Bob Hartley and the Coaching Staff Thread

[Coach]

I wouldn't be surprised if Hitch retired. He's getting up there and it's not like he's in great shape.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

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.

The jury is still out as to whether he's even a good AHL coach. Bit early for a promotion to the show.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

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.

Could you be any more Chandler?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by 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.

Pretty much. American fans tend to be fans. Canadian fans, so many of whom grew up playing the game, tend to be armchair coaches and GMs. They all think they can do a better job than the moron who is ruining their hometown team at the moment.

(Except me. I'm just an armchair owner. Man, if I just had a billion dollars in my back pocket… )

[Jore]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

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.

i mean, there is no doubt that i am not all-knowing about the flames organization, from brian burke down, but i think i know the organization about as much as any other fan who cares enough to post on a message board. i think your demand for precision is unrealistic. if you need to "know" that hartley is "reliably and repeatably" the weak link in order to have an opinion about coaching, then who is allowed to post here? BT? burke?

often, all us fans have to go by are "performance-based metrics and anecdotes." in fact, these metrics and anecdotes are more substantial as basis of opinion than most other ways of forming an opinion about a team's play.

i don't know to what extent burke "dictates" the flames style of play, if at all. and of course i can't "know reliably and repeatably" (because i'm a fan on a message board, not burke) that hartley is the weakest link. however, he is the head coach, and the head coach is usually responsible for game planning, tactics, strategies, line-ups, and, yes, team systems. furthermore, given treliving's recent acquisitions - frolik, hamilton, nakladl, etc. - and given what he's told us through interviews, it seems obvious that the organization prefers a modern, possession based style, a style that is the opposite of what hartley has coached thus far.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Pretty much. American fans tend to be fans. Canadian fans, so many of whom grew up playing the game, tend to be armchair coaches and GMs. They all think they can do a better job than the moron who is ruining their hometown team at the moment.

(Except me. I'm just an armchair owner. Man, if I just had a billion dollars in my back pocket… )

Not really.

Lets use 2012 since that when Hartley was hired.

NHL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...L_head_coaches
Thats the list of current NHL coaches. Notice 23 teams have coaches with less then 4 years of service. With 17 of them getting new coaches in last 2 years. Some of those 7 with longer then 4 years are Sutter, Q, Julien, Hitchcock, Boudreau..coaches of perennial contenders.

NFL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_head_coaches
23 of 32 coaches started coaching their teams in 2012 or later. Those 9 coaches who've been there before 2012 have all won a Super Bowl except Lewis, Garrett, Rivera. Win and you keep your job. Lose and they'll call for your head.

NBA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_head_coaches
Only 5 coaches with longer then 4 year tenure; of them Pop, Carlisle and Spoelstra won championships. Casey and Vogel are playing each other in round 1 this year.

You get the idea, doesn't matter what country or league you're in...win and you keep you job, lose and next guy in line will be standing behind you.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Jore

i mean, there is no doubt that i am not all-knowing about the flames organization, from brian burke down, but i think i know the organization about as much as any other fan who cares enough to post on a message board. i think your demand for precision is unrealistic. if you need to "know" that hartley is "reliably and repeatably" the weak link in order to have an opinion about coaching, then who is allowed to post here? BT? burke?

often, all us fans have to go by are "performance-based metrics and anecdotes." in fact, these metrics and anecdotes are more substantial as basis of opinion than most other ways of forming an opinion about a team's play.

That's fine. But as sports team fans it's pretty much second nature to blame the coach for everything that isn't an endless supply of undefeated-seasons-culminating-in-championships.

You can point to bad systems yet what really separates our team's system from what the Blackhawks were running today? They're not that different, but are gong to be less effective when your forwards are guys like Markus Granlund and Lance Bouma instead of Marian Hossa and Jonathan Toews.

You can point to poor player management but what really separates Hartley's love affair with Engelland from Darryl Sutter's belief that Rob Scuderi is the right partner for Drew Doughty now that a needs-to-retire Robyn Regehr is retired?

You can point to a lot of scoring chances given up, but can you easily point to a team whose 20+ minute a game #1C is as inexperienced and still-developing as Sean Monahan that doesn't give up similar amounts of scoring chances*? Why do our team's defensive metrics look just dandy when our 26 year old #2C who people claim is only talented enough to be a #3C, is on the ice?

*don`t say Barkov. He`s a more elite two-way talent than Monny.

My point is that I don`t think Hartley`s perfect, I`m a fan too and there are things he does that drive me nuts, but most complaints about him probably have more tunnel vision than anything else. Our team's youth (and crappy veteran capability) magnifies every blemish. What makes "systems" work in hockey is pretty straight forward in my opinion, being bigger, faster, stronger, more instinctive, more tenacious, or more skilled than your opponent. A combination of all of those things is how good teams win and their systems are made to succeed.

Our team is so very often smaller, slower, weaker, less aware, and devoid of inherent tenacity and skill. We even got rid of Hartley's favorite 4th liner, who was faster than anybody, strong on pucks, and more tenacious than anybody, and played up-and-down the lineup when they couldn't get anything else going. Was Byron a great player no but he was an example of a player who "makes systems work". Guys like Bollig, Jones, Raymond, first half Colborne, Hudler most of the year, and the basic youth in general have been the opposite, they make systems appear to fail by failing to execute.

