Flames extend Huska for 2 more years

[ST20]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Are there?
If we look at last year's bottom teams:

San Jose: Celebrini 63
Chicago: Bedard 67
Nashville: Forsberg 76
Philly: Konecny 76
Boston: Pastrnak 106 (exception to be sure)
Seattle: McCann 61
Buffalo: Thompson 72
Anaheim: Terry 55
Pittsburgh: Crosby 91 (another exception)
NYI: Horvat 57

Calgary had Kadri at 67.

So of the bottom teams, they almost all have a lack of a high scorer. The 2 exceptions are teams that have an elite player holding over from their competitive days.

I guess it depends how we define "high scoring". These are not super star numbers but I would say 70+ points and/or between 0.9-.095 points per game is pretty good (many of the players you listed did not play a full 82). If Huberdeau could put up near a point per game on Calgary, I think that contract becomes tradeable especially with the rising cap and GMs extrapolating what he might be able to do with additional talent around him.

This was not brought up in my original point but I'd also add that context matters as well in terms of player development and my general enjoyment of hockey. Only two of the non playoff teams scored less than Calgary and 63 from a rookie in San Jose (who only played 70 games), 67 from Bedard is not the same as 67 from a 35 year old Kadri in terms of my excitement as a fan. Those teams also have even less talent at the moment (not projected) than Calgary because of their burn it down style rebuild.


So the question, I go back to is... Will top prospects have the same opportunity in Calgary as they do in other markets or are they stapled to the third / fourth lines until they are deemed responsible enough for more minutes while veterans eat ice time? I can't say for sure but it feels like that would happen in our system but the good thing is we won't have to wait long to see with Parekh given our start.

[Vinny01]

Keep Huska this year and let him start next but no guarantees he is behind the bench by the end of next season or when the new rink opens.

[calumniate]

We need an assistant coach that is a master in voodoo. Or not! I'm starting to side with team tank. Can only juice mediocrity so much

[Manhattanboy]

I just don't get some of his decisions that stand out on the page.

Starting Backlund in OT. He was already gassed from his TOI last night. And he's very slow. He was simply unable to keep up and defend the fast young MTL skaters that were on the ice.

Maybe his task was to win the faceoff then get off the ice. But I think someone said he was around 1/3 on faceoffs last night.

I mean do the coaches talk about this stuff before doing dumb things?

[ST20]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

The Panthers rebuild suffered from this for years until Maurice took over, and it delayed how quickly they were able to compete.

This is an interesting debate because I think the Panthers were contenders with Quenneville and then Maurice/Tkachuk put them over the top. If the pre-Maurice Panthers did not play run and gun style of hockey that got them where they were would Maurice would have been able to push them over the top? In other words, going back to Boughner or the Gallant days would he have done it? He could not do it with Carolina or Winnipeg.

I don't think we could ever know the answer but it would be interesting to see if teams built around the identity of the talent or the coach/management is more effective and at what point would it be more effective (e.g. young vs. veteran team).

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by ST20

So the question, I go back to is... Will top prospects have the same opportunity in Calgary as they do in other markets or are they stapled to the third / fourth lines until they are deemed responsible enough for more minutes while veterans eat ice time? I can't say for sure but it feels like that would happen in our system but the good thing is we won't have to wait long to see with Parekh given our start.

Fair and we won't know that until we see them start to come into the pipeline (hopefully). If they somehow got McKenna I would expect him to be given pretty prime offensive opportunities out of the gate.
I see Zayne differently because he does need to develop in other areas. Comparisons to Buium are not the same as Buium is just already more complete.
With that said, I also would like to see him on PP1 and don't understand why he's not there already.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by ST20

This is an interesting debate because I think the Panthers were contenders with Quenneville and then Maurice/Tkachuk put them over the top. If pre-Maurice Panthers did not play run and gun style of hockey that got them where they were would Maurice would have been able to push them over the top? He could not do it with Carolina or Winnipeg.

I don't think we could ever know the answer but it would be interesting to see if teams built around the identity of the talent or the coach/management is more effective and at what point would it be more effective (e.g. young vs. veteran team).

I'd agree with this.

Quenneville implemented the structure that put that Panthers team on the right track, then acquiring Tkachuk and Forsling becoming an elite defender is what pushed them over the top and changed their style a bit.

In those final two years that Quenneville started as coach the Panthers had 3.75 GF per game and 2.81 against.

Under Maurice in their three finals years they 3.22 GF per game, and 2.79 against.

So their actually defensive results didn't get substantially better but they were grittier and harder to play against based on the player acquisitions.

The Lightning regressing, Bob finding his old form, and the acquisition of Tkachuk just made them a better playoff team.

It's pretty clear that Tampa and Florida have been the best playoff teams of the last 6 years, but they kept having to play each other, and would also beat the crap out of each other.

It was just Tampa aging out and losing some players due to the cap that opened the door up for Florida and coincided with some shrewd acquisitions.

If you could somehow freeze time and have the 19-22 Lightning teams at their peak play the 23-25 Panthers team at their peak you'd probably have some of the best hockey you've ever seen.

[Burning Beard]

Huska has some good and some bad qualities. For a team that has sold everything off and is looking like they will be a bottom 3 team this year who cares? They aren't going to find an elite coach willing to coach a team that is more than likely losing at least two out of three games.

I'd like to see Huska put Parekh on PP1 and that's about it. The rest is a big batch of who the hell cares IMO.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I'd agree with this.

Quenneville implemented the structure that put that Panthers team on the right track, then acquiring Tkachuk and Forsling becoming an elite defender is what pushed them over the top and changed their style a bit.

In those final two years that Quenneville started as coach the Panthers had 3.75 GF per game and 2.81 against.

Under Maurice in their three finals years they 3.22 GF per game, and 2.79 against.

So their actually defensive results didn't get substantially better but they were grittier and harder to play against based on the player acquisitions.

The Lightning regressing, Bob finding his old form, and the acquisition of Tkachuk just made them a better playoff team.

It's pretty clear that Tampa and Florida have been the best playoff teams of the last 6 years, but they kept having to play each other, and would also beat the crap out of each other.

It was just Tampa aging out and losing some players due to the cap that opened the door up for Florida and coincided with some shrewd acquisitions.

If you could somehow freeze time and have the 19-22 Lightning teams at their peak play the 23-25 Panthers team at their peak you'd probably have some of the best hockey you've ever seen.

Lots of parallels to 1988 and 1989 Flames

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Lots of parallels to 1988 and 1989 Flames

That's the comparison that came to my mind as well.

[Infinit47]

Whose career highs are we talking about that are always used to defend Huska?

Coleman hitting 30 goals? His shooting percentage was 15.7% that year vs 10% career average. That was Huska,? If so then why 15 goals last year and in pace for 20 this year (with no assists).

Kadri hitting 35 goals? Beat his career high by 3, was down 20 points on his career high and had his second ever worst +/- at -17.

Huberdeau had his best year since coming to Calgary, but he's light years off his career highs.

Wegar had a 20 goal seas with a shooting percentage 78% above his career average.

Sharangovic had 31 goals with a shooting percentage 4 points above his career average and along with a solid -29.

You can say younger players hit career highs, but they have little history to compare to.

Coleman, Sharangovich and Weegar are more than a full season removed from those totals and are nowhere close to repeating them. All under Huska.

So basically we are saying Huska is a great coach because of three shooting percentage heaters that were not repeated. A 3 goal career high bump for Kadri while down 20 points and -17, and Huberdeau being improved.

Seems like quite a bit of unrepeatable luck and two slight improvements being used to heap praise on Huska.

[PepsiFree]

I know when I’m trying to show a pattern I use a different measurement for every player. Works every time.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

So basically we are saying Huska is a great coach because of three shooting percentage heaters that were not repeated. A 3 goal career high bump for Kadri while down 20 points and -17, and Huberdeau being improved.

Absolutely nobody has said that Huska is a great coach. But people are saying that he deliberately stops scorers from scoring, which is manifestly false, because he did not stop those players.

[GioforPM]

So when multiple players hit good offensive numbers under Huska, it's for reasons other than Huska. When their numbers drop it's because of Huska.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

So when multiple players hit good offensive numbers under Huska, it's for reasons other than Huska. When their numbers drop it's because of Huska.

Or maybe average their production over his entire tenure to get an idea of how they have performed under his coaching the entire time. Maybe it's right on their career average, I've never thought of doing that. Could also normalize pointe production based in ice time broken down by even strength, PP, PK.

People are quick to defend Huska by either remembering a couple players hit career best goal totals in one year, or saying the team sucks and has no talent. I just posted a pretty reasonable explanation for why 3 players out of 46+ had one career goal year under Huska, which they have not or look like they won't repeat.

People who don't like how Huska has the team playing often give examples of what they don't like, but the only response they get is the team has no skill. Is it that weird to think there will be a response with some hockey context on a hockey site?

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Absolutely nobody has said that Huska is a great coach. But people are saying that he deliberately stops scorers from scoring, which is manifestly false, because he did not stop those players.

People aren't saying he deliberately stops scorers from scoring. People (myself included) have been saying he forces them into a rigid and passive system that doesn't lend itself to generating much offense.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to say playing such a passive system will hamper offense. In general I think teams that play well and score lots pressure the puck, they don't sit back and hope for mistakes.

Of course the Flames don't have the horses to trade chances with Colorado or other elite teams, but there is a wide gap between that and how Huska wants them to play.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I know when I’m trying to show a pattern I use a different measurement for every player. Works every time.

So you don't have a response to the content of the post?

Goals, assists, shooting percentage, +/-. All seem relevant when talking about someone's "best" year. Or is there one metric above all others we should look at? The Huska defense of "a few players have had career years" doesn't provide much context for what is being measured.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

People aren't saying he deliberately stops scorers from scoring. People (myself included) have been saying he forces them into a rigid and passive system that doesn't lend itself to generating much offense.

That's exactly the same thing.

[Reggie Dunlop]

It's true that Ryan Huska HATES talent. A former third round player who had one whole game in the NHL, then spent the rest of his playing career as a minor leaguer. That's why he likes plugs like Dryden Hunt and Justin Kirkland. Those are his people!

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's exactly the same thing.

No it's not.