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

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Go back a week or two and listen to Rhett talking about Hartley in regards to Kipper. It’s not about “tracking faceoffs”.

Hartley was a trash hire.

Hey if you want to share a link and time stamp, sure. I’ll give a listen, why not

I’m not even particularly interested in defending Hartley, he’s well in the rear view mirror. That’s someone else’s narrative

I’m arguing the absurd simple statements that don’t really make sense in light of readily available information

Trash hire? That comes across as a pretty stupid oversimplification. It’s not black and white. He was brought in to blow up the country club and instill a culture change, involving work ethic. Did he do that? I think so. Was it a job that was going to make him universally popular, much less with the dead weight? Doubtful

He made big changes, got a team to overachieve (or play to their potential), won the Jack Adams, and gave people hanging on to the ####ing zombie corpse of 2004 hope. Even Stajan admitted he brought a lot of things the already f’d up team needed.

But people sagely nod in the echo chamber and basically say he’s full on ####. It’s typical of the polar mentality that is being ingrained in people these days. It’s pretty disappointing.

He sure left some road rash and burnt bridges, but he’s certainly not the single face of the decades of dysfunction.

And this all started with some unsubstantiated rumour of sage veteran players (and given his mandate, not Hartley’s automatic favourites) saying he was ruining one particular rookie who just had a promising season. Please

Good lord. For years the team was branded as coach killers. Stajan gets on the podcast, spells out how the team mutinied, and everybody is sagely nodding about the big bad coach.

Not a wee bit of irony there?

The more you wish to distill a complex and multi dimensional issue in to a single drive by quality statement, the poorer off you are

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Hey if you want to share a link and time stamp, sure. I’ll give a listen, why not

I’m not even particularly interested in defending Hartley, he’s well in the rear view mirror. That’s someone else’s narrative

I’m arguing the absurd simple statements that don’t really make sense in light of readily available information

Trash hire? That comes across as a pretty stupid oversimplification. It’s not black and white. He was brought in to blow up the country club and instill a culture change, involving work ethic. Did he do that? I think so. Was it a job that was going to make him universally popular, much less with the dead weight? Doubtful

He made big changes, got a team to overachieve (or play to their potential), won the Jack Adams, and gave people hanging on to the ####ing zombie corpse of 2004 hope. Even Stajan admitted he brought a lot of things the already f’d up team needed.

But people sagely nod in the echo chamber and basically say he’s full on ####. It’s typical of the polar mentality that is being ingrained in people these days. It’s pretty disappointing.

He sure left some road rash and burnt bridges, but he’s certainly not the single face of the decades of dysfunction.

And this all started with some unsubstantiated rumour of sage veteran players (and given his mandate, not Hartley’s automatic favourites) saying he was ruining one particular rookie who just had a promising season. Please

Good lord. For years the team was branded as coach killers. Stajan gets on the podcast, spells out how the team mutinied, and everybody is sagely nodding about the big bad coach.

Not a wee bit of irony there?

The more you wish to distill a complex and multi dimensional issue in to a single drive by quality statement, the poorer off you are

You are ruining a good old fashioned witch burning.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Hey if you want to share a link and time stamp, sure. I’ll give a listen, why not

I’m not even particularly interested in defending Hartley, he’s well in the rear view mirror. That’s someone else’s narrative

I’m arguing the absurd simple statements that don’t really make sense in light of readily available information

Trash hire? That comes across as a pretty stupid oversimplification. It’s not black and white. He was brought in to blow up the country club and instill a culture change, involving work ethic. Did he do that? I think so. Was it a job that was going to make him universally popular, much less with the dead weight? Doubtful

He made big changes, got a team to overachieve (or play to their potential), won the Jack Adams, and gave people hanging on to the ####ing zombie corpse of 2004 hope. Even Stajan admitted he brought a lot of things the already f’d up team needed.

But people sagely nod in the echo chamber and basically say he’s full on ####. It’s typical of the polar mentality that is being ingrained in people these days. It’s pretty disappointing.

He sure left some road rash and burnt bridges, but he’s certainly not the single face of the decades of dysfunction.

And this all started with some unsubstantiated rumour of sage veteran players (and given his mandate, not Hartley’s automatic favourites) saying he was ruining one particular rookie who just had a promising season. Please

Good lord. For years the team was branded as coach killers. Stajan gets on the podcast, spells out how the team mutinied, and everybody is sagely nodding about the big bad coach.

Not a wee bit of irony there?

The more you wish to distill a complex and multi dimensional issue in to a single drive by quality statement, the poorer off you are

Totally. Everyone else is wrong/illogical/echo chamber/doing drive-bys/etc. Everybody is wrong and their player stories are lies/made-up/misinterpreted. It’s like, SO complex. Like, how could anyone possibly distill this issue down. It’s SO complex.

This is definitely a normal and very cool way to deal with information that doesn’t match your previously held perception. I like watching this. It’s like, here we were just having a normal one chatting Bob Hartley and then noted liar Bingo shares a story (an obvious lie) about how players felt at the time? Can’t let that stand. Noted poor thinker CroFlames sums up his feelings in a sentence? Pfft, no drive-bys on your watch! Very, very cool.

