Poll: How satisfied are you with the Flames coaching

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Super-Rye

That's very fair. I was pretty young at the time but I definitely remembering Hay being no good.

Also Craig Button and Doug Risebrough hold the title for worst GMs in Flames history in my book. That guy did nothing except screw up all the good Al Coates had done. Just awful, awful management.

Riser wasn't a good coach either.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Not sure if you are talking about me or not, but what I tend to jump on is not contrasting views, but rather when views are expressed as facts, facts are manipulated, or things are said that simply are not true. This includes misrepresenting what other posters have said. And it probably annoys me more than ever because of how much of an issue manipulating facts and leaning into conjecture over evidence is everywhere right now, including within much more important discussions than hockey. But it's the same issue. The erosion of facts. Incorrect things get said as facts and that becomes a weird manipulated version of the truth that people think is correct.

We can debate opinions. But we should be able to agree on facts. Sadly though that's become really hard in this world now.

And I get annoyed where posters are in a rush to criticize instead of understanding.

A good example is the recent scratching of Bru and the "classic Huska" posts. instead of wondering why he was being scratched (for which there was a perfectly reasonable and valid reason) there is a rush to criticize Huska.

People can fly off the handle, vent, and do all those things. But there seems to be a great deal of confusion over what is opinion and what is fact. And ultimately I value evidenced based debate. People can hold any opinion, but part of debate is then being challenged on the evidence of it.

I think one of the posters you are likely talking about is in their 20s. This ain't some kid.

No - apologies - wasn't thinking about you. Honestly I think even arguing with guys you don't agree with or shifting the debate makes total sense, there were just a couple getting so mad at that one kid it felt personal. For me I'm getting old enough that someone in their 20s looks like a kid to me. Damn, getting old sucks haha.

Late edit- And I hear you on a desire to talk based on facts... I just think some people put different weighting on different "facts".

[GioforPM]

There are no age stamps on posters' IDs. And if a younger poster wants to debate an issue, they should debate it and not expect some free pass to make repetitious, fact free posts.

On this topic, posters criticize Huska for things he hasn't actually done, things that he does that have explanations other than what they assume, and things they think he will do. And they ignore evidence of him doing the exact things they claim to want. There's no reason to back off of debating those positions just because a poster is green and/or emotional (why anyone would be emotional in almost any thread, let alone a PGT is beyond me).

Huska is not above criticism - I quibble with his line combos from time to time and he should have trusted Cooley more early on (Cooley got sick at a bad time too). He clearly has expectations, especially on guys he's trying to develop. He's not afraid to cut ice time and even bench a vet, even though that's less effective than with kids. He's a decent coach for a developing team. He certainly has gotten a lot out of his young D (including Bahl) as well as Gridin, Coronato, Honzek, Klapka and Pospisil.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Not sure if you are talking about me or not, but what I tend to jump on is not contrasting views, but rather when views are expressed as facts, facts are manipulated, or things are said that simply are not true. This includes misrepresenting what other posters have said. And it probably annoys me more than ever because of how much of an issue manipulating facts and leaning into conjecture over evidence is everywhere right now, including within much more important discussions than hockey. But it's the same issue. The erosion of facts. Incorrect things get said as facts and that becomes a weird manipulated version of the truth that people think is correct.

We can debate opinions. But we should be able to agree on facts. Sadly though that's become really hard in this world now.

And I get annoyed where posters are in a rush to criticize instead of understanding.

A good example is the recent scratching of Bru and the "classic Huska" posts. instead of wondering why he was being scratched (for which there was a perfectly reasonable and valid reason) there is a rush to criticize Huska.

People can fly off the handle, vent, and do all those things. But there seems to be a great deal of confusion over what is opinion and what is fact. And ultimately I value evidenced based debate. People can hold any opinion, but part of debate is then being challenged on the evidence of it.

I think one of the posters you are likely talking about is in their 20s. This ain't some kid.

I said this in another thread, but I do think the window in which some fans are seeing the flames right now is significantly different than the view you or I see the team though, Jiri. For example, someone in their early 20's may only see the flames from the last year of Gaudreau being on the team to now. So, they "remember" what has happened after that, but dont really have the window to have seen the ups and down that occurred years before that time.

Seeing things through a different lens like that would lead to completely different feelings and perceptions of the team, which probably explains some things.

I dont know....I'm trying to be nice.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Oh man ...

This is weak too.

What if someone agrees with something I say? They can't push back on a flawed argument for fear of being accused by you of not having an original thought?

Those with weak arguments see alliances and collusion where there is none.

Agreeing with something you say, no problem. I question when someone agrees with everything you say. Like everything.

[GioforPM]

When I was in marching band my mom said I was the only one in step.

[Matty81]

I just think the reality is that there isn't really an objective truth here. I can understand why some people don't like Huska, based on the entertainment value/system and the fact that they value giving youth experience on a losing team and looking to the future more than riding the vets. And also why others like myself think he's done well as far as his results and culture with the mandate and players he's been given. Probably where you land just depends on what you value more but other dude's not an idiot for thinking the opposite, or ignoring facts. Anyway am blathering on here, apologies for the derail on objective truth haha.

I like Huska is my opinion, and based on what I saw of him here in Kelowna when he won the dub, I think he'll do a good job with kids once more of them arrive. Plus I don't see some other magical option out there that's clearly better, but probably guys out there who know the coaching landscape better than me, I'd be interested to hear about it if there are guys who know of coaches that are really interesting and have a great track record with youngsters and offensive play.

