If I was Treliving- I would be trying to lock Nate Leaman down as head coach of the AHL affiliate to continue working with Janko and Gillies. My ultimate goal would be to groom him for the head coaching position for the Flames should Hartley lose the room before they are cup contenders... I don't think Huska is "the worst" but in an industry like this, he gets a failing grade twice in a row and that's enough to cost him his job.
Huh? My metrics were that Kulak, Wotherspoon, Hathaway, Grant, Hamilton, Agostino, Nakladal, etc all looked NHL ready this year when called on. That IMO is the most telling thing about how Huska is developing these players.
I don't think stats is a good way to judge a player's progress on rounding out their game and being ready for the NHL. In the case of a lot of players they aren't worried about their offensive game, they are rounding out their two-way game, developing them physically, etc. You could have your numbers drop but your overall game has improved. Poirier looked more NHL ready this time despite having what some might describe as a poor year.
It's impossible to tell much of anything in terms of development from stats or the standings. Points in the minors are something but developing guys into NHLers takes a lot more than that into account. We don't know what they've specifically asked these players to work on so how we could measure the progress ourselves? And points tell us almost nothing about how much a guy has improved in two-way play, taking hits to make a play, fighting through checking, etc.
I'm still waiting for a solid argument as to why Huska has been a disappointment. In all my years of watching the Flames I can't remember a year where so many guys were called up from the minors and didn't look out of place one bit. I'm very, very impressed by how well the call ups looked. Huska deserves credit for that and management has pointed out that out, rightfully so.
Kulak wasn't called up, he made the team out of camp and played very little under Huska before that. He also played very sheltered minutes and looked merely okay.
Wotherspoon I agree was better this year, but as a third year pro how much of it is Huska and how much is confidence? Even Treliving alluded to the fact at the end of last season that Wotherspoon needs to grab the job.
Grant & Hamilton are veteran AHLers, their development has nothing to do with Huska. They both played extremely well right from day 1. Nakladal was also very good from day 1 and his development happened in the Czech republic.
Agostino improved this year, he spent half of last year fighting for ice-time and once he finally got it he never looked back and this year he kept moving forward.
Hathaway hasn't been as good this year. Statistically he's even but he was spoon fed top line minutes this year and played in the middle six last year. There has been little to no growth in his game from last year IMO, he's not better defensively, he's not more physical and offensively he took a step back IMO.
I am not just basing this on stats, I am basing it on watching the players play at both the AHL & NHL levels. Of the 7 you mentioned, Huska can maybe get credit for 3 of them and I'm not sold he has done anything to deserve any credit for that.
Young guys should be taking steps forward. If they are regressing - that is regression. If they are just remaining at the same level - they are stalling.
I really trust the opinions of Drury and Alberta Beef since I know they watch a number of games and aren't just stat-watching, or basing their decision out of the 'guys who came up seemed ready'.
Poirier didn't seem ready, and I would consider him one of the more important prospects.
Wotherspoon hasn't progressed much - up and down.
Ditto for Kulak.
Shore looked about the same - a guy who I wouldn't care if the Flames don't retain.
Grant - has shown a huge improvement in his stats since arriving in Stockton - but from his last call-up to his most recent one, has there been improvement?
What about Arnold? Injuries is a good excuse, so we can wipe him off the good or bad example.
Development isn't a linear straight line increase from year to year. Prospects have down years and good years. You just want to see progression in their games with and without the puck, on and off the stat sheet. You expect young prospects to improve based on them 'learning to be a pro', 'gaining experience', 'gaining strength and size', and 'proper developmental coaching'. How much is Huska factoring-into 'proper developmental coaching'? You can't see that on a stats sheet necessarily.
One guy who I thought looked much better is Sieloff based on his NHL time. That is a definite improvement I see in a player.
My perception of Huska is 'mixed', but I don't watch enough Stockton games at all. I would rely on the opinions of the people who watch them more like Drury, Alberta Beef, Caged Great, etc.
Just my opinion - I just find that there are some people arguing too vehemently based on a handful of prospects they have seen come up lately, rather than the Stockton team itself (and I mean watching the games and forming an opinion based on gameplay - not individual and even team stats which can be extremely misleading).
Also, if this is indeed the worst team points-wise, there MAY be something to this. Remember when the Flames first went to Abbotsford? Darryl wanted only legitimate young prospects on that team, and didn't rely on established vets. Are they performing as badly as that team did? If they did, that is a reason for concern, as I would figure the prospect base is indeed much better than it was back then. Again, the division may be tougher, or there is more focus or priority in a different spot organizationally than just the win/loss record - but I would point out that it indeed MAY be an area of concern if this team is worse than that one.
