Head Coach

[jjgallow]

55 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

Sounds like Conroy is casting a wide net on the coaching search, and as a first time GM that makes complete sense, why wouldn’t you want to talk to guys like Laviolette and Gallant. Find out how some of the veteran coaches think and compare that to how guys like Love and Huska think.

 

Now I don’t think Laviolette and Gallant are fits here, but I still think it is smart to see if they are interested and interview them. It’s all about gathering as much information as possible.

 

I heard he's just going to form a DAO.  Let's see Huberdeau fire that.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

Sounds like Conroy is casting a wide net on the coaching search, and as a first time GM that makes complete sense, why wouldn’t you want to talk to guys like Laviolette and Gallant. Find out how some of the veteran coaches think and compare that to how guys like Love and Huska think.

 

Now I don’t think Laviolette and Gallant are fits here, but I still think it is smart to see if they are interested and interview them. It’s all about gathering as much information as possible.

 

The last time we did an extensive search, we ended up with Gully.  Ward was interviewed.

Went for the cheap, young rising star type.

Not sure if we bothered with other displaced NHL coaches though.

Peters was not a search, just hired as soon as he quit CAR.

 

To me, Huska and Muller would be a mistake.  Love may be a good choice, but I don't know if he thinks offense more than defense.  Not proven at the NHL level.  Brunette may not have much experience and took over a team that was already firing on all cylinders, but he would have learned from a good coach and organization.  I'm not sure that anyone in this organization has that background.  Understudy to Sutter?  Coaches a Sutter like game for an AHL team?  I don't know.

[cross16]

Gallant also has a long history with Huberdeau. Should interview him for that insight alone. 
 

but I agree that the veteran options don’t make sense. 

[jjgallow]

On 5/25/2023 at 10:27 AM, travel_dude said:

 

The last time we did an extensive search, we ended up with Gully.  Ward was interviewed.

Went for the cheap, young rising star type.

Not sure if we bothered with other displaced NHL coaches though.

Peters was not a search, just hired as soon as he quit CAR.

 

To me, Huska and Muller would be a mistake.  Love may be a good choice, but I don't know if he thinks offense more than defense.  Not proven at the NHL level.  Brunette may not have much experience and took over a team that was already firing on all cylinders, but he would have learned from a good coach and organization.  I'm not sure that anyone in this organization has that background.  Understudy to Sutter?  Coaches a Sutter like game for an AHL team?  I don't know.

 

 

It's gonna be Mitch Love.   And honestly, if it's not Mitch Love, the team has deeper problems.    

 

When you've got the AHL coach of the year under contract and an open NHL coaching position, and you don't know what to do, all succession planning and organizational trust is thrown out the window.

 

In a good organization, finding a new coach is not hard.  They already should have several.

 

What should be hard, is replacing Mitch Love.  That should be where all the effort goes.   and That...is a tough job.

 

 

 

Some on here (not you) are more interested in the big names.   I dunno why.

 

But if that's what we need to do, if we needa go for a big name, go big or home.

 

Hire Emily Ratjakowski.    Call it a day.  No more revolts.  None of the players will ever complain again.   Assistant coaches can compensate.

 

Done.

[medatswhoP]

42 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

It's gonna be Mitch Love.   And honestly, if it's not Mitch Love, the team has deeper problems.    

 

When you've got the AHL coach of the year under contract and an open NHL coaching position, and you don't know what to do, all succession planning and organizational trust is thrown out the window.

 

In a good organization, finding a new coach is not hard.  They already should have several.

 

What should be hard, is replacing Mitch Love.  That should be where all the effort goes.   and That...is a tough job.

 

 

 

Some on here (not you) are more interested in the big names.   I dunno why.

 

But if that's what we need to do, if we needa go for a big name, go big or home.

 

Hire Emily Ratjakowski.    Call it a day.  No more revolts.  None of the players will ever complain again.   Assistant coaches can compensate.

 

Done.

That's a vote for me, I would get season tickets for that.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

It's gonna be Mitch Love.   And honestly, if it's not Mitch Love, the team has deeper problems.    

 

When you've got the AHL coach of the year under contract and an open NHL coaching position, and you don't know what to do, all succession planning and organizational trust is thrown out the window.

