[News Roundup] Flames head coach search. Friedman: Huska is the leading contender

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Hopefully Conny doesn't have to go through the same lessons Treliving did with getting sold on rookie coaches that converted poorly as NHL head coaches.

I think going with the hotshot up and comer in Love is the preferrable internal option to Huska, but I just hope that whatever the verdict is, it works out in the Flames' favour.

Please let coaching talent be the primary determining factor over likability or working familiarity.

We've already made one hire based around this. Love has the accolades on his side.

[868904]

Originally Posted by bax

Developed quite a few prospects in Stockton during his 3 years as well. Hathaway, Lomberg, Jankowski, Mangiapane, Kylington, Andersson, Dube.

So maybe they should put him back in the AHL to develop more players because that is where his value is. Also, this “he developed this player” really undersells the player. Are you suggesting these guys would not have made the NHL if not for Huska being their AHL coach? NHL players find a way.

Anyways, the NHL is not for development, it is all about winning. Huska had 4 years as a head coach in pro hockey and his teams missed the playoffs 3 of 4 years and the one year they made it, they lost in the first round.

Huska might be a good pro coach but his results suggest he is a good “development coach”, because he sure has proven that he can’t win.

I don’t buy this “oh he didn’t have a good team to work with” argument; that is BS, a good coach gets a bad team to win especially at the minor pro level. An legitimate NHL head coach should be able to win in the minors.

All of the “first time” NHL coaches who went on to have success all won at the minor pro level. Cooper, Bednar, even Woodcroft won championships. Huska had a 25% success rate of just making the playoffs!

Love doesn’t have a championship at any level but at least in 6 seasons as a head coach, only one of those seasons has his winning percentage been less than .700

It seems to be the best arguments for Huska is that he’s “paid his dues” and that “he’s a good person”, which is one of the biggest problems with the Flames organization is that they emphasize “good people” too much when really they should be focusing on “winners”.

The job of an NHL head coach is to win, it’s just so odd to hire a guy who can’t win at the pro level.

[Manhattanboy]

Underwhelmed if true.

[Reign of Fire]

Originally Posted by 868904

So maybe they should put him back in the AHL to develop more players because that is where his value is. Also, this “he developed this player” really undersells the player. Are you suggesting these guys would not have made the NHL if not for Huska being their AHL coach? NHL players find a way.

Anyways, the NHL is not for development, it is all about winning. Huska had 4 years as a head coach in pro hockey and his teams missed the playoffs 3 of 4 years and the one year they made it, they lost in the first round.

Huska might be a good pro coach but his results suggest he is a good “development coach”, because he sure has proven that he can’t win.

I don’t buy this “oh he didn’t have a good team to work with” argument; that is BS, a good coach gets a bad team to win especially at the minor pro level. An legitimate NHL head coach should be able to win in the minors.

All of the “first time” NHL coaches who went on to have success all won at the minor pro level. Cooper, Bednar, even Woodcroft won championships. Huska had a 25% success rate of just making the playoffs!

Love doesn’t have a championship at any level but at least in 6 seasons as a head coach, only one of those seasons has his winning percentage been less than .700

It seems to be the best arguments for Huska is that he’s “paid his dues” and that “he’s a good person”, which is one of the biggest problems with the Flames organization is that they emphasize “good people” too much when really they should be focusing on “winners”.

The job of an NHL head coach is to win, it’s just so odd to hire a guy who can’t win at the pro level.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Poe969]

This organization puts WAAAAY too much value on "good guys" and has for too long. That's why they haven't won anything in forever, they'd rather have a team full of good guys instead of a team full of good players/coaches.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

I won’t pretend to know what makes any of these guys the right choice for us, and I’m guessing most of you should be in the same boat as me. Yet most act like you know better than the GM who just spent a decade learning the organization from the inside out.

Maybe wait and see what happens?

This would be a pretty silent place if fans didn't express their opinions on subjects like the hiring of a head coach. I wouldn't hire CP to hire the next HC, but I don't think it's wildly off base to be concerned about promoting someone involved with last seasons team.

A lot of the hockey chatter was "its Love's job to lose" with the sense that he is going to be hired by some NHL team if it isn't the Flames. Contrasting the NHL versus AHL teams performance I personally felt the Flames could use a little Love. Or at least a clean slate.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Poe969

This organization puts WAAAAY too much value on "good guys" and has for too long. That's why they haven't won anything in forever, they'd rather have a team full of good guys instead of a team full of good players/coaches.

The notion that you can't have both, especially in professional hockey, is kind of silly isn't it? Is it only trams that employ coaches of questionable character that win? Maybe your definition of "good guys" and mine differ. I would say almost evert NHL team is full of good guys....players and coaches.

[TheKiprusoffResurrection]

If Huska is the guy, we'll give him a chance.

