lol, really?! He had Iggy in his prime plus almost the entire core that went to the '04 final. I feel like this wasn't a serious statement? Or do you truly believe that the current roster is only 1-2 players away from challenging for a Stanley Cup?
What are you taking about? Iggy was not in his prime yet, he only had 67 points. The best C was Conroy with 59 and this is in an era that was the easier to score. Most of the 2002-03 Flames were not even a key part of the 04 run. No way in hell I take that forward group over the current one. Take away Iginla and it isn't even remotely close.
Chat GPT to define how poorly the flames can score.
Yikes.
Sounded like he just used it to do a bit of math. It's not like he just asked it "Can the Flames score goals" and then brought its answer in to the meeting.
Regardless, he's not wrong in his message from that clip. We don't have a 60-goal guy, we have to send everything we can to the net and then try to bang it home.
The Following User Says Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
What are you taking about? Iggy was not in his prime yet, he only had 67 points. The best C was Conroy with 59 and this is in an era that was the easier to score. Most of the 2002-03 Flames were not even a key part of the 04 run. No way in hell I take that forward group over the current one. Take away Iginla and it isn't even remotely close.
Now I know you're not serious. Thanks for clarifying.
2002-03 was not easier for scoring. It was the dead puck era - only one player had 50 goals that year. The champ's best scorer had 57 points. The next season no one got 50. Iggy led the league with 41.
And "not yet prime" Iggy may have only gotten 35 goals/67 points in 02-03, but the season before he had 52goals /96 assists and won the Richard, Ross and Pearson, as well as having gotten a gold medal in Feb 2002.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
2002-03 was not easier for scoring. It was the dead puck era - only one player had 50 goals that year. The champ's best scorer had 57 points. The next season no one got 50. Iggy led the league with 41.
And "not yet prime" Iggy may have only gotten 35 goals/67 points in 02-03, but the season before he had 52goals /96 assists and won the Richard, Ross and Pearson, as well as having gotten a gold medal in Feb 2002.
Good for him. One star player does not make a forward group. This forward group is not nearly as bad as their numbers indicate. I'm pretty sure you could put Harvey behind the bench and he could get more offence out of them. Like you do realize this group that has a bunch of depth of 70-50 point players in the past might break the NHL record for least GF in the modern era right? They might lack a superstar goal scorer but they are nowhere near that bad.
Good for him. One star player does not make a forward group. This forward group is not nearly as bad as their numbers indicate. I'm pretty sure you could put Harvey behind the bench and he could get more offence out of them. Like you do realize this group that has a bunch of depth of 70-50 point players in the past might break the NHL record for least GF in the modern era right? They might lack a superstar goal scorer but they are nowhere near that bad.
I'm just taking issue with the proposition that a 25 year old guy who won the Pearson, Ross and Richard as well as Olympic gold was not in his prime.
Not that the players on 2002-03 were a great team.
As someone who did NOT agree with Treliving letting Troy Ward go and replacing him with Huska - one of Treliving's most underrated moves (though maybe Ward would have worked out in the long term too? I don't know).
Huska seems like a great young coach. He got the Flames to overachieve. No, it was not just Wolf (or Vladar, who is underrated for what he did). This team played with a lot of effort and consistently within a system.
Will he end up becoming the Flames' version of Jon Cooper? Maybe. Maybe not.
I don't see a reason to get rid of him. Replace him with whom?
I have actually argued in the past (vehemently at times!) that just because you have fired the previous coach(s), that it doens't mean what you have now is a good one. I said the same thing about Treliving. Yes, you could have fired Treliving, and ended up with a Feaster again, but fear of that shouldn't tie you into not making a move away from someone who is unable to move the team further ahead.
This is where I judge Huska. Is he capable of moving the team further ahead? I think so. I am not 100% confident, but so far, so good. Will he be the head coach here when the Flames open up the new building? I honestly don't have a clue. One thing that I think is being overlooked in this argument so far (I haven't come across it so far) - is that he may indeed be capable of growth himself, no? He might become better from now until then, right? This isn't a veteran coach who has his way of doing things. He very much seems like a coach who is always trying to learn and adapt new things. So by then, who knows if he will be better, or worse, or the same? Right now, I don't think he has done anything that warrants him being replaced. I think he is bringing along the young kids well enough. I think he maximized what this roster was capable of last season, and the Flames are looking better this season overall - it isn't his fault that Weegar is trying to do too much right now, for instance. I do think that he needs to settle this team down a little more from 'over-playing' - when teams lose, sometimes players try to do too much rather than stick to the system. So that is a criticism that i see right now.
Otherwise, I have to give him a solid B+ so far on everything I see, if I had to grade him. Will he improve on the grade long enough to warrant an additional extension, time will tell, or will he become a D- or F student that is cause for termination, time will also tell. I think that so far, I really have liked him, and he has been a refreshing change of pace from the last 5 head coaches in a row (or longer!).
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
I like Huska and think he has done well with a pretty bad roster.
But, looking down the road a couple years, I assume his tenure will end. I’d like to see the team think outside the box, similar to what Montreal did with MSL.
When MSL was hired, most people, including myself, thought it was ridiculous to give a coaching job to someone with no experience. But he has proven to be a strong coach and the players would take a bullet for him.
Is there another former (recently elite) player who could go this route? Intelligent, thoughtful, inspiring?
Notable younger players that produced less under him:
Philly - Carter, Richards
Nashville - Fiala
I'm not sure about Laviolette's time with WSH, because they had an older core, and Protas, McMichael etc. only got into a couple of games. He was with the Rangers for 2 seasons as well, but didn't seem to get much out of Laf, or Kakko.
I really like the style of all the players that succeeded under Laviolette, and I think it fits perfectly with how I want the Flames to play, but I'm not sure he's a rebuild coach.
My biggest complaint is how boring his system is. Sure, when you are winning you can put up with it. But when you are losing most games, it is so boring to watch.
If you're going to suck regardless, at least entertain the fans. I miss Hartley hockey.
His system is boring. He also doesn't put players in a position to exceed. He doesn't even give enough ice time to players to break them down and build them up.
__________________
I hate just about everyone and just about everything.