[Pellanor]

I feel like it's super hard to evaluate a coach as an outsider. Huska seems to be doing a good job, but I couldn't say where he falls between fine and great.

[GioforPM]

There's objective truth sometimes. Like ice times, etc. But there's a lot of selective memory. For example, a poster remarked that Huska had only given Brzu 8 minutes of ice time. Except it was 9 minutes and it happened 3 games prior, and Brzu had played a lot more minutes both before and after that game.

If you have a preconceived notion, it's not hard to find things that back up that opinion. The problem is that you have to ignore other stuff. Same applies to Conroy and the rebuild.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Agreeing with something you say, no problem. I question when someone agrees with everything you say. Like everything.

I have a measured view on almost everything, and don't live in the rumble strips on either end of any discussion.

When you see some of the polls lately that puts the majority where I think, so you shouldn't be shocked that people agree with me or any poster.

[Erick Estrada]

Up to 180+ votes and around 16% are dissatisfied. It’s pretty clear here that the Huska haters are a vocal minority. A very small minority at that.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

When I was in marching band my mom said I was the only one in step.

Just like clockwork. Like I said, they will show up here shortly.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Just like clockwork. Like I said, they will show up here shortly.

Sorry, the cult rules say I must make a vague reference that you immediately assume is about you.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Sorry, the cult rules say I must make a vague reference that you immediately assume is about you.

Screw the cult rules. As a non-card-carrying non-member of the non-cult, I direct the attention of the audience to post #75 in this thread, in which I was not vague at all.

If most people agree about what they see, chances are it's because they actually saw it, not because they are under the influence of a mind-control cult.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Up to 180+ votes and around 16% are dissatisfied. It’s pretty clear here that the Huska haters are a vocal minority. A very small minority at that.

Strange, would've thought more people would care about seeing young players getting regular games, adequate ice time and opportunities at important times.

I guess over the years the organization has lulled a segment of people into having a low bar. Being so familiar with mediocrity and an underwhelming product, I guess more just seems palatable instead of irksome, as it would be in markets that are used to a competitive team.

No playoffs in his entire tenure, rigid and often meager usage of young talents until just very recently. Offense and PP just complete duds.

Not sure why that garners and 8/10, but so be it.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Strange, would've thought more people would care about seeing young players getting regular games, adequate ice time and opportunities at important times.

I guess over the years the organization has lulled a segment of people into having a low bar. Being so familiar with mediocrity and an underwhelming product, I guess more just seems palatable instead of irksome, as it would be in markets that are used to a competitive team.

No playoffs in his entire tenure, rigid and often meager usage of young talents until just very recently. Offense and PP just complete duds.

Not sure why that garners and 8/10, but so be it.

You could try to seek an understanding of why people have a different view than you, or instead you could just jump to large assumptions absent that understanding.

Seems like you've decided the latter.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Strange, would've thought more people would care about seeing young players getting regular games, adequate ice time and opportunities at important times.

We do. And we are, in fact, seeing that.

What we don't care about is seeing veterans get scratched simply so their roster spots can be given to young players who aren't ready to handle those roles yet.

[JusAFlamer]

im mostly concerned about player usage and the short leash for the young players.

I will give him points for getting effort out of the team. Effort is there consistently and pride is obvious.

i understand that to remain competitive with this roster need to play safe and defence first

mostly worried that this is where offence goes to die.
no creativity, no risk, no east west, very boring hockey.

aside from defence first defencemen, i dont really like what i have seen for bringing along players, and that is exactly what team is going to need to do in the rebiggle.

not liking the stiffling any offence and playing not to lose rather than attempting to win. Knew it would be painful losing, but it seems to me the focus is on playing for 0-0 HDCF/A and is hard to watch or get engaged with.
Its more than just not scoring, it is purely the offensive system that stiffles any offence.

will be plenty happy to be wrong, i just dont see this changing and can see it destroying confidence and changing players we draft for skill into grinding defence first players

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Strange, would've thought more people would care about seeing young players getting regular games, adequate ice time and opportunities at important times.

I guess over the years the organization has lulled a segment of people into having a low bar. Being so familiar with mediocrity and an underwhelming product, I guess more just seems palatable instead of irksome, as it would be in markets that are used to a competitive team.

No playoffs in his entire tenure, rigid and often meager usage of young talents until just very recently. Offense and PP just complete duds.

Not sure why that garners and 8/10, but so be it.

Oh my! His “entire tenure” …of less than three seasons, the first of which was with a club in deep turmoil. OK.

Let’s exaggerate for effect.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by JusAFlamer

im mostly concerned about player usage and the short leash for the young players.

I will give him points for getting effort out of the team. Effort is there consistently and pride is obvious.

i understand that to remain competitive with this roster need to play safe and defence first

mostly worried that this is where offence goes to die.
no creativity, no risk, no east west, very boring hockey.

aside from defence first defencemen, i dont really like what i have seen for bringing along players, and that is exactly what team is going to need to do in the rebiggle.

not liking the stiffling any offence and playing not to lose rather than attempting to win. Knew it would be painful losing, but it seems to me the focus is on playing for 0-0 HDCF/A and is hard to watch or get engaged with.
Its more than just not scoring, it is purely the offensive system that stiffles any offence.

will be plenty happy to be wrong, i just dont see this changing and can see it destroying confidence and changing players we draft for skill into grinding defence first players

Does Gridin have a short leash? He makes a lot of mistakes but he’s right back out. Same for Honzek.