IF Julien and/or Hitchcock are fired, does Treliving make a move?

[Jore]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This is where things become confusing.

The Flames are still very much a young rebuilding team. I would expect them to be relatively low in scoring chances for and against. Just the nature of the beast until they get more depth and experience.

Also, you do hear often that a team doesn't play well in front of a goalie they don't trust. Flames seemed to vastly improve once Ramo got his groove back - and it wasn't like Ramo was playing some vezina quality minutes - he was merely decent, and the Flames played better in front of him. Remember when McBackup would start over Kipper? Team played a putrid game each and every time.

As for Wideman - the guy just came off a 50+ point season. That is really high last time I checked. He also did have the best shot from the point (better than Hamilton's), not to mention he stepped up huge last year and without him, the Flames don't make the playoffs. This year he started off poorly for whatever reason, and Hartley had to try and find a way to get him going.

Anybody know if the last segment of games before Wideman's suspension if the PP was doing better? For some reason, I recall the PP doing better right before his suspension. For his slow start, Wideman was still leading all Calgary defencemen with points in the first month (or two??), was he not?

The problem is that Wideman never got back on track. A good coach will give a guy like Wideman more rope in an effort to help him and get his game back. Seems he gave him too much rope at the end, but I don't fault Hartley for trying to get Wideman's game back.

i take your points. and, by the way, i lurk more than i post and i find that your posts are consistently articulate and reasonable.

the flames haven't always been rebuilding under hartley, though. he was hired to bring a veteran squad to the playoffs and that year too calgary was among the bottom 10 in terms of shots and shot attempts generated. toronto was rebuilding this year, and yet their ability to generate shots and chances, despite having much more inferior team, far exceeded our ability to do so.

i agree that a team plays differently when it has no confidence in a goalie, but if we look at the stats for shot generation and possession, there is not real major difference between our team this year and last. if anything, we've improved our time of attack slightly.

i use wideman as one example. the other examples of hartleys stubbornness is the lack of change in our team transition and defensive strategy, using engelland as a top 3 dman after hamilton went down, and so on. our pp improved after wideman got suspended, and yet he was given top pp minutes as soon as he came back. the main thing i remember about wideman on the pp this year is his infallible ability to shoot the puck into shinguards. he had a great year last year, and he didn't this year, and it didn't seem to matter to hartley. i appreciate some measure of loyalty in a coach, but to return to what fails over and over again can cost and did cost the team.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This is where things become confusing.

It's not really confusing as all as those stats don't lie. It's simply the high risk/reward style Hartley employs. Flames are like the Dallas Stars-lite. Teams don't win Stanley Cups playing this way and in the case of the Flames and Stars don't even consistently make the playoffs.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's not really confusing as all as those stats don't lie. It's simply the high risk/reward style Hartley employs. Flames are like the Dallas Stars-lite. Teams don't win Stanley Cups playing this way and in the case of the Flames and Stars don't even consistently make the playoffs.

dallas gives up a lot of shots and chances, but they are top 3 in the league at generating more than they give up. from what i've seen, they are much better than we are at dictating the play.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Jore

i take your points. and, by the way, i lurk more than i post and i find that your posts are consistently articulate and reasonable.

the flames haven't always been rebuilding under hartley, though. he was hired to bring a veteran squad to the playoffs and that year too calgary was among the bottom 10 in terms of shots and shot attempts generated. toronto was rebuilding this year, and yet their ability to generate shots and chances, despite having much more inferior team, far exceeded our ability to do so.

i agree that a team plays differently when it has no confidence in a goalie, but if we look at the stats for shot generation and possession, there is not real major difference between our team this year and last. if anything, we've improved our time of attack slightly.

i use wideman as one example. the other examples of hartleys stubbornness is the lack of change in our team transition and defensive strategy, using engelland as a top 3 dman after hamilton went down, and so on. our pp improved after wideman got suspended, and yet he was given top pp minutes as soon as he came back. the main thing i remember about wideman on the pp this year is his infallible ability to shoot the puck into shinguards. he had a great year last year, and he didn't this year, and it didn't seem to matter to hartley. i appreciate some measure of loyalty in a coach, but to return to what fails over and over again can cost and did cost the team.

Trust me.. I am wrong more often than I am right. I am sure more than half of this forum can attest to that, but thanks.

I think a lot of coaches have warts - and I think they all share one wart in particular - they have their vets that they favor. In Hartley's defence, Wideman was a huge part of what made Calgary so successful last season. Yes, I agree that perhaps he gave Wideman too much time, but Wideman has also played himself out of some 'funks' in the past as well.

Don't get me wrong, I am not giving him a 'pass' for it, but just don't think he should be crucified for it considering Wideman's history with the Flames - especially his recent history.

