Maybe Half The Problem is Huska?

[travel_dude]

10 hours ago, robrob74 said:

for me, the years you talk about were all up and down. For me the inconsistency meant we weren't a good team then. If we were a perennial team we'd have been good, but it was why I was calling to blow it up back then. They had good players, but it doesn't always mean a good team. 
 

Monahan was a 50 point guy without Johnny. The same is said for Lindholm now. Tkachuk should have been away from Backlund earlier and we lacked a true #1 C. I don't think we were ever really contenders. #1C & #1D away from being that. If Lindholm is that with Johnny and Tkachuk, then we needed a #2C and a #1D. I also felt we missed a good second line winger too. 
 

Good team? No. it's why we are here now. Johnny hid a lot of problems and the exchange for Tkachuk has one good outcome, Weegar. 
 

 

 

You are linking sub-par performances with the players not being any good on their own.

An injured Monahan or one that plays 3rd or 4th lines, is a 50 point player.

Losing Gio's playmaking set the team back initially.

The poor coaching by Wardo and the injuries to key players.

Adjusting to the Sutter style and getting one good year out of it.

He contributed to the loss of good players and created the down year.

 

These are not excuses, since I think we are not close to being like the best teams we have been.

Even those had issues.  We solve one problem and create two more.

Unfortunately, targeting Huberdeau while losing 2/3 of a top line was a mistake no doubt.

Having Kadri + Tkachuk (or Gaudreau) would not have been as much a loss.

Replacing Gaudreau with Huberdeau is not an even swap.

Weegar for Tkachuk is the other part and that is not close to even.

 

Huska has issues, but the talent level is well below a playoff team.

We have pieces that could be better used.

 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

You are linking sub-par performances with the players not being any good on their own.

An injured Monahan or one that plays 3rd or 4th lines, is a 50 point player.

Losing Gio's playmaking set the team back initially.

The poor coaching by Wardo and the injuries to key players.

Adjusting to the Sutter style and getting one good year out of it.

He contributed to the loss of good players and created the down year.

 

These are not excuses, since I think we are not close to being like the best teams we have been.

Even those had issues.  We solve one problem and create two more.

Unfortunately, targeting Huberdeau while losing 2/3 of a top line was a mistake no doubt.

Having Kadri + Tkachuk (or Gaudreau) would not have been as much a loss.

Replacing Gaudreau with Huberdeau is not an even swap.

Weegar for Tkachuk is the other part and that is not close to even.

 

Huska has issues, but the talent level is well below a playoff team.

We have pieces that could be better used.

 

 

Ya, I agree.

 

I think we need to have a good reset. I'd like at least one year of drafting in the top 5... Something that I think Warraner pointed out when talking about Tanev on their Podcast yesterday or the day before is that Tanev is a decent skater, but in the NHL the players need to be able to skate.

 

I think we've noticed that while we have found decent NHLers, we also haven't found ones that can skate at a pace that is necessary once the games ramp up into the playoffs. We saw how that affected us against the Avs, the Oils, and we barely got past Dallas, who really, in hindsight, wasn't a terrible team.

 

I'd like to start drafting players who are already decent skaters. So often in drafts we hear knocks on our drafted players that they could use some work on their skating. IQ gets you into the Playoffs, but IQ doesn't get you passed the fast teams with high end talent.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Ya, I agree.

 

I think we need to have a good reset. I'd like at least one year of drafting in the top 5... Something that I think Warraner pointed out when talking about Tanev on their Podcast yesterday or the day before is that Tanev is a decent skater, but in the NHL the players need to be able to skate.

 

I think we've noticed that while we have found decent NHLers, we also haven't found ones that can skate at a pace that is necessary once the games ramp up into the playoffs. We saw how that affected us against the Avs, the Oils, and we barely got past Dallas, who really, in hindsight, wasn't a terrible team.

 

I'd like to start drafting players who are already decent skaters. So often in drafts we hear knocks on our drafted players that they could use some work on their skating. IQ gets you into the Playoffs, but IQ doesn't get you passed the fast teams with high end talent.

 

To me skating is not the biggest issue, it's moving fast with the puck.

It shows on the PP.

We can't zone enter or make quick decisions.

[420since1974]

At this time, I don't have any issues with Huska.

He has coached several of the Flames at the AHL level.

I hope that Calgary goes for a retool by trading the current UFAs for NHL RFAs, prospects and draft picks.

This would allow the team and coaching staff to grow together and hopefully be competitive by the time the new arena opens.

[Thebrewcrew]

25 minutes ago, 420since1974 said:

At this time, I don't have any issues with Huska.

He has coached several of the Flames at the AHL level.

I hope that Calgary goes for a retool by trading the current UFAs for NHL RFAs, prospects and draft picks.

This would allow the team and coaching staff to grow together and hopefully be competitive by the time the new arena opens.

I would agree. 
 

He got hired into a tough situation. I think he’s doing fine.

 

I think he will be a good a coach for a rebuild, given his pedigree at junior and the AHL. I’d be fine if they gave him 3-5 years. Then when it looks like the team needs to take a step, I would probably make a change. I think he’s a coach that can get you through a rebuild, but not to that next level.

[Bob Fry]

On 1/31/2024 at 4:58 AM, jjgallow said:

 

The problem is that we have a number of players locked in long term contracts who act like 2 year olds through their agents if the coach shows emotions ( like the last one who got fired ).

 

Now is a time to reload on pick and prospects.   Basically.

 

On 1/31/2024 at 7:17 AM, The_People1 said:

Personally I like a coach to not let the highs get too high and the lows get too low.  Stay cool and calm.  Analyze objectively.  And above all, be fair.

 

And that doesn't mean low intensity.  Just rather, controlled emotions.  Post-game interviews are certainly not the time to get emotional.

 

[Bob Fry]

1 hour ago, Bob Fry said:

 

 

I agree that you can only get upset a few times after that the plays tune you out. I still can't beleive that the owners allowed Brad Trevling to sign players to 8 year contracts. The maximum contract should be 5 years, you could add a option to extend the other three years. 

[cross16]

8 hours ago, Bob Fry said:

I agree that you can only get upset a few times after that the plays tune you out. I still can't beleive that the owners allowed Brad Trevling to sign players to 8 year contracts. The maximum contract should be 5 years, you could add a option to extend the other three years. 

 

Not allowed in the NHL