[PGT] Predators defeat Flames 4-2, Nov. 1st

[ComixZone]

I still stand by that there's nowhere near enough of a sample size to judge Huska.

This season, and next, are his proving ground.

Grow with the team, and more importantly REALLY help the team grow. That's the key to his career progression and figuring out what tier of coach he is.

I will say, early returns on this year aren't impressive from my perspective. Don't like how he's handled a few things.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I am probably near the top of the "Huska is a good coach" club. I thought he did a great job last season getting this team prepared and slotting guys in the right places. I even said on a few occasions that I HOPE he ends up being Calgary's equivalent to Jon Cooper - a home-grown coach who has the right personality for a long shelf-life.


I have no clue if Huska WILL be the coach after this season, or after next. I think he has had one good rookie season under his belt, and like everyone else that is a rookie, probably room to grow. Will he improve? If so, will he even still be the right fit for this team?


I look at things a little different when it comes to coaches. I think there are two types of coaches:


1) Adaptive coaches
2) Formulaic coaches


For instance, I think most coaches are in the 2nd category. Darryl Sutter needs a certain composition of roster to be effective, IMO. I don't think he is the type of coach who can be given just any roster, and can create a new system that will fit whatever roster he has. I think very few coaches can, actually.


Maybe a bit of a poor comparison, but Ruben Amorim in Man-U is the same. Needed the right mix of players before they started turning a corner (and they just started), but was unwilling to change at all. This is the system that he believes will result in a championship, no ifs ands or buts. Mikel Arteta was the exact same way with Arsenal - and was also criticized for not adapting. Both managers were widely seen as failures, but the teams hung onto them. Early still to call Amorim a success, but looking at Arsenal's placement, it has been a success for Arteta (was hired years earlier before Amorim).


Maybe Huska is the equivalent to the examples noted above.. or maybe he is simply nothing but a placeholder for now. Time will tell, and I don't see a reason why the Flames would move off from Huska at this time. I just have a difficult time taking any posts seriously about how much Huska 'sucks' at his job when this roster is a bottom of the standings roster.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Look, Jay Random has become unhinged yet again lol. You should probably take a break.

Why, so you can call me a paedophile when I come back? Up yours.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Well actually, the bolded is what I've been getting at this entire time. To me, truly bottoming out doesn't mean trying to doing it for one or two years, and when you don't get the quality of talent you need, you quit the plan and go right back to trying to make the playoffs.

To me, truly bottoming out means sticking with the plan until you actually do get some top-end young talents from the top of the draft, before going back into compete mode.

By this definition, no the Flames have not done this.

You could argue that Johnny-Mony-Chucky-Benny was a core we bottomed out for. There are a few problems with this theory, first, only one was a top 5 pick, second, Benny never panned out here, third, Mony kept getting hurt at unfortunate times. Then there was the tendency for these guys (except for Benny) to disappear in the playoffs.

So no, I don't think we've ever truly bottomed out by my definition of it.

To be clear, my posts should not be construed as criticism of today's Flames management. You seem to have interpreted them this way. Put your mind at ease - I'm not upset at anyone. All I'm saying is I no longer believe this team can make the playoffs this year, and it's time to truly do what it takes to land a top player from the upcoming draft and probably the one after that as well.

TBPC: I've been very happy with the work Conny has done since becoming GM.

Ultimately there was a perfect opportunity to enter a rebuild following the departure of Johnny & Chucky, but the decision to not do so is what set this franchise back by 3 years. That call was likely made by Tre or Edwards, not Conny.

Can't turn back time, but can do what's best starting now.

How do you know you’ve drafted top talent if you purposely try to be perpetually terrible instead of doing what literally every other team in history has done and get better as those players emerge as top talent? lol

I want to go with you on the ride, but your subjective and narrow definition of “bottoming out” seems designed only to serve your argument that the Flames have never even tried it, which even with that set up, isn’t really convincing. You’d just as convincingly argue Buffalo has never tried to come out of their rebuild, because they haven’t hired the right coach or signed the right veterans.

Like yeah, that’s the result. Doesn’t mean that wasn’t the intent.

Other teams, the draft lottery, each year’s prospect crop, player development. Pretty significant variables determine the success of these things. Can’t just say “Oh well gosh they just didn’t even try!” because it didn’t all land in the best possible way.

[Mathgod]

"Purposely try to be perpetually terrible" is not even close to what I said. Not going to bother with this any longer until you stop misrepresenting my position.

But if it satisfies you, the Flames tried to bottom out in the 90s in some sense (though not strictly in the way I meant). But it was clearly the wrong time to try it, as there were special circumstances that prevented them from landing a top pick.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

"Purposely try to be perpetually terrible" is not even close to what I said. Not going to bother with this any longer until you stop misrepresenting my position.

But if it satisfies you, the Flames tried to bottom out in the 90s in some sense (though not strictly in the way I meant). But it was clearly the wrong time to try it, as there were special circumstances that prevented them from landing a top pick.

I’m not misrepresenting your position, that’s just what your position is if you follow the logic.

Saying Gaudreau/Bennett/Tkachuk/Monahan doesn’t count because two of them were drafted 6th instead of 5th and they would later go on to struggle in the playoffs or deal with injuries doesn’t make any sense. We’re not supposed to try for the playoffs until we know the players we draft high are going to be good in the playoffs and won’t deal with injuries in the mid-late 20s?

Whether it’s McKenna or someone else, we’re not going to know how they show up in the playoffs until we start making the playoffs. And we’re not going to make the playoffs until we change gears and start building on the core we drafted.

You can’t delay the gear change until you know you’ve got the right guys to win. It’s not possible. That’s why the guys dictate the gear change and you find out.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Why, so you can call me a paedophile when I come back? Up yours.

I never once called you a paedophile. Show me where I said that. Stop making stuff up. Like I said, unhinged. Take a break.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I never once called you a paedophile. Show me where I said that. Stop making stuff up. Like I said, unhinged. Take a break.

You defended posters who did call me that, and told me I deserved it. So presumably you feel that it's perfectly OK to call me that, and I have no reason to believe you won't join in.

For clarity: Two posters have accused me of paedophilia IN HOCKEY DISCUSSIONS, not in the thread where the issue was supposedly being discussed. You seem to think it's ‘unhinged’ to object to that. You also seem to think it is NOT unhinged to pretend that you are being persecuted because people disagree with you about Huska being the worst coach ever.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You defended posters who did call me that, and told me I deserved it. So presumably you feel that it's perfectly OK to call me that, and I have no reason to believe you won't join in.

Wait what? Where? I never called you a paedophile and I would expect anyone who did to get thrown in the sin bin. I don't remember defending anybody who called you that. I said that your post came across wrong, then I told you I know what it's like to get piled on and maybe you should clarify your post or not bring it up and let it blow over and you told me to get bent.