Feb 10 Practice

[sureLoss]

Wes Gilbertson @WesGilbertson
Thirteen dads are travelling on #Flames fathers' trip to San Jose and Arizona. Micheal Ferland invited his uncle. TJ Brodie, his grandpa.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Fair enough, but I think the fact that Nakladal did take a couple of shifts also suggests that Hartley wanted him out there at one point. In any event, it shouldn't be outrageous to think that what he says to the media and how he manages his bench will not always add up.

Not at all, and I understand that and thats fine. I just want to evaluate what we've got.

It is entirely possible that Nakladal isnt going to cut it. Or maybe hes got more than we're giving him credit for, I just dont feel he has been properly evaluated and Hartley giving him less than 2 minutes doesnt help.

I appreciate that Hartley still has his eyes on the playoffs and thats great, thats his job, I just think he could have given Nakladal more time so we know what kind of talent he has.

"Well we wont play him unless there are injuries."

Okay well, one of our top 4 Dmen just got punted for a quarter of a season, Russell is always playing with something, I think Brodie is playing through some pain and I dont think Hamilton gets enough minutes. What more incentive does Hartley need?

And I say this as someone that pretty much feels that Hartley can do whatever he wants. I just dont like or understand this bit.

I get that I'm considering: "Is this player any good for our long-term."

And Hartley is focused on making the playoffs. Now.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Wrong. People aren't saying Nakladal is this or that. They are saying the guy has played very well in the minors, and we should see how he can play in the NHL. If he sucks, at least we know.

Dressing him and playing him for 2 shifts is stupid. Why even dress him ?

Pretty clear the Flames had 3 extra bodies and needed to scratch 3 players yesterday. Why play a man short deliberately? If one of our Dmen went down in the game he would have saw more minutes.

I think the Flames are out of the playoffs for sure. 8pts and 3 teams to leapfrog in 30 games is a very difficult task so I agree let's see what some guys on the farm got. Hartley doesn't see it that way right now and is playing every game like it is do or die

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

This Nakladal dude may never play another game in the NHL again for all I know and I don't want to get overly involved in the extremes of the argument but they dressed him, he was on the bench, and the pairing of Smid and Engelland was a tire fire most of the game. Probably wouldn't have hurt to give him a few shifts in each of the last two periods as I have a hard time believing he was going to be any worse than the other two guys.

Probably not. But at this stage, this behaviour shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Hartley is the kind of coach who is reticent to play non-roster players—especially those in their first NHL game. I get the impression that he takes a very long view of things.

Maybe things would be different with a different coach, but Hartley's approach seems to me to be pretty common with a lot of NHL coaches. Read around a little bit and you will discover that fans are pretty unanimous about how the coach should be playing their rookies a lot more than they are.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Wrong. People aren't saying Nakladal is this or that. They are saying the guy has played very well in the minors, and we should see how he can play in the NHL. If he sucks, at least we know.

Dressing him and playing him for 2 shifts is stupid. Why even dress him ?

Cause they had to due to scratching Johnny, Monny and Boums.

Should have been clear to everyone that he isn't going to play ahead of Brodie, Gio, Hamilton, Russell, Smid and Engelland. His resume is not better than theirs. He does not deserve to play ahead of them. Until somebody needs to be benched, somebody is traded, somebody is injured or Treliving officially says we're not making the playoffs and Hartley is allowed to play call ups ahead of veterans I don't think we'll see him ahead of our veterans. Coaches trying to win don't play call ups ahead of vets. Hartley is a professional, he'll lean on his vets until the playoffs are out of reach officially.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Bob had no intention of playing him to begin with, that was obvious. So why dress him at all.

You think we were going to intentionally dress 19 players for a game instead of the full 20? That's stupid.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know, the tweets that are quoting Hartley, if assumed to be true, do pretty well say exactly that.

For crying out loud people...Hartley specifically asked in the post-game interview...specifically answered. My best quick version of a transcript (missing several you knows and likes throughout):

Q: Was the tempo of the game why Nakladal was used the way he was or was that something you guys planned?