 

In a good organization, finding a new coach is not hard.  They already should have several.

 

What should be hard, is replacing Mitch Love.  That should be where all the effort goes.   and That...is a tough job.

 

 

 

Some on here (not you) are more interested in the big names.   I dunno why.

 

But if that's what we need to do, if we needa go for a big name, go big or home.

 

Hire Emily Ratjakowski.    Call it a day.  No more revolts.  None of the players will ever complain again.   Assistant coaches can compensate.

 

Done.

 

Are you suggesting we ask what Jack would do?  Oops, wrong person.  I was thinking you were talking about Mary Lynn Rajskub.

 

Seriously though, my preference would be fire Huska and Muller, hire a good NHL coach and bring in Love as the top assistant coach.  The intent is he learns as he coaches.  The pressure on a first time NHL coach for this team is huge.  Conny may want to bring in Love, but he has to weigh in the winning out of the gate need.  I fear that a coach that had a team playing so close to a Calgary system would have a hard time getting buy in.  Zary, Phillips, Duehr, Wolf and Pelletier might, but I fear the others would get frustrated early on.  As the replacement to Huska, he could instill the defensive side of the game we seemed to have trouble with.  As a head coach, he would be forced to play Huberdeau more as a 2-way winger.  

[DirtyDeeds]

If it came down to the best fit of a Coach for the Owners.....  They should take a good hard look at Bruce Boudreau.

 

He would not be my first choice, however I can see him checking off a lot of boxes from what the Owners would like.

 

For example:

 

• He has the second best regular season record all time only behind Scotty Bowman. Isn't this the number one desire of Owners to make the playoffs?
• I believe we have the talent now to make the playoffs but with a popular coach like Boudreau we could probably make the playoffs more regularly.
• He is a players coach.... Just what the Doctor would say the Flames need for our new core. Had we had more buy-in from Kadri and Hubs last season, results would likely have been different. Don't get me wrong I am not pointing fingers here but a bit more production from those two would have made all the difference. As would an avg performance from our goaltending...

 

The only downside I can see is from the fans point of view. I am pretty sure they would like to see better playoff performance than Boudreau's dismal playoff record.... but the fans needs and wants are not the focus of this post.

[The_People1]

12 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

If it came down to the best fit of a Coach for the Owners.....  They should take a good hard look at Bruce Boudreau.

 

He would not be my first choice, however I can see him checking off a lot of boxes from what the Owners would like.

 

For example:

 

• He has the second best regular season record all time only behind Scotty Bowman. Isn't this the number one desire of Owners to make the playoffs?
• I believe we have the talent now to make the playoffs but with a popular coach like Boudreau we could probably make the playoffs more regularly.
• He is a players coach.... Just what the Doctor would say the Flames need for our new core. Had we had more buy-in from Kadri and Hubs last season, results would likely have been different. Don't get me wrong I am not pointing fingers here but a bit more production from those two would have made all the difference. As would an avg performance from our goaltending...

 

The only downside I can see is from the fans point of view. I am pretty sure they would like to see better playoff performance than Boudreau's dismal playoff record.... but the fans needs and wants are not the focus of this post.

 

Bruce Boudreau systems are too loosely goosey.  Yes, players love it.  Pad their stats.  But even a decent goalie like Demko couldn't survive that type of system.  No way Markstrom can.  And it would ruin Wolf and destroy his confidence.

 

And we are only a playoff team if we bring back Lindholm.  Without him, then forget about it.  Seems fans don't want to go $10-mil x 8-years... So that's exactly what Lindholm's camp would ask.   Because the Flames have two choices.  Pay or rebuild.  And we already know the Flames won't rebuild.  So pay.  The question then is, how about $11-mil x 8-years?

[cross16]

Friedman update on the coach search. Doesn't sounds like this one will be quick.

 

My guess would still be by the draft. Just probably weeks and not days away. 

 

The assumption is Laviolette said no because he is going to be the Rangers new coach

 

 

[JTech780]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Friedman update on the coach search. Doesn't sounds like this one will be quick.

 

My guess would still be by the draft. Just probably weeks and not days away. 