Either management is really happy with Huska, or they aren't - I don't buy into any public statement with regards to it as often a coach gets complimented and fired within a short time-frame by management. You know - 'the dreaded vote of confidence'.
My own opinion of Huska - I am disappointed in Kulak, Wotherspoon, Poirier and Arnold. Is that on Huska, or is that on the players? I don't know where to place the blame as I haven't watched enough Stockton games at all this season - but I would say I am concerned at not seeing progression in some of the call-ups this year. Wotherspoon I have seen a bit of progression - but not as much as I would have expected. I thought he was on the cusp of making the NHL 2 seasons ago, and I feel he is perhaps just a bit more 'on the cusp', and that is all.
Edit: My point is that it feels like some posters are being attacked for their opinion, though they seem like posters who follow Stockton quite a lot and who have put in valid arguments in the past and have been trustworthy in their praise or condemnation of coaches and players. Just wanted to point that out. It is feeling almost like an 'attack' on them rather than a discussion based on a dissenting opinion.
Last edited by Calgary4LIfe; 04-15-2016 at 10:19 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
I just get skeptical about the fire the coach arguments. Sometimes they are legit and sometimes they aren't. Take Bob Hartley for example. There is a portion of the fan base that think he's bad and should be fired. I don't think he's bad and I think he should be retained for next season. Both the anti-Hartley crew and pro-Hartley crew watch the Calgary Flames so who should be trusted? Now apply that to the minor league team. I can't just buy into someone's argument that the coach sucks and trust their opinion as my own without having followed the situation very closely myself. I love getting updates from the people who watch the team more closely but I can't go as far as adopting their opinions as my own. Especially when the argument starts to be about standings and statistics, both of which are can be misleading or irrelevant to how well prospects are developing. The argument is even less compelling when he's being criticized for post game press conferences, something that has zero to do with his ability to develop prospects.
Guess we'll see if Brad Pascall makes any changes this summer. He's the guy who would have the best gauge on how well the prospects are developing and how well Huska did with what little he had to work with.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
I am not just basing this on stats, I am basing it on watching the players play at both the AHL & NHL levels. Of the 7 you mentioned, Huska can maybe get credit for 3 of them and I'm not sold he has done anything to deserve any credit for that.
Disagree with some of that. Part of his job is taking mostly developed players and getting them to seamlessly fit into the Calgary Flames system when they are called up. So in that he does get credit for how well Nakladal and Hamilton and such were able to step right in and contribute. Sure Nakladal is old but he was learning the North American game on NA sized rinks for the first time so there is a learning, adaptation and developing that go into that. As well there are cultural issues, language issues, etc that the coach can help with when Euros first come over. Giving him zero credit for the more veteran players doesn't seem like a fair analysis to me.
I just get skeptical about the fire the coach arguments. Sometimes they are legit and sometimes they aren't. Take Bob Hartley for example. There is a portion of the fan base that think he's bad and should be fired. I don't think he's bad and I think he should be retained for next season. Both the anti-Hartley crew and pro-Hartley crew watch the Calgary Flames so who should be trusted? Now apply that to the minor league team. I can't just buy into someone's argument that the coach sucks and trust their opinion as my own without having followed the situation very closely myself. I love getting updates from the people who watch the team more closely but I can't go as far as adopting their opinions as my own. Especially when the argument starts to be about standings and statistics, both of which are can be misleading or irrelevant to how well prospects are developing. The argument is even less compelling when he's being criticized for post game press conferences, something that has zero to do with his ability to develop prospects.
Guess we'll see if Brad Pascall makes any changes this summer. He's the guy who would have the best gauge on how well the prospects are developing and how well Huska did with what little he had to work with.
I very rarely suggest firing coaches, just so you know. And I am not 100% against Huska because 2 seasons isn't alot of data and the AHL is very tight lipped on injuries, so there is alot of information not available. But what I do see, I do not like if I don't start seeing something by the end of next season then I am definitively in the camp that wants him fired into the sun.
Young guys should be taking steps forward. If they are regressing - that is regression. If they are just remaining at the same level - they are stalling.
I really trust the opinions of Drury and Alberta Beef since I know they watch a number of games and aren't just stat-watching, or basing their decision out of the 'guys who came up seemed ready'.