I’m now of the feeling that Bob Hartley’s time on the Flames was vapour. Ungraspable, complex, beautiful, dangerous, iconic, problematic, inspired. Total legend.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Three examples over ten years it the nature of NHL coaches, does it?

Hartley, Sutter, Babcock, Mike Keenan, Ron Wilson, John Tortorella, Randy Carlyle, Marc Crawford, Ken Hitchcock. All demeaned their players to motivate them. All widely hated by those players. Most won the Jack Adams, Stanley Cups, and coached their national teams at the highest level. Scotty Bowman won more than any coach in NHL history, and his players famously ‘hated him for 364 days a year, then won a Cup on the 365th.’

Weird that Hartley is the only one of the three that hasn’t been re-hired. Guess it makes him… unique.

Hartley coached 12 seasons in the NHL - a much longer run than most head coaches have. And every GM who hired him knew what he was like.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Hartley, Sutter, Babcock, Mike Keenan, Ron Wilson, John Tortorella, Randy Carlyle, Marc Crawford, Ken Hitchcock. All demeaned their players to motivate them. All widely hated by those players. Most won the Jack Adams, Stanley Cups, and coached their national teams at the highest level. Scotty Bowman won more than any coach in NHL history, and his players famously ‘hated him for 364 days a year, then won a Cup on the 365th.’

Cool, now list all the rest of the coaches.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Hartley coached 12 seasons in the NHL - a much longer run than most coaches have. And every GM who hired him knew what he was like.

And not since he coached in Calgary, which is what we’re talking about.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Quite dispassionate, to be honest

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

What have I said that doesn't make sense.

Repeated a story with very few elements in it.

- two vets thought Hartley was hard on youth
- he coached Bennett is his rookie season
- they mentioned he was hard on Bennett specifically
- never said Hartley was responsible for ruining Bennett
- never said other coaches didn't have a hand in ruining Bennett
- never said Bennett didn't have a hand in his own development


If you focus on what I actually said, you've never really had anything to argue about, right?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

That story about Hartley in Colorado mockingly saying 'I smell chocolate' behind the bench during a game was all I needed to know about the type of person he was as a coach.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Cool, now list all the rest of the coaches.

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

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And not since he coached in Calgary, which is what we’re talking about.

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.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

What have I said that doesn't make sense.

Repeated a story with very few elements in it.

- two vets thought Hartley was hard on youth
- he coached Bennett is his rookie season
- they mentioned he was hard on Bennett specifically
- never said Hartley was responsible for ruining Bennett
- never said other coaches didn't have a hand in ruining Bennett
- never said Bennett didn't have a hand in his own development


If you focus on what I actually said, you've never really had anything to argue about, right?

It’s impossible to decipher what DM is trying to argue really, it seems they get triggered by something and kind of fly off into an unprovoked tirade. It’s too bad, because they have a good point about ongoing culture issues here and players that quit on coaches.

Hartley was not the answer, but I fall short of calling him a “trash hire”. His resume is better than that.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It’s impossible to decipher what DM is trying to argue really, it seems they get triggered by something and kind of fly off into an unprovoked tirade. It’s too bad, because they have a good point about ongoing culture issues here and players that quit on coaches.

Hartley was not the answer, but I fall short of calling him a “trash hire”. His resume is better than that.

And the person that told me (ex media) could be completely full of crap ... I never tried to assign any level of validity to the story.

It fit the conversation ... that's it.

[Aarongavey]

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.

Darryl Sutter will likely never be hired again either.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Darryl Sutter will likely never be hired again either.

Because of age and no interest from him working again.

Hartley would have loved to coach in the NHL again but he was shown for the #### coach he is. Actually he showed that before coming to Calgary but got lucky that his moron buddy got hired so he got a few extra years in the NHL that he would have never got without Feaster.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Because of age and no interest from him working again.

Hartley would have loved to coach in the NHL again but he was shown for the #### coach he is. Actually he showed that before coming to Calgary but got lucky that his moron buddy got hired so he got a few extra years in the NHL that he would have never got without Feaster.

Hartley is two years younger. I doubt anyone would hire Sutter again either. He was done after the Kings, there was really only one team that would hire him, his buddy Murray.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Hartley is two years younger. I doubt anyone would hire Sutter again either. He was done after the Kings, there was really only one team that would hire him, his buddy Murray.

Hartley has been out of the league for 6+ years he was plenty young enough to get another job.

I think with his history of success with multiple teams/organizations Sutter would still have interest from teams, especially if we were a little younger.

Tortarella, Babcock shown that old school coaches still can be hired in the league.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

What have I said that doesn't make sense.

Repeated a story with very few elements in it.

- two vets thought Hartley was hard on youth
- he coached Bennett is his rookie season
- they mentioned he was hard on Bennett specifically
- never said Hartley was responsible for ruining Bennett
- never said other coaches didn't have a hand in ruining Bennett
- never said Bennett didn't have a hand in his own development


If you focus on what I actually said, you've never really had anything to argue about, right?