But after a pretty miserable stretch of coaching and management, we go out and hire OUR assistant coach and OUR assistant GM to right the ship? Is the thought the team is on the right track and needs more of the same? What is Huska going to bring as HC that he didn't bring as AC?

I mean, did they consider guys who actually have a history of winning? Other than D. Sutter, have the Flames ever brought in a coach or GM with a winning track record (in the NHL)? Might be something to consider when we inevitably do this again in a few years.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by bax

Developed quite a few prospects in Stockton during his 3 years as well. Hathaway, Lomberg, Jankowski, Mangiapane, Kylington, Andersson, Dube.

We've said it before, Huska became the coach of the Heat in 2014. Nearly every prospect on the team regressed under Huska. Reinhart, Poirier, Baertschi, Granlund, Hanowski, Knight, all regressed. In other words, every actual forward prospect at the time saw regression.

Things were going much better under Ward (his predecessor). The team was also better.

Huska coached the Heat through the Flames' rebuild. If anything, that's when the prospect pool was the deepest, and that's when the team should have been the best. Sure, Love had Wolf, but Huska also had a World Junior and NCAA winning goaltender. It's just that the prospect, under Huska, didn't develop.

It's is apparent that the notion of Huska being promoted to head coach is mixed at best. If Love ends up being named coach, I can guarantee that CP will have almost unanimous support for the decision.

[Erick Estrada]

Huska definitely represents the most underwhelming candidate but Conroy apprenticed under Trelving so maybe we should have expected that.

[Alex.ua]

Sounds like a joke to me

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by sch19lks

Why do you post here? Your takes are always negative, no matter what the team does

Prove it

Anyway, should stay away if you can’t take opinions.

There is always a case behind every post I made. You may not like it but there are always some reason for it.

If they picked Huska, it has more to do with money than anything. Can’t tell me there are no more qualified candidates

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The notion that you can't have both, especially in professional hockey, is kind of silly isn't it? Is it only trams that employ coaches of questionable character that win? Maybe your definition of "good guys" and mine differ. I would say almost evert NHL team is full of good guys....players and coaches.

I agree but if they had a choice between a known "not good guy" with character issues who was really good at hockey, or someone who isn't as good at hockey but an amazing person, you know they're going after thr good guy. The fans are the same, look at evander Kane. How many people were dead set against him coming here? He would have been one of the best players on the team.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Yes, because you have to have hired a head coach to have an opinion on their ability to do the job. What a stupid take.

No the stupid take was your reaction. You had a temper tantrum when you heard news you didn't want to hear so you called it an epic failure. Way to pass judgement on something that may not happen or could even turn out good

[kukkudo]

Meh, mediocre teams stay mediocre. Huska should have been gone with the rest of the coaching staff.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Prove it

Anyway, should stay away if you can’t take opinions.

There is always a case behind every post I made. You may not like it but there are always some reason for it.

If they picked Huska, it has more to do with money than anything. Can’t tell me there are no more qualified candidates

Lol at this and Spurs thanking it

Two peas in a pod

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Huska definitely represents the most underwhelming candidate but Conroy apprenticed under Trelving so maybe we should have expected that.

Realistically it was always going to be Love or Huska while the team eats $8M in dead money owed to Sutter. They were going to have to go bargain bin hunting and in that scenario promoting from within makes the most sense.

Count me as someone who was intrigued by having the back to back AHL coach of the year come in and take over. I know some credit Wolf for Love’s success vs Huska but Huska coached some good prospects in his day like Rasmus and Mangi.

While I am not a huge fan of the assistant to head coach promotion the organization has been grooming Huska for this role for a while and he has been close to landing other HC jobs in the past. Pretty meh hire but hopefully we can get excited about some of the staff he is adding to his group

[kyuss275]

Put me in the group that thought all the coaches from last year should have been let go. They needed to start fresh. Nothing from his past indicates that he is a head coach in the nhl. I also hate the “paid his dues” look. Nobody had paid his dues more than Geoff ward and look how that turned out. Hopefully we hear that huska was at odds with Sutter on deployment, style of game, and the doom and gloom atmosphere . Players better have really liked him, respected him and not thought he was part of the problem.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Prove it

Anyway, should stay away if you can’t take opinions.

There is always a case behind every post I made. You may not like it but there are always some reason for it.

If they picked Huska, it has more to do with money than anything. Can’t tell me there are no more qualified candidates

Could it be they don't want to lose Huska?, I would imagine he will only accept a HC position. They are likely high on Love but don't want to give up the experience on the back end.

[iggyloob12]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

We've said it before, Huska became the coach of the Heat in 2014. Nearly every prospect on the team regressed under Huska. Reinhart, Poirier, Baertschi, Granlund, Hanowski, Knight, all regressed. In other words, every actual forward prospect at the time saw regression.

I have a different reaction when I look at that list. Except for Baertschi prior to concussions issues, none of those guys found success during or after the Flames. Is that on Huska or were they just mediocre prospects who weren't good enough to make it?