Barn Burner: The Boys are Back!! (Boomer, Pinder & Warrener)

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Babcock is in Columbus and Torts is in Philly coaching a last place team.

These guys are desperate for jobs they aren't picky like they they say they are. Same thing with Sutter only 1 team would hire him and it's because the owner is BFF. 32 jobs of course they will take anything.

I know people want to hate on Sutter and blame him for anything but it is naive to think Calgary was the only team willing to hire him. If he had interest in returning to any NHL city he would have easily had more offers than just Calgary.

Hartley has shown with his continued career in the game that he is interested in coaching anywhere but there is zero interest in him from NHL franchises.

[AustinL_NHL]

Any true contending team with one year of Sutter would dominate the league lol

Sutter also said when he returned that there were only two teams he'd return to coach for: Calgary and Chicago.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by AustinL_NHL

Any true contending team with one year of Sutter would dominate the league lol

Sutter also said when he returned that there were only two teams he'd return to coach for: Calgary and Chicago.

That is fair. Sutter did make the playoffs 33% of the time in his latest run in Calgary which is more than Hartley’s 25%. Sutter did take a team recently to game 5 of the second round before he was spanked out of the playoffs.

There are other coaches like Jay Woodcroft who seem to make the playoffs all the time unlike Hartley and Sutter.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

That is fair. Sutter did make the playoffs 33% of the time in his latest run in Calgary which is more than Hartley’s 25%. Sutter did take a team recently to game 5 of the second round before he was spanked out of the playoffs.

There are other coaches like Jay Woodcroft who seem to make the playoffs all the time unlike Hartley and Sutter.

I wouldn’t conclude it was Sutter who didn’t make the playoffs his first year back. He took over a team outside of the playoffs on the day he showed up.

[Spurs]

Are Sutter's Cup wins and multiple play-off appearances negated by your cherry picked time frame of seasons?

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

10 should be enough to demonstrate that Hartley wasn’t “unique.”



You know who else hasn’t coached since they coached in Calgary? Glen Gulutzan and Geoff Ward - supposedly great guys. For that matter, Jim Playfair, Mike Keenan, and Brent Sutter were never hired to be head coaches again after their stints in Calgary. And for the same reason Hartley wasn’t - too many losing seasons on their resume.

The Flames are natural born coach killers.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Quite dispassionate, to be honest

Curious about people who firmly believe things that don’t make sense to me

Do you find you encounter this often?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Lol I'll only coach two teams but only 1 of 32 want me because I'm best buds with him.

Babcock was never coming back and was coaching college hockey in Saskatchewan now he's in Columbus.

These guys will take any job only thing Sutter has over them is his farm.

Hartley can say he would coach 1 team and jump at any job offered.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

10 should be enough to demonstrate that Hartley wasn’t “unique.”



You know who else hasn’t coached since they coached in Calgary? Glen Gulutzan and Geoff Ward - supposedly great guys. For that matter, Jim Playfair, Mike Keenan, and Brent Sutter were never hired to be head coaches again after their stints in Calgary. And for the same reason Hartley wasn’t - too many losing seasons on their resume.

10/all the coaches ever in the NHL isn’t enough to show it’s “in their nature” or whatever you were getting at. Considering the vast number of coaches that have been in the NHL, only 10 sharing a trait is incredibly unique.

Just FYI: Gulutzan, Ward, and Playfair all coached or were hired to coach in the NHL since they coached the Flames. Hartley is in Russia. Which part of their resume is that because of?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

10/all the coaches ever in the NHL isn’t enough to show it’s “in their nature” or whatever you were getting at. Considering the vast number of coaches that have been in the NHL, only 10 sharing a trait is incredibly unique.

Just FYI: Gulutzan, Ward, and Playfair all coached or were hired to coach in the NHL since they coached the Flames. Hartley is in Russia. Which part of their resume is that because of?

TBF 2 of them went to Edmonton and the other went to Anaheim under one of worst coaches of all time.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

10/all the coaches ever in the NHL isn’t enough to show it’s “in their nature” or whatever you were getting at. Considering the vast number of coaches that have been in the NHL, only 10 sharing a trait is incredibly unique.

You may have noticed those were all coaches from the last 15-20 years or so. Before that, hard-ass coaches were so common that they didn’t stand out. It’s pretty well acknowledged that the trend in recent decades has been towards more empathetic and positive approaches to coaching. There’s a reason coaches like Sutter, Babcock, and Tortorella are referred to as ‘old-school’ and ‘throwbacks.’ Their approach was the norm back when Howie Meeker was wearing his powder-blue blazer on HNIC.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You may have noticed those were all coaches from the last 15-20 years or so. Before that, hard-ass coaches were so common that they didn’t stand out. It’s pretty well acknowledged that the trend in recent decades has been towards more empathetic and positive approaches to coaching. There’s a reason coaches like Sutter, Babcock, and Tortorella are referred to as ‘old-school’ and ‘throwbacks.’ Their approach was the norm back when Howie Meeker was wearing his powder-blue blazer on HNIC.

Exactly, which should illustrate pretty clearly why guys like Hartley are unique and why nobody needs to be “kidding themselves” about the “nature” of pro sports to recognize the decades-long trend and note Hartley as the antithesis of it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Exactly, which should illustrate pretty clearly why guys like Hartley are unique and why nobody needs to be “kidding themselves” about the “nature” of pro sports to recognize the decades-long trend and note Hartley as the antithesis of it.

You seem to have invented some peculiar new meaning for that word.

The nature of professional sports is to subordinate everything else to the goal of winning (well, everything else except maybe money). Hartley’s approach was once common because it was effective. It’s proving less effective with modern players, so it’s becoming less common.

[PepsiFree]

Ok?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Christ dude don’t you know the difference between Bingo stating something versus him passing on something someone else said?

Just shaking my head at this point.

All he had to do is read.

Adding in dripping sarcasm while still not reading it correctly is just the icing.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just shaking my head at this point.

All he had to do is read.

Adding in dripping sarcasm while still not reading it correctly is just the icing.

I guess it was the magic word you included in your post.

Bennett.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just shaking my head at this point.

All he had to do is read.

Adding in dripping sarcasm while still not reading it correctly is just the icing.

I can read quite fine, thank you, and what Hrdina says has nothing to do with anything. Not atypical. It is rather immaterial whether you were relaying a story or stating something

It’s that the particular example cited in the story doesn’t particularly make much sense due to the timeline

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I can read quite fine, thank you, and what Hrdina says has nothing to do with anything. Not atypical. It is rather immaterial whether you were relaying a story or stating something

It’s that the particular example cited in the story doesn’t particularly make much sense due to the timeline

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ Honestly, why are you confused?

Bingo relayed a story, I found a key detail of that story didn’t pass the smell test, so I questioned it.

Nothing to do with whether he was telling a story he heard or stating a fact. Questioning whether the detail passed the smell test.

Seems simple to me

[Jiri Hrdina]

It's fine dude. My bad for re-engaging with you. Won't happen again.