Discussion: favorite and least favorite roster players on Calgary Flames

[Zary's-Mustache]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Lol, yet to play a single game under Huska/rhe Flames.

This tracks.

You do realize Mantha has been in the league a long time right and I watch other teams and players. I have always disliked Mantha. Lazy non passionate player. Don't think he's gonna just change now.

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

He does it before the game, it’s pretty hard to argue that it’s hot dogging or related to Rittich’s stick throw at all, and it hasn’t impacted him up until this point when he’s done it in every game in every league, so can you better explain why you think it matters given that?



It’s fine if you just don’t like it. I’m just not sure projecting that onto other people makes sense.

Is scouting pregame routine more or less accurate than GSAA I wonder.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[timun]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Huska used Kuzmenko in the best way to give him an opportunity to be successful. Kuz is a bad skater, and deficient in his own zone- he needs to play in advantageous situations with the right players.

Yeah, it's easy to see why Tocchet had no use for Kuzmenko: talented, but a one-dimensional cherrypicker.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Hockey-and_stuff

Is scouting pregame routine more or less accurate than GSAA I wonder.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

Yeah, it’s GSAx that people think means more than it does, not GSAA

*the more you know*

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Until the Flames were out of it he was using Kuzmenko on the 4th line at times. Kuzmenko really didn't pop until Savard got to run the PP the way he wanted and Huska gave the forwards more freedom to just go out there and create chances however they wanted. Hopefully he learned from the end of the season and adapts to a more East/West creative style, otherwise players like Huberdeau will continue to struggle badly.

I view playing Kuz on the 4th line as a positive for Huska. Same with Shaggy. It took a while to find their game with the Flames and weren’t gifted minutes. They played better and moved up the line up. That is good coaching in my books.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I think Huska has done a fantastic job. Wasn't my preferred pick, but but he squeezed a lot out of this team even with a handful of players seemingly checked out or on their way out. He squeezed out great performances by being firm but fair and respectful. I have grown to really like Huska. I hope he sticks around for a long time, as I think he will just continue to improve.

[dissentowner]

Ya, he did a fantastic job sewering a team that at the start of last year pretty much every publication had making the playoffs. A legit number one goalie, one of the best D groups in the NHL, and plenty of forward depth and they were terrible. It's amazing the hoops people will jump through to defend this guy. He is a great talker though, he sure can fool some people with the gift of gab.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Conroy made Huska play Sharangovich up the lineup he was fed up. Go listen to his interviews. He said he doesn’t like to stick his nose in coaching but he had to talk to Huska about that.

This wasn’t some coach just bringing him along. Who know what happens if Conroy doesn’t step in.

[Sandman]

We started off slowly, which was to be expected with a new coach at the helm, and that hurt us-along with our record after the trades. If Huska had "sewered" the team as you say, he would've been fired by now.

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Is this an option, or do you base it on any kind of insight?

Huska in his interviews after the coaching hires mentioned that MacLean was a big reason behind our offense turning it around.

I don't love everything about Huska's system, but I think that he helped a lot of players succeed:

• Markstrom looked like a top 10 goalie.
• Sharangovich became a 30 goal scorer and broke the records for Belarusian players.
• Coleman found his offense and scored 30
• Weegar got 20G from the back end while being a very good 2 way D
• Kadri looked like a #1B Center, scoring at a PPG pace after the first 10 games
• Kuzmenko found his offense again in CGY, scoring at a 40G pace
• Hanifin had a career year both offensively and defensively, solidifying himself as a top D in the league.
• Zary, and Pospisil provided more offense and pace than anyone imagined at the start of the year.
• Waiver claims Greer, Pachal, and Hanley all looked like found gems under Huska.
• Huberdeau showed a lot of flashes of his old self, the 3rd period benching was a good move by Huska
• Rooney and Hunt looked like effective 4th liners

Players that underperformed under Huska: Andersson, Lindholm, Backlund(less effective than under Sutter), Dube, Ruzicka, Duehr.