I don't think that will change this time around. I mean, Hartley did drop Wideman to the third pairing early on in the season, but gave him 1st unit pp time. Perhaps that was with an eye in getting Wideman's value increased for a trade? Maybe Trelving requested it? I don't really like to speculate too much, but I do agree that Wideman should not have been given as much rope as he received on the PP - but I don't think that is the biggest reason why the PP failed for so long anyways.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's not really confusing as all as those stats don't lie. It's simply the high risk/reward style Hartley employs. Flames are like the Dallas Stars-lite. Teams don't win Stanley Cups playing this way and in the case of the Flames and Stars don't even consistently make the playoffs.

I am 100% in agreement with you that defence builds championships. However, is that what this team is composed of?

Flames have one really solid 2-way line centered by Backlund. They are also full of puck-moving, 2-way D and (well, until more recently) were undersized. I think it is difficult to really play that tight defensive system when I just don't think they have the horses for it. They are simply too young, too small and too soft.

It is changing, and I would expect Hartley's system to change as the team changes, but I do think that this is just a system that Hartley utilizes to the strengths of the team.

One thing that I absolutely think is critical to this young team is how much time he spends 'teaching'. Lots of coaches just bark on the ice during practices, or even just have their assistants running them. That is not Hartley. He regularly pulls players aside and explains things to them, often taking a lot of time to do so.

Does he have warts? Does he make mistakes? Absolutely.

Is this the perfect system to win championships with? Absolutely not.

Is this a system that comes close to the 'best fit' in terms of composition? In my opinion, yes.

I do think that regardless of what happened this season, Hartley does have half of next season at least before the Flames decide to make a move. I think he has earned it.

If nothing else, let's focus on the future core - Gaudreau and Monahan are fairly strong at playing defence. Bennett was being sheltered, and once playoffs were out of the realm of possibility, Hartley seemed to focus development on him as a center and teaching him the defensive responsibilities of being a center. Brodie has really blossomed under Hartley. Backlund just finished having his best season. Hamilton is a vastly improved defencemen from the first month through to the last (though it can be attributed to being new to the team, granted).

There are many players that are not only having career years offensively, but are playing better defensively. Ferland and Colborne are all seemingly taking strides in developing nicely.

For myself, this is the most critical issue with respect to the Flames' coaching anyways. Even if Darryl Sutter came in (or whomever you consider the best current coach) and took over the team, the Flames would not be anything more than a bubble team. They are not a contending team - that window is not open yet. Hartley is at least moving the future core nicely along, and that is what should be most important to a rebuilding squad anyways, right?

I do think that next season he will either have to get the job done and show a notable increase in the win column, or I do believe Treliving will find someone else. I do think that based on Hartley's performance thus far, he has earned that.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Is this the perfect system to win championships with? Absolutely not.

Is this a system that comes close to the 'best fit' in terms of composition? In my opinion, yes.

This exactly. You're not going to win a championship playing Hartley's current system, but you're not going to win a championship with a team of Smurfs, anyway. And you're not going to win anything if you try to make a team of Smurfs play a conventional system requiring heavy muscle.

One of the nice developments in the late going this year was the emergence of some larger players. Russell is a warrior, but has to play the shot-blocking game because he hasn't got the size to prevent opponents from taking shots. Replacing him with Jokipakka improved the composition of the team. Nakladal, Hathaway, Grant (if he's back), also improve team size. Colborne will never be an old-fashioned bruiser, but he seemed to start using his size more effectively as the season wore on.

Add a goalie and a bit of support on the wings, and this could be a much harder team to play against next year. At that point, they'll have the horses to try to play a more conventional system. But they didn't have the right players this year.

[DiracSpike]

I'm gonna sound kinda ######y saying this but I guess I don't care/will find it interesting to see where the conversation goes...

I've talked to two current Flames players who have nothing but bad things to say about Hartley. The words "detest" and "stupid" came up. Certainly players shouldn't be best friends with the coach but if a lack of respect is there it could manifest itself in disappointing results like we saw this year. I personally like Hartley but if a truly elite coach like Tippett came on the market I would hope management would have a look.

[Erick Estrada]

All 30 NHL head coaches will have a small handful of players on his team that don't like him so unless the players you talked to were in a position of leadership I wouldn't put much stock into it.

[Inglewood Jack]

if any of that's true then I hope those players are able to articulate exactly what the problem is to BT during final reviews. I get the feeling BT already knows he'll have to follow the model of most recent cup winners and switch out the coach to get the most of out of his maturing roster, but is handcuffed by the optics of dumping someone a year removed from a Jack Adams win. I'd say Hartley has enough rope left to get him 1.5 to 2 months into next season. if results are the same, that'll be be the ammo needed for the change.

[HOWITZER]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I'm gonna sound kinda ######y saying this but I guess I don't care/will find it interesting to see where the conversation goes...

I've talked to two current Flames players who have nothing but bad things to say about Hartley. The words "detest" and "stupid" came up. Certainly players shouldn't be best friends with the coach but if a lack of respect is there it could manifest itself in disappointing results like we saw this year. I personally like Hartley but if a truly elite coach like Tippett came on the market I would hope management would have a look.

Really though, who these players are is the bigger question. Are they borderline 4th line players? Young developing players that Hartley has shown tough love to? I think we can all agree that if its Gaudreau and Monahan then it's a much different story than if its Raymond and Engelland. Without more context I don't know how to interpret what it is you're saying.

[saillias]

I do remember Hrudey telling a story during a game vs the Blues 2014. JayBo I think or one of the other Blues asked a Flame how they liked playing for Hartley on a faceoff, heard good things. The Flame replied "we hate him"

[midniteowl]

I remember reading somewhere that a lot of players hated Scotty Bowman as well, but they won quite a few Cups playing for him.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

All 30 NHL head coaches will have a small handful of players on his team that don't like him so unless the players you talked to were in a position of leadership I wouldn't put much stock into it.

How many workplaces with high demands have universally loved bosses? Answer: zero

[Jore]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Don't get me wrong, I am not giving him a 'pass' for it, but just don't think he should be crucified for it considering Wideman's history with the Flames - especially his recent history.

I don't want to speculate too much either, and this is not a hill I want to die on. What about the other examples of Hartley's stubbornness? His lack of adjustment when other teams have adjusted to us? his not playing nakladal until forced to by injuries and suspensions and trades? engelland as the #3 d?

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

One thing that I absolutely think is critical to this young team is how much time he spends 'teaching'. Lots of coaches just bark on the ice during practices, or even just have their assistants running them. That is not Hartley. He regularly pulls players aside and explains things to them, often taking a lot of time to do so.

Does he have warts? Does he make mistakes? Absolutely.

Is this the perfect system to win championships with? Absolutely not.

Is this a system that comes close to the 'best fit' in terms of composition? In my opinion, yes.

I do think that regardless of what happened this season, Hartley does have half of next season at least before the Flames decide to make a move. I think he has earned it.

Why can't we have a coach who can teach and who can implement a winning system? When Julien came on as the coach of the bruins, bergeron was 22, marchand was 19, krejci was 21, and lucic was 19.

he developed them into world class two-way players, and taught them to play solid, winning, defensively sound hockey. chara and boychuk also blossomed under him. wouldn't it be better to get a great coach to teach our young guys the skills and systems necessary to play championship hockey?

i disagree that we don't have the personnel for a defensively sound, possession based hockey. look at the leafs - they had a roster full of nobodies yet always had solid breakouts, zone entries, and neutral zone play. their offense did not rely on rushes and stretch passes 99% of the time. all of the teams below and around us in possession have far worse defensive cores, and worse players in general. i think we are playing far below our potential.

i agree that hartley has done some good here, and i can see management wanting to give him another shot. i worry that if he fails again to improve our systems and defensive play, quality coaches like julien or hitchcock will no longer be around.

[icecube]

If our management thinks Julien or Hitchcock or Tippet make us a better team then I hope they go hard after one of them. That's really all there is to it imo.

[EVERLAST]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I'm gonna sound kinda ######y saying this but I guess I don't care/will find it interesting to see where the conversation goes...

I've talked to two current Flames players who have nothing but bad things to say about Hartley. The words "detest" and "stupid" came up. Certainly players shouldn't be best friends with the coach but if a lack of respect is there it could manifest itself in disappointing results like we saw this year. I personally like Hartley but if a truly elite coach like Tippett came on the market I would hope management would have a look.

Dave tippet is not an elite coach

[Strange Brew]

I suspect BT and Burke know exactly how the players feel about Hartley and consider that in their evaluation. I don't believe Babcock, Sutter, Quenneville are universally loved by their players, are they?

Personally I'm not really a Hartley guy and wouldnt be upset if he was replaced. It would be pretty bold after last year but I would. It be shocked.

[OzSome]

one bad season and people wants Hartley gone? No thanks to Hitch or Julien or even that boring Tippett.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by OzSome

one bad season and people wants Hartley gone? No thanks to Hitch or Julien or even that boring Tippett.

One bad season?? you mean one good one and we should keep him around?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

One bad season?? you mean one good one and we should keep him around?

i think hartley will get another shot next year, but will be on a shorter leash...

I always find it weird that the NHL can have coaches win coach of the year one year and get fired the very next year? While the team under performed this year, i am not sure how much of that early season is completely on Hartley...

i'd give him the first quarter of next year and re-evaluate based on who else might be available... change for the sake of change isn't always a cure.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

i think hartley will get another shot next year, but will be on a shorter leash...

I always find it weird that the NHL can have coaches win coach of the year one year and get fired the very next year? While the team under performed this year, i am not sure how much of that early season is completely on Hartley...

i'd give him the first quarter of next year and re-evaluate based on who else might be available... change for the sake of change isn't always a cure.

I think the Jack Adams has been a horribly voted award. Why aren't Quenville, Sutter and Babcock winning them? Why did so many one and done coaches win it? Maybe there's something wrong with how they vote