 

The assumption is Laviolette said no because he is going to be the Rangers new coach

 

 

Laviolette seemed like a long shot anyways, so I am not too disappointed he said no.

 

I really don’t get the interest in Muller. The PP under him was horrible. Not sure if that was all him or if Sutter had a hand in that. There just hasn’t been anything that I have seen from Muller that has really stood out as a coach.

[cross16]

I think Kirk Muller is a really good assistant but for me he isn't a head coaching candidate, more like a career assistant. I don't really blame him for the PP because I don't think they did anything wrong in terms of their philosophy. Just got sub par execution on it which is more on the players for me. I think using Weegar on the PP more would have helped but likely Sutter had a hand in that.  either way I think the PP was more on the players than the coach.  

 

I still like Love best for the job but I think if you go that building out the staff become really key. I'm pretty sold on trying to get Tanguay here as an assistant but if you go Love-Tanguay you are VERY light on experience. Would be ideal to pair that with a more experienced coach who could run the D/PK but options are pretty limited there, at least so far as I can see. Like to see if they could maybe get someone like Mike Yeo for that role. 

 

I really like Huska as a coach but I think it's time to turn the page and start fresh. 

[travel_dude]

29 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I think Kirk Muller is a really good assistant but for me he isn't a head coaching candidate, more like a career assistant. I don't really blame him for the PP because I don't think they did anything wrong in terms of their philosophy. Just got sub par execution on it which is more on the players for me. I think using Weegar on the PP more would have helped but likely Sutter had a hand in that.  either way I think the PP was more on the players than the coach.  

 

I still like Love best for the job but I think if you go that building out the staff become really key. I'm pretty sold on trying to get Tanguay here as an assistant but if you go Love-Tanguay you are VERY light on experience. Would be ideal to pair that with a more experienced coach who could run the D/PK but options are pretty limited there, at least so far as I can see. Like to see if they could maybe get someone like Mike Yeo for that role. 

 

I really like Huska as a coach but I think it's time to turn the page and start fresh. 

 

Not a Muller fan.  Not sure who gets the props or blames for a 10th place to 17th place PP efficiency.

We only have him here under Sutter.

In the same time period, the PK has remained top 6.

Even with the drop off in goaltending, we still stayed about the same.

 

I was more focused on the use of players in the PP as the season went on.

Not using Weegar.

Using Kadri where he was less effective.

Overall, just didn't seem right.  The execution suffered perhaps.

 

There is nothing wrong with Love, but I would hope that he adjusts somewhat to the NHL.

Maybe I am reading too much into his alignment with Sutter hockey.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I think Kirk Muller is a really good assistant but for me he isn't a head coaching candidate, more like a career assistant. I don't really blame him for the PP because I don't think they did anything wrong in terms of their philosophy. Just got sub par execution on it which is more on the players for me. I think using Weegar on the PP more would have helped but likely Sutter had a hand in that.  either way I think the PP was more on the players than the coach.  

 

I still like Love best for the job but I think if you go that building out the staff become really key. I'm pretty sold on trying to get Tanguay here as an assistant but if you go Love-Tanguay you are VERY light on experience. Would be ideal to pair that with a more experienced coach who could run the D/PK but options are pretty limited there, at least so far as I can see. Like to see if they could maybe get someone like Mike Yeo for that role. 

 

I really like Huska as a coach but I think it's time to turn the page and start fresh. 

He's got a job, leave him alone.lol

[flames for life]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Not a Muller fan.  Not sure who gets the props or blames for a 10th place to 17th place PP efficiency.

We only have him here under Sutter.

In the same time period, the PK has remained top 6.

Even with the drop off in goaltending, we still stayed about the same.

 

I was more focused on the use of players in the PP as the season went on.

Not using Weegar.

Using Kadri where he was less effective.

Overall, just didn't seem right.  The execution suffered perhaps.

 

There is nothing wrong with Love, but I would hope that he adjusts somewhat to the NHL.

Maybe I am reading too much into his alignment with Sutter hockey.

Muller is what he is.  A good Assistant Coach, but not more.

Where I disagree with you is with Love.  I think he is exactly what the team needs right now.  I think he was much more than “Sutter hockey”, because he spent a good portion of the season having to adapt his team to succeed when the Flames would draw players from the farm club.  His team did not miss a beat, and continued to win or play competitively.

If there are changes to the Flames team by player movement, Love may very well be the coach to keep stability in the team and maintain a solid level of competitiveness while the team adjusts and adapts; something that Sutter could not, or would not do.  That ability to adapt is a strength that Love has shown both years in the farm team, whether it was adjusting to the move of the farm team, or the transition of players.

[robrob74]

I don't know if there is any legitimacy, but from what I heard, the Flames didn't practice the PP.

Is that Sutter? Or Muller? 
 

one would think that teams wanting to win would practice everything to get good habits in those game situations.

 

 

[sak22]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

I don't know if there is any legitimacy, but from what I heard, the Flames didn't practice the PP.

Is that Sutter? Or Muller? 
 

one would think that teams wanting to win would practice everything to get good habits in those game situations.

 

 

I don't recall the PP not being practiced, I know 3 on 3 wasn't and you'll never escape the criticism when you lose 17 games in extra time and don't practice it.

[robrob74]

3 minutes ago, sak22 said:

I don't recall the PP not being practiced, I know 3 on 3 wasn't and you'll never escape the criticism when you lose 17 games in extra time and don't practice it.

 

I think it was pointed out in the media on a radio hit, But it was probably a month ago now, or at least when they let Sutter go.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I think it was pointed out in the media on a radio hit, But it was probably a month ago now, or at least when they let Sutter go.

 

I head as much.  It may have been due to days of practice available.

But they didn't practice it unless they ran into a streak of not scoring.

[tmac70]

We will find out what this group is when the new guy gets here. As it been stated they got their wish and they get a new coach, the pressure is now on them to prove it was coaching and not the players. IMHO Muller, Huska, and Love are not options at all. Just remember Love won coach of the year twice using and implementing Sutter systems, our so-called core was absolutely crap with this system, so all three just based on affiliation should be out on that merit. Gallant is just a watered-down version of Sutter, so that isn't going to work, Boudreau absolutely not too soft. 

 

The front runner for me is Brunnette or Quinville. Quinville is looking to get back in the league and has the pedigree and both have success with some keys guys we signed. For me I would prefer Quinville over Brunette, just based on pedigree however can everyone get passed the past with Quinville? So the fact that Conroy wants a coach that wants to make it fun to come to work is something that Quinville may not have. Winning is fun but also extremely difficult and requires hard work dedication, discipline and sacrifice, which I have not seen in this group outside of Tanev. If you want to win bring in a coach that has that ability in Quinville with the veterans we have a newer coach is never going to get the respect. 

[cross16]

When it comes to coaching, systems are highly overrated around here.

 

not so much about systems as it is philosophy. Good coaches are not tied to a certain system. This whole narrative around how Love is successful due to Sutter's system is terrible. 

[JTech780]

I would say the biggest asset of a successful coach is in game management and the ability to adapt to what the other team is trying to do.

 

Now this is more of a playoff thing than a regular season thing. In the regular season it’s more about having your team go out and setting the tone for the game. 
 

In the playoffs you need to have the ability to adjust and adapt in game to what the other team is trying to offensively and defensively.

[sak22]

One less team to worry about

 

 

And one name that was on peoples lists that can be scratched off

 

 

[cross16]

Brunette off the board confirmed by Lebrun now. 

 

Gallant apparently will speak with the Flames. As I mentioned yesterday expectation is Laviolette is going to Rangers. 

 

 

[JTech780]

Gallant is a fascinating name. There is no doubt that he gets the most out of teams when he goes behind the bench. I just wonder if he is too similar to Sutter in a lot of ways. He seems to have a very short shelf life everywhere he goes.

 

He also has been known to clash with management, not take direction and that he is slow to adapt and change his approach.

 

He wouldn’t be my choice.

[cross16]

Gallant would definitely not be the harmonious relationship Conroy spoke about. 

 

But as I said I get the interest due to his history with Huberdeau. Pick his brain to see if what you can gather

 

but I don't think he should be a serious candidate at this point.