I think that any coach would've struggled with the UFA cloud hovering over this team. Then he lost 3 of his top 5 D, and had them replaced by Miromanov + waiver claims. The Flames were still in the chace until the Hanifin and Tanev trades.

Huska's team was in the chase until after the deadline, where he was given a mostly AHL defense to work with. With a better roster, he would be just fine.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Huska's team was in the chase until after the deadline, where he was given a mostly AHL defense to work with. With a better roster, he would be just fine.

I'm with you here. I also give Huska some leeway for it being his 1st year as a HC in the NHL. There are always some growing pains. Bednar started his career with a 48pt season with Colorado! 3 years later they were a powerhouse, 5 years later they won the cup.

The team last year was also a lot more fun to watch, and worked harder than what we watched in the last year of Sutter, or under the likes of Ward, and Gulutzan.

As far as I'm concerned, Huska gets the benefit of the doubt for the next 2 seasons.

[GioforPM]

My sense is that anyone slamming Huska wanted a different specific coach (eg Love) when he was hired, and therefore overcriticizes Huska.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

My sense is that anyone slamming Huska wanted a different specific coach (eg Love) when he was hired, and therefore overcriticizes Huska.

I was one of those people, I really didn’t like the Huska hire but I started to think differently when the team came out of the blocks looking like an actual NHL team with a system- even when they were losing. The same group didn’t always appear that way under the two previous coaches, and were banging their heads against the wall under Sutter’s “high shot volume” gameplan.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Huska wasn’t my first choice but I don’t hate him. But I do think he overreached on the PP and offence, we didn’t see what Savard talked about.

The team was more fun to watch yes, and this was his first season so it’s growing pains. It will be hard to judge him with the roster next season.

[Sandman]

I agree, it ain't gonna be pretty.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Ya, he did a fantastic job sewering a team that at the start of last year pretty much every publication had making the playoffs. A legit number one goalie, one of the best D groups in the NHL, and plenty of forward depth and they were terrible. It's amazing the hoops people will jump through to defend this guy. He is a great talker though, he sure can fool some people with the gift of gab.

Point taken...you run back the 2022-23 season but have a top-10 goalie (instead of the worst goalie in the league), and you think the team would have made the playoffs. The only real change until Zadorov was traded was removing Sutter and replacing him with a rookie coach. It might be a signal of how good Sutter is instead of how bad Huska is though.

A number of people on this board who didn't fall for Maloney's baloney were far less positive last off-season. For us, the team performed pretty much as many of us expected them to. The only real surprise was that the front office backed away from it's boneheaded plan to re-sign Hanifin, Lindholm etc to long-term contracts. Organization got really lucky in how bad the team started.

I actually care far less about the coaches ability to win that his ability to play and develop the young talent the team will be acquiring.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Wow that's quite the stance from both of you.
Basically if someone disagrees it's because "they were fooled" or "they fell for baloney".

Very open minded.

[Bonded]

Huska is a great coach for a rebuild

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

When did Backlund and Coleman leave?

Isn't this ANNOYING?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Wow that's quite the stance from both of you.
Basically if someone disagrees it's because "they were fooled" or "they fell for baloney".

Very open minded.

I don't mind if someone disagrees, it would be nice though if people gave legit reasons why Huska has shown any sign as a pro coach of being a good one. Saying he did a good job coaching a roster that had all the ingredients of a playoff team to start the season into a sell off and rebuild is a positive for the rebuild crowd but certainly doesn't indicate a capable coach.

[Locke]

Hm. I dont really know too much about Huska, but I don't think he's done anything to actually acquire my ire.

Is he the 'Greatest Coach?' I dunno. Probably not, but is he maybe the coach we need right now?

But he's got some new ideas, fresh ideas, for what is going to be a very young, learning team, and maybe thats a good fit?

I'm not sure. But at the moment we dont have a lot to lose in order to find out.

If anything I'd wager that Marc Savard was useless.