Hamilton, which has potential. But it's far too early to blame Hartley for not going with those pairings because Hamilton needs to build some consistency. Russell-Wideman, as much as I hate them together, are a pair who've had success in the role Hartley is using them in. It's not on him that they're not succeeding right now.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Okay you win. Good job Hartley apologists.

Coaching is amazing for the Flames. Definitely not a problem. We are so lucky to have Bob Hartley. So much charisma, that silver fox.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Okay you win. Good job Hartley apologists.

Coaching is amazing for the Flames. Definitely not a problem. We are so lucky to have Bob Hartley. So much charisma, that silver fox.

Who should they hire who's better? You don't just fire a coach (with a winning record last year) without a replacement who is an improvement. That's Oilerville (fire Kruger, hire Eakins).

- Raymond on the PP. Raymond's strength is offence. He plays better in open ice. This is when you play a guy like him.

- No timeout after Hiller let in 2 quick goals and the team was scrambling. Timeouts are overrated. Plus, the Flames were one goal down at that point, and if they were going to have to pull the goalie later, they'd likely need a timeout, assuming a faceoff in the other end.

- Bollig getting minutes over Grant just because an old Chris Neil was in the game I doubt that was the only reason, but Grant isn't some guaranteed improvement over Bollig (who I criticize often). We are talking 6 minutes that didn't go to Grant.

- Hiller not getting pulled after 4 goals on 16 shots. Even if it's not the goalies fault you still need to do something to send a message (It was the goalies fault though) Sometimes the message is "I'm leaving the goalie in - start playing better in front of him".

- No Bennett in Overtime even though he was 2nd star of the game and was a force with Gaudreau. I imagine they have set 3 on 3 lines that they've practiced with. This isn't pond hockey. 3 on 3 is a possession game, and maybe not Bennett's forte (yet). They'd won both of their OTs before, I might add. So they stuck with the guys who'd won those games (plus Brodie I guess).