Poirier didn't seem ready, and I would consider him one of the more important prospects.
Wotherspoon hasn't progressed much - up and down.
Ditto for Kulak.
Shore looked about the same - a guy who I wouldn't care if the Flames don't retain.
Grant - has shown a huge improvement in his stats since arriving in Stockton - but from his last call-up to his most recent one, has there been improvement?
What about Arnold? Injuries is a good excuse, so we can wipe him off the good or bad example.
Development isn't a linear straight line increase from year to year. Prospects have down years and good years. You just want to see progression in their games with and without the puck, on and off the stat sheet. You expect young prospects to improve based on them 'learning to be a pro', 'gaining experience', 'gaining strength and size', and 'proper developmental coaching'. How much is Huska factoring-into 'proper developmental coaching'? You can't see that on a stats sheet necessarily.
One guy who I thought looked much better is Sieloff based on his NHL time. That is a definite improvement I see in a player.
My perception of Huska is 'mixed', but I don't watch enough Stockton games at all. I would rely on the opinions of the people who watch them more like Drury, Alberta Beef, Caged Great, etc.
Just my opinion - I just find that there are some people arguing too vehemently based on a handful of prospects they have seen come up lately, rather than the Stockton team itself (and I mean watching the games and forming an opinion based on gameplay - not individual and even team stats which can be extremely misleading).
Also, if this is indeed the worst team points-wise, there MAY be something to this. Remember when the Flames first went to Abbotsford? Darryl wanted only legitimate young prospects on that team, and didn't rely on established vets. Are they performing as badly as that team did? If they did, that is a reason for concern, as I would figure the prospect base is indeed much better than it was back then. Again, the division may be tougher, or there is more focus or priority in a different spot organizationally than just the win/loss record - but I would point out that it indeed MAY be an area of concern if this team is worse than that one.
Either management is really happy with Huska, or they aren't - I don't buy into any public statement with regards to it as often a coach gets complimented and fired within a short time-frame by management. You know - 'the dreaded vote of confidence'.
My own opinion of Huska - I am disappointed in Kulak, Wotherspoon, Poirier and Arnold. Is that on Huska, or is that on the players? I don't know where to place the blame as I haven't watched enough Stockton games at all this season - but I would say I am concerned at not seeing progression in some of the call-ups this year. Wotherspoon I have seen a bit of progression - but not as much as I would have expected. I thought he was on the cusp of making the NHL 2 seasons ago, and I feel he is perhaps just a bit more 'on the cusp', and that is all.
Edit: My point is that it feels like some posters are being attacked for their opinion, though they seem like posters who follow Stockton quite a lot and who have put in valid arguments in the past and have been trustworthy in their praise or condemnation of coaches and players. Just wanted to point that out. It is feeling almost like an 'attack' on them rather than a discussion based on a dissenting opinion.
See, the prospects you are talking about aren't top quality prospects, for the most part. We are talking about later round picks, guys who really never looked all that likely to make the NHL and rarely do.
I mean, how many players from your average draft class go of 200 on to become NHL players outside the 1st round? Wotherspoon was a late 2nd, Kulak a 4th, Shore a mid 2nd(not even our mid 2nd), Arnold a 4th. Grant was a free agent signing that the Sens didn't even want, anything you get out of a cheap pick up like him is gravy in my opinion. These are all guys I'm really not going to lose sleep over, because I didn't think their chances of making the NHL full time were that high anyway. Yeah, you hope that they develop into NHL players, but the statistical chances of them doing so are slim at best surely?
My concern next season will be Gillies, Janko, Shinkaruk(if he starts with the farm) and Kylington. Mangianpane and Andersson should they turn pro. Fingers crossed that Pollock can also have an impact if he joins the team. If our better prospects start struggling, then I'll be concerned. But Kulak, Wotherspoon and Arnold might be stagnating or regressing? Meh.
SJ scores 2 in under a minute and now leads the game 4-3.
Once again Stockton burned by quick back to back goals. It's happened a few times this season. They've struggled with that comeback shift after a goal.
Heat win 5-4. I see the attendance was over 8000, seems high. Anyone know what their average was this season?
Best educated guess based on the nightly announcements would be the 4500-5000 mark.
Being the last game of the season and Military Appreciation Night (I'm going to assume free tickets for those in Service), not surprised to see a sellout type crowd.
The Following User Says Thank You to Drury18 For This Useful Post:
