Bob Hartley and the Coaching Staff Thread

[Jore]

this has been beaten to death, and i've written similar thoughts elsewhere, but thought i might as well write them here in the coaching thread.

i don't see anyone saying that the flames would have been a championship or even a playoff team this year with a better coach than hartley. the goaltending was clearly atrocious, but we can't just ignore all of the glaring problems with our systems, team defence, and 5 on 5 play just because we had bad goalies.

in fact, part of the reason we had such horrible goaltending in the first place was probably because we give up so many scoring chances (26th in the league for score adjusted scoring chances against) and high danger chances (27th) and shots attempts against (27th).

the root of the problem is that hartley has the flames playing a style where we never have the puck. and the reason the flames never have the puck is because of systems and poor usage choices, both of which are the main responsibilities of hartley. as treliving mentioned in an interview, you usually need the puck to score, and you usually don't get scored on when you have the puck.

our systems failures are obvious when we have no effective breakout and get hemmed in and tired out in our own zone, when we can't maintain possession through the neutral zone, when we can't enter the offensive zone cleanly, and when we can't sustain offensive pressure. i got pretty tired of watching the flames chase the play every game, where the most they can muster most of the time is a neutral zone stretch tip dump in, letting the other team recover the puck and go on the offensive against us again at best and icing it at worst. daryl reaugh, for example, a great hockey mind and one of the best color guys around, called the flames a systems disaster.

i think the most concerning trend is that team play as a whole has not improved under hartley. they are playing the same style, giving up the same chances, making the same mistakes they've been making since he took over. some of our players have improved at an individual level, and almost all of them work hard, but can you say that team play as a whole has improved? do we dictate the pace? do we shut teams down? do we outplay the other team most games?

i realize that we are a rebuilding team, but imo the process isn't there. even if we don't ask to make the playoffs, we still need to see a tangible improvement in the way that our team plays. thus far, hartley hasn't shown the kind of adjustment and development of team play that i would like to see from a coach.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Jore

in fact, part of the reason we had such horrible goaltending in the first place was probably because we give up so many scoring chances (26th in the league for score adjusted scoring chances against) and high danger chances (27th) and shots attempts against (27th).

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/st...per-game/2015/

On the bolded, the attached link says we were 11th in the league on shots against?

[Roof-Daddy]

Shot attempts, that includes shots, shots blocked, etc.

[IgiTang]

27th in shot attempts against? That allows for a narrative such as, teams playing the Flames knew to throw everything and anything at the net as there is a strong chance for a loose puck or the puck simply goes in. That is indicative of teams knowing we had very weak goaltending. The fact that the Flames finished 11th in shots against says that the team D was somewhat solid in mitigating those total shot attempts from becoming quality scoring chances.

If they could only get those necessary or "must have" saves, the teams overall Defensive numbers would likely be much better.

[kukkudo]

If some of the contenders fire any of the coaches I see the Flames making a move. If the coach market is weak than the flames continue with Hartley.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

If some of the contenders fire any of the coaches I see the Flames making a move. If the coach market is weak than the flames continue with Hartley.

Lets say the Blues lose tonight and they fire Hitchcock. Or regardless they fire Hitchcock at seasons end.

Do you want BT to fire Hartley and bring in Hitch?

I think that would be a massive mistake.

[polak]

I'm actually a little curious to see what Hartley will come up with now that it's clear his system has failed and even Treliving has publically stated some concerns.

He'll be on a super short leash. If there's no improvements to be had on the market then I'm okay with giving him a month but if things aren't improved then he's gotta go.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

Lets say the Blues lose tonight and they fire Hitchcock. Or regardless they fire Hitchcock at seasons end.

Do you want BT to fire Hartley and bring in Hitch?

I think that would be a massive mistake.

It wouldn't necessarily be a mistake as Hitch has shown that he can do some things very well (defense, systems, line matching), but others not so well (offense, inspiration, playoff success). Then you have to see if the Flames players would fit his style of game (spoiler alert: they likely wouldn't), and then move guys out who don't fit and bring guys in who do fit. That's a long process and it's kind of like starting over again in terms of creating a team identity. To me, any benefits Hitchcock can bring are outweighed by all the other negative factors, and it becomes a lateral move more than anything, all while paying Hartley to NOT coach the Flames without giving him a chance to get the team back on track. Seems kind of pointless I guess.

[IgiTang]

Hire Hitch as an associate coach for systems play and defence? Hartley and Hitch at the helm..?

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

Hire Hitch as an associate coach for systems play and defence? Hartley and Hitch at the helm..?

I'd be surprised if that was the best offer Hitchcock received. Plus Hartley isn't stupid, he'd know Hitch is there because management no longer has full faith in him and he's probably working with his replacement. Might create a whole new mess of problems.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

Hire Hitch as an associate coach for systems play and defence? Hartley and Hitch at the helm..?

I really don't think that after being the head skipper of their respective teams, that either coach would be happy playing sharesies with the other. Hitch would want another NHL head coach gig elsewhere, if STL let him go.

[JohnnyT]

Likely if the head coach gets fired the whole coaching team is gone so I could see the Flames trying to cherry pick a assistant from a team that fires their HC

[IgiTang]

It was said in jest.. No sh** Hitchcock wouldn't take an associate job playing 2nd fiddle to Hartley.

[The Professor]

I get the feeling that Treliving would tap some unknown, promising coach from somewhere. A long time assistant? Or a CHL or College coach?

I don't know of any, but it seems like the kind of move Treliving might make.

I agree that Hartley is on a short leash, and could be replaced early next season or in the off-season if the right candidate is there. I just wonder if that candidate is not currently an NHL coach about to get fired...