Sure, I can pull up what you said.

I got it from a pretty good source back in the day that Stajan and Giordano both told Treliving (separately) that Hartley was absolutely ruining the Flames younger players, and spoke to Bennett specifically.

That if you wanted to develop your youth Hartley had to go, because his mind games with the younger players.

Bennett stories around telling him why he wasn't playing center or playing with good players (say faceoffs), only to have Bennett work his ass off to fix the issue, and then be told another reason.

First - Sure, I guess you never exactly said he ruined Bennett. Just that he was … absolutely ruining young players, specifically Bennett. My apologies. I don’t know how I took that away

Mea culpa

I will say I still don’t think that detail makes sense, in terms of timing, and suggested perhaps somebody misremembered something. That’s all

Just odd that Gio and Stajan reportedly back in the day were raising huge flags about a guy being ruined when he wasn’t underperforming in any way. The working his ass off but not being given a reason seems to map logically time wise to subsequent coaches

You say you didn’t assign validity to it, but I questioned it, and you did say it was reliable. Then explained your view that technically they did spend a season together, so it was not impossible. Fine, just doesn’t pass the smell test for me

Drawing a conclusion that he played favourites and treated players differently, Stajan’s interview reinforces that. That Hartley was disliked? Sure.

I just found it odd that while the brush was out to paint anyways, it seemed like an odd time to throw Bennett in there too. I remembered Hartley publicly gushing about the player at times, and did not recall his situation being a notable issue at the time

Then I thought about this.
You know who Hartley treated poorly? By Stajan’s account, lots of players.
You know who he treated well? Josh Jooris. (Forever a Flame) He awarded Jooris one of his ‘always earned, never given’ spots. Jooris did get a good chunk of time with Gaudreau and Hudler in 14-15, Then he spent more of 15-16 playing with Stajan.

I could see that as some confusing messaging for a young player. Hartley ruined Staj’s linemate Josh Jooris. Wrung out of him all he could, chewed him up and spit him out, and ultimately Tre let him free. Jooris tenure as a post Flame NHLer was not that noteworthy

Well, that was fun


Stajan’s story covered a lot, shed light on the dysfunction, and like I say, talked about some good and necessary things that Hartley brought to the team. I view him as a character in the broader 2000-2020 Flames arc that brought about necessary change, and ultimately left after his hard nosed style wore out its welcome. You could tell Stajan was left disliking him.

Some people hear it and all they hear is ‘see, we know all we need to know, that guy was a horrible guy’. I feel sad for them because it seemed they went in there looking for only that and taking only that away. As mentioned, there was lots to unpack in Stajan’s testimony


I do think there’s a more interesting observation about the team being coach killers over the years. Like I said, Stajan described how they came together as a team, unified the team understanding of Hartley’s tactics, and mutinied

Maybe Staj and Gio doing the best they could with what they learned from the previous regime.


This one’s for you, StrangeBrew.
Stream of consciousness blather.
Josh Jooris. Forever a Flame

[Jiri Hrdina]

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

[Strange Brew]

If every time a player complains about a coach is a “mutiny”, then my guess is every team ever has probably mutinied. GM’s talk to players directly in pro sports, that’s how it goes. Players have a ton of power.

But believe the story or not, are there players who go to bat for Hartley they way there are for Sutter. If so, who?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Hartley has been out of the league for 6+ years he was plenty young enough to get another job.

I think with his history of success with multiple teams/organizations Sutter would still have interest from teams, especially if we were a little younger.

Tortarella, Babcock shown that old school coaches still can be hired in the league.

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.

[Freeway]

I've got a ton of time for Matt Stajan. Love the way he thinks the game and describes the game.


Re: 18-year-old Sam Bennett; Bennett played a third of his 5v5 minutes with Backlund and Frolik in 2015-16, and his possession numbers with them were good. (Granted, just about everybody's numbers with them were good.) Playing with 11 and 67 got him offensive zone looks and scoring chances, but if the idea was to develop him into a good two-way centre, using Backlund/Frolik to prop him up might not have been the ideal scenario.


He had the fourth-most faceoffs taken in 2015-16, way behind third-place Stajan (who took nearly twice as many), and won just 46.1% of them. When he was playing centre, he was (mostly) playing up the middle with guys like Markus Granlund, Jiri Hudler, Micheal Ferland, Josh Jooris, Joe Colborne and Mason Raymond.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If every time a player complains about a coach is a “mutiny”, then my guess is every team ever has probably mutinied. GM’s talk to players directly in pro sports, that’s how it goes. Players have a ton of power.

But believe the story or not, are there players who go to bat for Hartley they way there are for Sutter. If so, who?

In this case, Stajan described how they had it out as a team in the room, shed light on how he treated players differently, and then everybody started to realize

It wasn’t just a guy disagreeing with the coach, he described how the team came together and united against the coach