Should/will Bob Hartley be fired in the off season? [EDIT: A conversation from 2013]

[Hockey_Ninja]

I'm willing to keep the guy around for another year. Like i said in the Brent Sutter thread he's going to have to go for a more defensive orientated approach next year, especially with the younger guys coming in. If it bombs again (which it most likely will) then will get Reinhart, Ekblad or McDavid out of it so it'll be fine.

[nik-]

Hopefully he's fired as collateral damage from Feaster being fired.

[thymebalm]

All those apples are rotten. King, Feaster, and Hartley.

Did the guy even TRY to coach team defence this year? not based on the results...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

This team needs a president who stays out of the GMs chair, a GM who shuts his trap and just gets the job done, and a coach who knows how to balance the offensive and defensive side of the game.
.

I don't know how much you can blame that on Hartley though. We have a small, weak team. As far as the style of play goes, Hartley does not really have much of a choice. Just like you cannot take a team of bruisers and grinders and expect them to play up tempo offense.

A team of smurfs will get run over no matter what. When a team is that one dimensional, I think you need to focus on strengths. Feaster needs to give Hartley the tools to make it a more rounded team IMO.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I personally think Hartley should be given a couple of years.

I think he is the right kind of coach for a rebuild, actually. He isn't too 'stern', but he isn't a pushover either. I think he is good at keeping the team relaxed, but does put players in their place, it seems.

Also, I am not sure what the anti-rookie bias is. I think he is tough on rookies for sure, but Tanguay and Hejduk both had stellar years as rookies under him. I remember reading about what Tanguay said - something like "he was very tough, but in the end I have to thank him for it".

For all those that would have preferred Tippet - he is apparently notoriously hard with rookies. Most coaches are. The expectations of winning are always high, and most coaches eventually prefer to throw a vet in there who will not make as many mistakes as a rookie would. However, Hartley kept throwing Tanguay and Hejduk in, even though the expectations were very high, right?

Now with about ZERO expectations for the Flames coming up the rest of this season, and the next at least, I think he would be great for this team. I didn't want him signed at first, but I do think he is the right kind of coach for this team, and seems to have the character for it.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't know how much you can blame that on Hartley though. We have a small, weak team. As far as the style of play goes, Hartley does not really have much of a choice. Just like you cannot take a team of bruisers and grinders and expect them to play up tempo offense.

A team of smurfs will get run over no matter what. When a team is that one dimensional, I think you need to focus on strengths. Feaster needs to give Hartley the tools to make it a more rounded team IMO.

I agree the team as it is constructed today is quite poor, it doesn't have any identity and there's no style of play that suits it......but, it doesn't matter what style you play or how big the team is, you have to get the team to buy in defensively.......and this team is horrible defensively.

You can't be the worst defensive team in the league and expect to win. They deserve to be at the bottom of the standings.

Now, I'm not saying that it's all Hartley's fault, it's not. I was just not a huge fan of the hire and after hearing him tell us how entertaining the team would be, I'm less of a fan. It isn't entertaining hockey, it's depressing.

[Zulu29]

I'm not convinced that Feaster will make it to the draft. If he goes a new GM will likely wanna hire his own guy behind the bench. I'd say they're both goners.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think he's failed to put in a defensive system when we had a fairly decent blueline at the start of the year. I like that this team is more agressive up ice.

I'm concerned that this team has come out unprepared to play too many times this season and not shown a lot of resolve in the face of trouble.

I would give him another year and put a young team in front of him and see how he does.

We can't keep firing freaking coaches.

But I would like to bring in the former Rice Basket ball coach as our motivation coach. A few of our players need a good basketball in the face to wake them up.

[timbit]

No D that is a top pairing D, no top line forwards, probably no proven #1 goalie.

No second line C.

All of the above voids are in reference to a contending team.

Next season they will need to play as a team. 5 on D when the other team has the puck, 5. on offence when they have the puck. 5 tenacious and smart players when neither has the puck.

Balance. Not much cohesion or tenacity on D or when the puck was up for grabs.I blame a good portion of these problems on the core.

[CaramonLS]

I'm torn on this.

I don't think firing Hartley after a 48 game season really gives the guy a fair chance. However, it still needs to be considered based on the following factors:

1) It depends on who becomes available in the summer - if the opportunity to add a guy like Tippett presents itself, you probably do it (or insert other proven coach, who would actually be interested in coaching us).