A: Well, you know the way the game was going I would have liked to use Nakladal more. But at the same time you know like its not about how we use one player or two players or ten players...its behind the bench you get a feel and sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong but you have to trust your instincts and I felt that the leafs wouldn't go away and they didn't and you know we wanted this win. So like its nothing on Jacob Nakladal that he didn't do right or stuff like this it was just basically a coach's decision from behind the bench.

What more do you want from the guy? He played an instinct and they won the game.

Fire him immediately I guess...because there is some objectively identifiable "correct" way to bring AHL players into the lineup and he is not doing it.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Pretty clear the Flames had 3 extra bodies and needed to scratch 3 players yesterday. Why play a man short deliberately? If one of our Dmen went down in the game he would have saw more minutes.

I think the Flames are out of the playoffs for sure. 8pts and 3 teams to leapfrog in 30 games is a very difficult task so I agree let's see what some guys on the farm got. Hartley doesn't see it that way right now and is playing every game like it is do or die

7 points out of BOTH wildcard spots with multiple games in hand

lots of teams and still unlikely but they certainly can't throw in the towel

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm quite mystified by the idea that players like Nakladal are in such positions of entitlement: how much leverage does he really have in deciding his own fate here? It seems unlikely to me that he will be entertaining multiple offers from various NHL teams.

You're not wrong, but that's besides the point. Even if at best this is a #6 defenseman, he has been written off as a #8. He'll be a #8 for this team for the rest of the year with no opportunity to move on up.

This will be the end of year 4 of Hartley's reign as coach. Over that time, these are the defensemen to have played Calder-eligible seasons for us, a team that's been bottom 6 for three of four seasons:

No One.

Yeah, no one. "but we're trying to win!". Well, what defines a winning team? A contender? Teams considered "Contenders" have been managing to find guys to fill out their roster and even get themselves promoted to 2nd pair or even first pair on the fly. Jake Muzzin. Trevor Van Riemsdyk, Torey Krug, Jason Demers, Colton Parayko. The list goes on. Pick a year, pick a contender, there's probably a guy they promoted internally.

"But those teams are good enough to live through rookie mistakes. Mediocre teams like us don't have the margin for error!" Let's see, Philly, Boston, Vancouver, and Carolina are all mediocre/rebuilding teams that are ahead of us in the standings. Do the names Colin Miller, Shayne Gostisbehere, Ben Hutton, and Jaccob Slavin mean anything?

"But if we played a guy with no NHL experience whos obviously too good for the AHL on our bottom defense pair, we'd be worse than Edmonton!". Not everything revolves around Edmonton.

If it's not Hartley, then our scouting and development has seriously ****ed up somewhere. The same scouting and development that gave us Gio, Brodie, Gaudreau, Ferland, and Backlund - they've seriously ****ed up finding NHL defense prospects. Should we have any confidence we'll ever see even one of Kylington, Hickey, Kulak, Andersson, Wotherspoon, Culkin, Ollas-Mattson, Sieloff, Gilmour, or Morrison ever complete a Calder-eligible season if a 28 year old pro doesn't isn't even given confidence to complete three shifts in a game against a team whose only competent offensive line couldn't even score on Jonas Hiller?

Or maybe it's management's fault for having seven veteran defensemen on roster every season. What does that tell us about their concept of "rebuilding"? I'm liking the Dougie Hamilton trade but we paid a huge price for it. Kyle Connor is having a Draft+1 season that makes it likely he will be next year's Dylan Larkin (or better), and Kyle Connor was the forward they mentioned they were scouting "heavily". So we basically gave up on a forward prospect of potentially similar talent to Sam Bennett to bypass the fact that no defenseman prospect has made this team since TJ Brodie, and TJ Brodie made this team under a different coach and management and while he's developed into a top pair guy now, in the NHL, it's not like it was clear he was even a top 4 guy then.

Sure, Nakladal has no "leverage" because he has nothing to show at the NHL level. But I feel legitimately bad for the guy because even if he's a terrible NHL defensemen, nearly every other team would strive to get a snapshot of who he is. I don't believe you sign 28 year olds from Europe under the promise of AHL time.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Bob had no intention of playing him to begin with, that was obvious. So why dress him at all.

a. He dresses because you ice a full roster and because it's not hard for a d-man to leave the ice. Brodie took a hard shot the other game and left.

b. He obviously intended on playing him at first, evidenced by the fact that he did. I take him at his word - he just decided to play the vets as the game went on. The late 4-2 goal probably changed things a lot or you would have seen him more in the 3rd.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Wow. You guys are getting worked up about a whole lot of nothing as far as I'm concerned.

Nakladal will likely get his chance at some point due to injury or trades. Patience is a virtue. Nakladal seems to have some of it, many posters here do not.

He's done nothing to deserve having a spot hand wrapped for him ahead of NHL veteran defensemen. That's a fact.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Probably not. But at this stage, this behaviour shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Hartley is the kind of coach who is reticent to play non-roster players—especially those in their first NHL game. I get the impression that he takes a very long view of things.

Maybe things would be different with a different coach, but Hartley's approach seems to me to be pretty common with a lot of NHL coaches. Read around a little bit and you will discover that fans are pretty unanimous about how the coach should be playing their rookies a lot more than they are.

I get that and fully understand what we have in Bob Hartley. My thing is that we always discuss him coaching to make the playoffs and win every game even though the reality is that he's going to miss the playoffs for the 3rd time in 4 years as Flames head coach. If this is his record trying his hardest to win is Hartley part of the solution for a rebuilding team? If he wants to play his vets to make the playoffs at all costs over developing young players I'm fine with that but the team better win but the problem is that aren't winning enough and haven't over most of his tenure. I feel he needs to be more flexible or he's making a case for his demise.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I get that and fully understand what we have in Bob Hartley. My thing is that we always discuss him coaching to make the playoffs and win every game even though the reality is that he's going to miss the playoffs for the 3rd time in 4 years as Flames head coach. If this is his record trying his hardest to win is Hartley part of the solution for a rebuilding team? If he wants to play his vets to make the playoffs at all costs over developing young players I'm fine with that but the team better win but the problem is that aren't winning enough and haven't over most of his tenure. I feel he needs to be more flexible or he's making a case for his demise.

Exactly this. A big picture take says he's been an unsuccessful coach here.

Not much heat has been put his way for years 1 and 2, because there were a lot of other guys above him (Feaster, Weisbrod, Ken King) taking the heat for bad Flames teams. But he took a group that was about a 9th-11th place team for 3 years and took them to the basement for 2 years, netting us our highest draft pick in franchise history.

The whole fanbase bought in to the "the roster is putrid". I dunno, it was just sort of mediocre under reviled former coach Brent Sutter. How did it become that much worse under Hartley when adding Hudler, Wideman?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I get that and fully understand what we have in Bob Hartley. My thing is that we always discuss him coaching to make the playoffs and win every game even though the reality is that he's going to miss the playoffs for the 3rd time in 4 years as Flames head coach. If this is his record trying his hardest to win is Hartley part of the solution for a rebuilding team? If he wants to play his vets to make the playoffs at all costs over developing young players I'm fine with that but the team better win and they aren't and haven't much over his tenure.

During the actual rebuild (by which I mean post-Iggy), Hartley is 104-95-17. Not bad over 2.5 seasons.

As for not playing young players: Gaudreau, Bennett, Monahan, Ferland, Bouma, Colborne, Granlund, Jooris and Brodie say hi.

But, some of those are great players, you say? Well, yeah, they earned a regular spot starting with some limited ice time.

Not to mention he gave pretty good shots to Poirier, Sven, Shore, and (IMO) Ortio. He played Grant a fair bit to see what he had (which was pretty good). Kulak got decent ice time.

[polak]

Brodie is only a year younger than Backlund

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I get that and fully understand what we have in Bob Hartley. My thing is that we always discuss him coaching to make the playoffs and win every game even though the reality is that he's going to miss the playoffs for the 3rd time in 4 years as Flames head coach. If this is his record trying his hardest to win is Hartley part of the solution for a rebuilding team? If he wants to play his vets to make the playoffs at all costs over developing young players I'm fine with that but the team better win but the problem is that aren't winning enough and haven't over most of his tenure. I feel he needs to be more flexible or he's making a case for his demise.

But my point here is that this wish for a different coach who will not play to make the playoffs, or who will always decide to play young players for the sake of development at the expense of veterans is a pipe-dream. Insert a new NHL coach, and I expect more or less the same sort of treatment when it comes to the handling of "young players" and veterans. (I set young players in scare quotes, because Nakladal is probably best considered a non-NHL player, who is at an age where he has likely met his ceiling).

The point here being that the Flames' fortunes, and the developmental track of the Flames' prospects is not about to suddenly improve with a new coach. I don't think Hartley is a particularly good strategic coach, but I do believe him to be a highly capable motivator, which is what I think this team needs at this stage in its cycle. I don't expect Hartley to be in Calgary for long, but while he is here, I also don't have many problems with how he handles this group of players. There will come a point where his purpose to in-still a mindset of what makes a NHL team—with messages like, "this is how we practice"; "this is how we train"; "this is how we live"; "this is how hard we have to work"; "this is how hard it is to make this team"; "this is how hard it is to be a successful NHL player"—will eventually become obsolete for this roster, but I don't think they are there quite yet. Eventually, this roster will benefit greatly from having a different coach, but they just aren't good enough, nor experienced enough for that to be the priority just yet.

In other words, Hartley is the coach the Flames deserve right now, but there will come a day when they earn a different kind of coach—one who will win.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by saillias

Exactly this. A big picture take says he's been an unsuccessful coach here.

Not much heat has been put his way for years 1 and 2, because there were a lot of other guys above him (Feaster, Weisbrod, Ken King) taking the heat for bad Flames teams. But he took a group that was about a 9th-11th place team for 3 years and took them to the basement for 2 years, netting us our highest draft pick in franchise history.

The whole fanbase bought in to the "the roster is putrid". I dunno, it was just sort of mediocre under reviled former coach Brent Sutter. How did it become that much worse under Hartley when adding Hudler, Wideman?

His first year he had Backlund and Stajan as a number one centre choices. That's tough right there. His forwards were mediocre at best. Defensively he had Jaybo on the top pairing. Wideman had a bad year, leaving Gio as the only decent veteran defenceman (Brodie was up and coming). he had to play Chruis Butler full time. Then you have Mikka posting a 3.44 and .882 save %.

His depth was atrocious - Jackman, Cervenka, Begin, Sven, Comeau, etc.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by polak

Brodie is only a year younger than Backlund

That's a hell of a rebuttal to the list of players I mentioned - one quibble about Brodie's age.

Backlund is still a fairly young player too. Plus Brodie is a D so tack on a couple years to "young", since they are typically a couple years slower to develop.

[Toonage]

Ah, memories. I recall the first game of the 2013 season, his first as Flames head coach. Bob Hartley scratched TJ Brodie. We've all come a long way.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Probably not. But at this stage, this behaviour shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Hartley is the kind of coach who is reticent to play non-roster players—especially those in their first NHL game. I get the impression that he takes a very long view of things.

Maybe things would be different with a different coach, but Hartley's approach seems to me to be pretty common with a lot of NHL coaches. Read around a little bit and you will discover that fans are pretty unanimous about how the coach should be playing their rookies a lot more than they are.

You're being obtuse. Sure people complain about rookie icetime but we're talking about 1:45 of icetime after sitting him game after game without a sniff. I checked the stats at nhl.com for TOI per game.

The only player with a lower icetime per game this year was Wizniewski who tore his ACL 47 seconds into his first shift. Scores of guys up from the minors, many for the first time, some defencemen, goons who can barely skate, also with only one game on the season but no one anywhere close to as low as 1:45.

Now I get that Nakladal is probably not the second-coming but let's call a spade a spade. Hartley's being a dick in a way no other coach has this entire season. I would not sign to play for a head coach like that. It doesn't send a good message.