Are there things they can do to emulate other teams? Sure. Burke often points to something like taking quick perimeter shots on zone entries as "just padding shot attempt stats" when IMO it's a smart play to get a freeze and avoid a bad line change, while also getting an offensive zone faceoff. Those are little things that organizationally the management has hand-waived in the past that could add up. It's also not the coaches who acquired Jokipakka, Russell, Engelland, Smid, Wideman, etc, all guys who didn't have great analytics elsehwere. That's on pro scouting.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

You can point to bad systems yet what really separates our team's system from what the Blackhawks were running today? They're not that different, but are gong to be less effective when your forwards are guys like Markus Granlund and Lance Bouma instead of Marian Hossa and Jonathan Toews.

this is a similar point to the one that textcritic made, and i don't disagree with you. there is no doubt that our roster isn't as strong as most of the good possession teams' rosters (though toronto and carolina provide strong counterpoints to this argument). i think it's necessary to be bigger, stronger, faster, etc. than the other team to win too, but i think the coach also has a role to play in installing a fallback that hides the weaknesses on the roster.

in the flames case, i think it's an absolute travesty that a team with brodie, giordano, and hamilton has as hard a time getting out of its own zone as the flames do. while centres are important, no team close to us in time spent in the defensive end (shot attempts, chances against, etc.) has anywhere near the caliber of defense that we have. this is incredibly damning against the kind of puck recoveries and breakouts we are seeing from the flames.

and i understand that all coaches have baffling favourites, but i don't think many coaches have as many, or hold them as dearly, as hartley (sutter may love scuds, but hartley loves engelland and wideman and russell and colborne etc.).

anyway if you were seriously asking, based on what i've seen of the hawks, i can point to the following as differences from their system to the flames:

lateral passes, sometimes short, on the breakout to elude the forecheck and especially to get through neutral zone pressure.

and the corollary: playing as a 5-man unit, not usually separating too much, and being available for short passes. on the breakout, the hawks seemed to have three players back closer together in a L formation (the blues used an inverted V) so they had three lane options. the flames usually try to stretch out the play, leaving the 2 d stranded. (of course the hawks tried the long-bomb stretch pass often too, with varying results - the point is a varied attack)

players bumping the puck back to the defense when lanes aren't available through the neutral zone (on the flames, only backlund and gaudreau seem to do this)

when on defense, clogging lanes in the neutral zone and angling players to force dump-ins instead of clean entries, while standing up at the blue line to prevent chip plays. in general it's much easier to gain the zone against calgary than teams with a robust neutral zone presence (roster quality has a part in this, like you say, but i can't imagine that neutral zone position isn't affected by coaching)

blocking passing lanes sticks and boxing players out, focusing on shot and chance prevention, instead of collapsing to block shots (this is a big difference and determines breakout strategy too. it's also a difference that hamilton mentions between the calgary scheme and boston's. of course the hawks block shots too - again, it's a matter of adaptability, which hartley's plans don't show)

i'm sure there many other systemic differences that i've missed, and there are specific passing patterns that the blues and hawks use against dump-ins that i'm too lazy to note. also, it's only possible to see so much on tv.

the most noticeable differences imo are how the hawks and blues move as a 5 man unit, whereas the flames blow the zone quicker than is wise and are caught on the backcheck more often. i'm not the only one who thinks this way. again, i think the fact that respected commentators call us a systems disaster is not to be taken lightly.

[kyuss275]

Ducks out in first round. I read anarticle a week ago saying Boudreau might be on thin ice if he did not produce this year. If he becomes available do the flames make a move on him? Personally i think they will give Hartely the bennifit of the doubt and see what he can do with a legit starting goaltender. That said, if Boudreau does become available, they would certainly have to consider the idea.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Ducks out in first round. I read anarticle a week ago saying Boudreau might be on thin ice if he did not produce this year. If he becomes available do the flames make a move on him? Personally i think they will give Hartely the bennifit of the doubt and see what he can do with a legit starting goaltender. That said, if Boudreau does become available, they would certainly have to consider the idea.

Boudreau just can't get it done in the playoffs. Sure, they handled the Flames quite easily, but that's nothing new.

He's lost a ton of game 7's:

-Philly
-Pittsburgh
-Montreal
-Detroit
-LA
-Chicago
-Nashville

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

You can point to bad systems yet what really separates our team's system from what the Blackhawks were running today? They're not that different, but are gong to be less effective when your forwards are guys like Markus Granlund and Lance Bouma instead of Marian Hossa and Jonathan Toews.

But we have forwards like Gaudreau and Monahan and they have guys like Desjardins and Mashinter. We should be way better than the Hawks.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Boudreau just can't get it done in the playoffs. Sure, they handled the Flames quite easily, but that's nothing new.

He's lost a ton of game 7's:

-Philly
-Pittsburgh
-Montreal
-Detroit
-LA
-Chicago
-Nashville

At least he gets them there... I think Game 7 performance is more on players. I mean, I hope you don't need a super duper speech from your coach to get up for a Game 7.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by polak

At least he gets them there... I think Game 7 performance is more on players. I mean, I hope you don't need a super duper speech from your coach to get up for a Game 7.

This is with 2 different teams though. I can't just chalk it up to "his players let him down" seven different times.

He couldn't even get out of round 1 with the reigning Jennings winners (Andersen/Gibson) or a president's trophy winning Caps roster.

Overrated, IMO.