2) It also depends on how the team decides to play the rest of the way. If we see more Edmonton debacles, I don't know how you could justify keeping a guy who has clearly lost the room. If you see more games like we saw last night in San Jose, I'm OK with that.

[calgARI]

Not the right fit for where the team and organization is. Same with Feaster.

[EVERLAST]

my first thought was .....oh, please yes ...lets fire ANOTHER....coach

But now that I think about it firing the coach would be a great idea.....dear god lord baby Jesus .....okay going away now

Based on a 48 game locked out crap schedule with no training camp and guys just showing up for paychecks .....yeah Hartleys a bum. Good Lordy its gonna be a painful few years isnt it.

I am excited about this team from the goal out.......get some forwards that'll backcheck and have some size and I think were in the mix with the better teams in the league

[dammage79]

Really depends on how Murray views things going forward at the end of the season. If he decides to completely re-vamp everything then yeah I could see a wholesale swap out from top to bottom. Is it that likely he does that though? Probably not. I say theres a 75 percent chance the whole management team stays intact for next season.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I'm torn on this.

I don't think firing Hartley after a 48 game season really gives the guy a fair chance. However, it still needs to be considered based on the following factors:

1) It depends on who becomes available in the summer - if the opportunity to add a guy like Tippett presents itself, you probably do it (or insert other proven coach, who would actually be interested in coaching us).

2) It also depends on how the team decides to play the rest of the way. If we see more Edmonton debacles, I don't know how you could justify keeping a guy who has clearly lost the room. If you see more games like we saw last night in San Jose, I'm OK with that.

I would rather finish 30th for the next decade than watch a dave tippet coached team. Life is too short. At least this team has been capable of putting on a show every now and again.

[dissentowner]

Hartley is an awesome coach, no way.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I would rather finish 30th for the next decade than watch a dave tippet coached team. Life is too short. At least this team has been capable of putting on a show every now and again.

Whine all you want about Tippett, but I would rather watch Hard nosed, physical, winning, defensive hockey than the pillowy soft crap fest we've been subjected to this year.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I would rather finish 30th for the next decade than watch a dave tippet coached team. Life is too short. At least this team has been capable of putting on a show every now and again.

Obviously hyperbole, but I agree with the sentiment. Tippet has a horrible brand of hockey to watch.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Whine all you want about Tippett, but I would rather watch Hard nosed, physical, winning, defensive hockey than the pillowy soft crap fest we've been subjected to this year.

He is notorious for playing vets. Turris ran out of town because of Tippet. I can't imagine a worse coach for this time-frame for the Flames, actually.

You can argue that Tippet would be great for a team making a run. I probably wouldn't argue with you (though I really hate his system), but results are results. However, for a team that is rebuilding, he may be the worst choice possible.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by timbit

No D that is a top pairing D, no top line forwards, probably no proven #1 goalie.

No second line C.

All of the above voids are in reference to a contending team.

Next season they will need to play as a team. 5 on D when the other team has the puck, 5. on offence when they have the puck. 5 tenacious and smart players when neither has the puck.

Balance. Not much cohesion or tenacity on D or when the puck was up for grabs.I blame a good portion of these problems on the core.

Who qualifys as a top pairing D to you? We had Bouwmeester the whole season and were just as bad.

You blame the core, that's hilarious. How anyone can blame anyone but management is beyond me. This team was built terrible. How many of our own draft picks are in the lineup? That should give you your answer. Players that are free agents become available for a reason, and those reasons are being more evident with every passing Flames game.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

He is notorious for playing vets. Turris ran out of town because of Tippet. I can't imagine a worse coach for this time-frame for the Flames, actually.

Was Hartley any different? Benched Baertschi every chance he got. Begin got a phantom high-stick penalty late in the 2nd? Better not let Baertschi set foot on the ice in the third. Forgetting that Baertschi was on the fourth line to begin with.

Fine, Baertschi was probably not ready for the NHL. But give the kid some confidence, placing him on the fourth line and benching him anytime he even thought about making a mistake? That's terrible. Should have had the foresight just to keep him down in the AHL, which we can blame on Feaster if we want but if their not communicating might as well fire both of em.

And Baertschi did have good shifts, even games, but was never rewarded for them. Even if he was operating under a win-now mandate, doesn't seem like that's changing next year.

Hartley should have been fired right before the first game when it was announced T.J. "Brightspot" Brodie was watching the game from the pressbox.