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by The Professor

I get the feeling that Treliving would tap some unknown, promising coach from somewhere. A long time assistant? Or a CHL or College coach?

I don't know of any, but it seems like the kind of move Treliving might make.

I agree that Hartley is on a short leash, and could be replaced early next season or in the off-season if the right candidate is there. I just wonder if that candidate is not currently an NHL coach about to get fired...

Maybe he'd promote from within with Ryan Huska. Willie Desjardins had some luck with Vancouver coming outta the CHL, but his roll 4 lines strategy really bit him in the ass.

The one caveat is that we don't know how effective Huska's systems would be, since his instructions are to teach our rookies Hartley's systems in the AHL in order for them to have a smoother transition. So any revamping of systems would mean that all the players in the organization have to learn a new one, possibly from scratch.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

Hire Hitch as an associate coach for systems play and defence? Hartley and Hitch at the helm..?

You think Hitchcock will agree to work as an assistant? No chance.

I tend to agree with many that the Flames need a better system of play, but I also tend to think that coaches get WAY more credit or blame than they deserve for this. Systems are contingent on personnel, and changes within personnel which are affected by injuries, development, transition, etc. will all take their toll.

On special teams, I tend to think that the reason the PK was so bad all year was primarily because goaltending was so poor. The PP clearly showed dramatic improvement with the change in personnel that occurred with Wideman's suspension, but again, the reason it was so poor in the first place was because Wideman was not getting the same results he did the previous season (most certainly, for a variety of reasons, many of which we probably don't know).

I have posted this elsewhere, but I am reticent to set the blame or success for special teams squarely on the coaching staff: Usually the difference between poor and average special teams, or between average and great special teams is pretty marginal. From one season to the next, it is common place for a team to see a dramatic improvement in their special teams without a coaching change or a major change in personnel. Likewise, each year a handful of teams will see a dramatic decline in their PP or PK from one year to the next without a coaching change or replacement of personnel. I would be VERY surprised if the Flames continue to sport the worst power play next season, and also would expect that with solid goaltending from the start of the year, their penalty kill will also not remain league worst. All this without changing coaches.

I think that a coaching change is almost certain to occur at some point in the near future, but am equally convinced that it is not going to solve nearly as many problems as many posters imagine it will.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Jore

we can't just ignore all of the glaring problems with our systems, team defence, and 5 on 5 play just because we had bad goalies.

No, but you have to differntiate the execution of the systems from the "glaring problems inherent to the system", you have to differentiate the team defensive philosphy from the execution of the team defense, and you have to differentiate the team 5-on-5 philosphy from the players' ability to execute 5-on-5. You have to differentiate the "style of play" the President of Hockey Operations dictates from the "style of play" dictated in other organizations. You have to explore whether the organization has a thorough buy-in to the correct analytics or if changes need to be made in that department.

Bob Hartley is not infallable but he's only one cog in the machine. Unless you know that he is, reliably and repeatably, the weak link, you can't just evaluate him based solely on performance-based metrics and anecdotes about "bad systems". There IS more than one way to skin a cat and while some "tricks" might appear to work more consistently, in particular on compensating the flaws of bad teams, that doesn't make them the sole solution.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You think Hitchcock will agree to work as an assistant? No chance.

I tend to agree with many that the Flames need a better system of play, but I also tend to think that coaches get WAY more credit or blame than they deserve for this. Systems are contingent on personnel, and changes within personnel which are affected by injuries, development, transition, etc. will all take their toll.

On special teams, I tend to think that the reason the PK was so bad all year was primarily because goaltending was so poor. The PP clearly showed dramatic improvement with the change in personnel that occurred with Wideman's suspension, but again, the reason it was so poor in the first place was because Wideman was not getting the same results he did the previous season (most certainly, for a variety of reasons, many of which we probably don't know).

I have posted this elsewhere, but I am reticent to set the blame or success for special teams squarely on the coaching staff: Usually the difference between poor and average special teams, or between average and great special teams is pretty marginal. From one season to the next, it is common place for a team to see a dramatic improvement in their special teams without a coaching change or a major change in personnel. Likewise, each year a handful of teams will see a dramatic decline in their PP or PK from one year to the next without a coaching change or replacement of personnel. I would be VERY surprised if the Flames continue to sport the worst power play next season, and also would expect that with solid goaltending from the start of the year, their penalty kill will also not remain league worst. All this without changing coaches.

I think that a coaching change is almost certain to occur at some point in the near future, but am equally convinced that it is not going to solve nearly as many problems as many posters imagine it will.

See 3 posts after that....

[Par]

Originally Posted by polak

I'm actually a little curious to see what Hartley will come up with now that it's clear his system has failed and even Treliving has publically stated some concerns.

He'll be on a super short leash. If there's no improvements to be had on the market then I'm okay with giving him a month but if things aren't improved then he's gotta go.

Say the Flames suck for a month(just like you are saying, we give him a month), would you really want him to be fired after a month? I don't think firing coaches during the regular season is good because it rarely works. I don't think Hartely(great person) is the right coach for this team but you just roll him and see what happens, if it works out, then great but if it does not work out you get a high draft pick(like this year) and a another high draft pick next can do wonders for this team and that is what they need(another high draft pick next year).

[vicarious]

I am in the camp of leaving Hartley in place. Canadian hockey franchises go through by far more coaches and management changes then (more successful) counterparts south of the border because the fan base doesn't have any patience.

I certainly feel that some stability is required for long term sustainable success.

Hartley is a good coach and he's done a great job with developing the young players on this team. I think there are good times ahead and there is no need to continue the pattern of having a revolving door of coaches.