Was Darryl kicked upstairs? Or was he the one demanding to go from coach to GM position?
Not sure. Just saying he was a way better coach than gm and is showing it as a 2 time Stanley cup winner. If we could have kept him coaching after 2004 we might not be where we're at today.
George "Punch" Imlach won <4> Stanley Cups with the Toronto Maple Leafs and is said to have sported a .563 winning percentage--and that in an era when there was no such thing as regular-season OT or the abomination known as the shootout.
Imlach clearly should have been hired after Hartley was forced to walk the plank. Sure, the fact he's dead would be an impediment but I bet he'd sign for peanuts and would agree to whatever term team management proposed.
To be fair, it's still early so I'd give GG 20 games before any thoughts of firing him is talked about. On the flip side tho, Hartley did coach these guys (Hudler/Gaudreau) to NHL award nominations, 1 playoff birth, and was a winner of the coach of year. I do think if Hartley had this years team we would be in a better position.
If the Flames continue down the mediocre road, BT name will be on the chopping block as this is his coaching staff and his full cap team.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FireItUp For This Useful Post:
Treliving will be out of work for about 5 minutes before he's picked up by the Canucks if he is let go.
Then he could re-hire Gulutzan to be the head coach of the Canucks, and sewer their chances of ever making the playoffs. I like it, get er done Burkie!
As I said in the most recent PGT, Bob and Glen both have what the other doesn't. Bob's a great motivator, but not a great strategist and details guy. Wasn't able to adjust his system when it was no longer working because opposing teams had come up with an answer to it. Glen is the complete opposite of that. When the team is motivated and confident they play some great, sound hockey. Best we've seen in quite some time minus a few wrinkles, but he can't keep his team motivated enough to execute the system well every night. Bob used positive reinforcement with the young players and it was effective. He had great composure and I think it was contagious. His team would not get rattled easily, hence the many comebacks under his regime, or at least games where the team would close the gap late out of sheer will and belief instilled by the coach. Usually near the top in third period goals for good reason. Now it's a completely 180. Once the net is empty, you can bet the puck is going in there. Obvious confidence issues. Easily deflated (e.g. 3rd period in the Chicago game). I'm positive that under Bob the team would be more resilient to start this season. Though maybe a bit more loosey-goosey, as they were. And who knows, maybe the Johnny of old would've already made a resurgence.
In a perfect world, I would have kept Bob on as an assistant, maybe purely to keep the team (and individuals) pumped up and believing in themselves through the ebbs and flows of games. But of course, it's too late for that.
The Following User Says Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
As I said in the most recent PGT, Bob and Glen both have what the other doesn't. Bob's a great motivator, but not a great strategist and details guy. Wasn't able to adjust his system when it was no longer working because opposing teams had come up with an answer to it. Glen is the complete opposite of that. When the team is motivated and confident they play some great, sound hockey. Best we've seen in quite some time minus a few wrinkles, but he can't keep his team motivated enough to execute the system well every night. Bob used positive reinforcement with the young players and it was effective. He had great composure and I think it was contagious. His team would not get rattled easily, hence the many comebacks under his regime, or at least games where the team would close the gap late out of sheer will and belief instilled by the coach. Usually near the top in third period goals for good reason. Now it's a completely 180. Once the net is empty, you can bet the puck is going in there. Obvious confidence issues. Easily deflated (e.g. 3rd period in the Chicago game). I'm positive that under Bob the team would be more resilient to start this season. Though maybe a bit more loosey-goosey, as they were. And who knows, maybe the Johnny of old would've already made a resurgence.
In a perfect world, I would have kept Bob on as an assistant, maybe purely to keep the team (and individuals) pumped up and believing in themselves through the ebbs and flows of games. But of course, it's too late for that.
I think this is a pretty fair assessment. Keep Bob as the HC and bring in Glen as the associate or whatever stupid title they want to give him.
Let Gulutzan coach until game 20 then let Hartley take over for the next 20 games. Whoever has the best record gets to coach for the rest of the season.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
Bob was also not a good coach. I'm not sure why people want him back
It's like how, when you break up with a girl because she isn't perfect, you start to miss her when your new girlfriend turns out to be a total nightmare.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to gargamel For This Useful Post:
It's like how, when you break up with a girl because she isn't perfect, you start to miss her when your new girlfriend turns out to be a total nightmare.
and then you remember that she won the Jack Adams a year before you broke up with her
Sorry. "not good" coaches don't win the Jack Adams.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to killer_carlson For This Useful Post:
