One interview to help a guy out, sure. But two, if true, is more than that. Maybe they want him as an assistant/mentor to a younger guy?
i can see many reasons for this --
1. BT was in Russia the first time, meaning this is the first time Brad will have spoken to him
2. possible Associate Coach ?
3. maybe picking his brain about Reimer?
4. Smokescreen-- the first time , it sent everybody into a tizzy and many totally missed Gulatzen being mentioned in the same sentence
5. its Steve Simmons.. Ekblad is more reliable
I really like what Dave Lowry did with the Royals this season. Coming in to the season, the Victoria Royals were expected to be in the basement from start to finish due to so many of thier more experienced guys moving on. Hickets was expected to be the lone bright spot for the team and Soy was really the only forward with skill. That was to start the season.
They may have fluttered out in the playoffs, but they beat some pretty good teams on their way to the third round? Can't remember, I was at sea.
None the less, I'm really impressed with how Lowry has coached the Royals over the last few years and this year, he was stellar.
I sure hope the new coach knows how to handle young talent and has also played the game within the last 2 decades and understands the evolution of the game.
Bought or Lowry/ Boughner, Gelinas, Lowry as associate coaches and maybe a more experienced guy at the helm.
An interesting route to take is have Gelinas, Boogie man, and Lowry come on as associate coaches for a trial year where they take all take a different group( Forwards, Defencemen, Special Teams) and rotate through the year but have
a "figure head" as a "head coach" but his primary role would be to analyze, evaluate, make final decisions on systems and report back to treliving. And then one of the Alumns gets the HC gig.
I'm only half serious. Most of the last part is in jest. That said, I wonder if that could actually work as an evaluation process.
Martin Gelinas is a veteran of over NHL 1200 games and has made the transition to coaching in Calgary, where he was know as the “Eliminator” during his playing days with the Flames. The power play is often the difference between winning and losing games. A successful PP can help your team generate momentum and force teams to be less aggressive in fear of giving you a man advantage. Marty analyzes the top power plays in the NHL to uncover trends and the habits that make them tick. He also points out that a successful power play comes down to talent, structure and a strong system.
__________________
Sam "Beard" Bennett
Last edited by hockey.modern; 05-29-2016 at 09:45 PM.
Wasn't Gelinas in charge of the worst special teams group last year?
The power play jumped from 30th to 22nd in the final six weeks of the season once Wideman was replaced by Hamilton. Gelinas makes the critical point that one of the three key factors in a successful power play is talent. In a very poor off year for Wideman, this certainly was a significant contributing factor to the Flames power play struggles through most of the season.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Toronto does that to people - it's full of people like Simmons
While I agree there are a lot of people like Simmons in Toronto, Simmons played the jerk just as well when he was in Calgary. He hasn't changed but his style probably had a lot to do with his move to Toronto. Eric Francis only wishes he could play the role as well.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
The power play jumped from 30th to 22nd in the final six weeks of the season once Wideman was replaced by Hamilton. Gelinas makes the critical point that one of the three key factors in a successful power play is talent. In a very poor off year for Wideman, this certainly was a significant contributing factor to the Flames power play struggles through most of the season.
I am very wary of drawing conclusions from games after the team was eliminated. Wideman was awful though.
I am very wary of drawing conclusions from games after the team was eliminated. Wideman was awful though.
I'm very wary of looking at a single season's special teams performance for one team, and drawing sweeping conclusions about what specifically THE problem was. It's complex. It is not just the coach or just the players. If you look carefully through individual teams' special teams performances from one year to the next you will commonly see some dramatic shifts in their ranking from top-to-bottom, from one season to the next.
The point here being that while I do not think the Flames' coaches should be completely absolved of the special teams performance from this year, I am also quite convinced that there were a lot of factors, and that even with the same coaching staff and personnel in place next season, the team would be better.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
While I agree there are a lot of people like Simmons in Toronto, Simmons played the jerk just as well when he was in Calgary. He hasn't changed but his style probably had a lot to do with his move to Toronto. Eric Francis only wishes he could play the role as well.
Agree. Simmons was a super-negatve jerk when he was here, and was obviously Jonesing for a job in the centre of the universe. Francis' reporting has similar attributes, but he also does some good community work here outside his sports reporting.
The Following User Says Thank You to Steve Bozek For This Useful Post:
I'm very wary of looking at a single season's special teams performance for one team, and drawing sweeping conclusions about what specifically THE problem was. It's complex. It is not just the coach or just the players. If you look carefully through individual teams' special teams performances from one year to the next you will commonly see some dramatic shifts in their ranking from top-to-bottom, from one season to the next.
The point here being that while I do not think the Flames' coaches should be completely absolved of the special teams performance from this year, I am also quite convinced that there were a lot of factors, and that even with the same coaching staff and personnel in place next season, the team would be better.
Well yeah the special teams could improve without making any changes whatsoever. Statistically speaking they were awful so in fact its very likely. But if one season is too small a small sample size from which to draw conclusions, then obviously six weeks is even more so.
Without a doubt there were many factors beyond Gelinas and I have no idea how much he contributed to the problem. Hopefully management is doing more than relying on reversion to the mean for improvement.
The Following User Says Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
Well yeah the special teams could improve without making any changes whatsoever. Statistically speaking they were awful so in fact its very likely. But if one season is too small a small sample size from which to draw conclusions, then obviously six weeks is even more so.
"More so"? No I do not think so. As a matter of fact, I would say that the improved performance is much more indicative of player issues than of a coaching problem. Or, are you of the opinion that the coaches of non-playoff teams make more adjustments to systems in the Spring? That makes no sense to me.
Quote:
Without a doubt there were many factors beyond Gelinas and I have no idea how much he contributed to the problem. Hopefully management is doing more than relying on reversion to the mean for improvement.
Obviously, management is not "relying on reversion to the mean for improvement." After all, a coaching search is but one way to effect the desired change.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I'm very wary of looking at a single season's special teams performance for one team, and drawing sweeping conclusions about what specifically THE problem was. It's complex. It is not just the coach or just the players. If you look carefully through individual teams' special teams performances from one year to the next you will commonly see some dramatic shifts in their ranking from top-to-bottom, from one season to the next.
The point here being that while I do not think the Flames' coaches should be completely absolved of the special teams performance from this year, I am also quite convinced that there were a lot of factors, and that even with the same coaching staff and personnel in place next season, the team would be better.
That just sounds like a way to shut down criticism. "It's complicated."
The Flames had the 11th ranked offense in the league. They have one of the best players in the NHL at gaining entry and dishing the puck. They have three highly skilled, puck-moving d-men, who many on this forum believed were good enough to be on top World Cup teams. The personnel was there for at least an average powerplay.
Special teams are the most coachable part of the game. Coaches are often brought in to specifically to address special teams. The Flames coaching staff did a poor job with special teams, and it's one of the reasons the head coach was let go.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Well yeah the special teams could improve without making any changes whatsoever. Statistically speaking they were awful so in fact its very likely. But if one season is too small a small sample size from which to draw conclusions, then obviously six weeks is even more so.
Without a doubt there were many factors beyond Gelinas and I have no idea how much he contributed to the problem. Hopefully management is doing more than relying on reversion to the mean for improvement.
The Flames PP was actually good for most of the season. Over the last 50 games of the year (December 20th onward) they scored at a rate of 20.8%. That would be good enough for 7th overall if it was for the whole season.
The first 32 games were utterly atrocious though (and not just on the PP), and it's really hard to dig out of that hole. The PP was just 10.3% over those 32 games.
50 games doesn't prove anything one way or the other either, but it's definitely a promising sign, and is much more than the 6 weeks I've seen quoted by a few posters. It's hard to believe, but the Flames PP was good for the majority of the season.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to mikephoen For This Useful Post:
That just sounds like a way to shut down criticism. "It's complicated."
The Flames had the 11th ranked offense in the league. They have one of the best players in the NHL at gaining entry and dishing the puck. They have three highly skilled, puck-moving d-men, who many on this forum believed were good enough to be on top World Cup teams. The personnel was there for at least an average powerplay.
Special teams are the most coachable part of the game. Coaches are often brought in to specifically to address special teams. The Flames coaching staff did a poor job with special teams, and it's one of the reasons the head coach was let go.
Yep Gelinas did below average work last season. I like Gelinas and if they want to keep him with the organization that's fine by me but IMO the next head coach shouldn't be saddled with him unless he truly wants to work with him as this type of nepotism is the kind of stuff that the Oilers did forcing guys like Buchberger as assistants. I'm not saying I want him fired but I'm a little concerned that he's possibly being anointed an assistant job without a lot of successful merit.
Yep Gelinas did below average work last season. I like Gelinas and if they want to keep him with the organization that's fine by me but IMO the next head coach shouldn't be saddled with him unless he truly wants to work with him as this type of nepotism is the kind of stuff that the Oilers did forcing guys like Buchberger as assistants. I'm not saying I want him fired but I'm a little concerned that he's possibly being anointed an assistant job without a lot of successful merit.
All season I was kind of confused as to what was going on with coaching, in 14/15 Gelina was in charge of the last play. He would always be the guy that would take the leadership in the final play. In 15/16 I noticed that Hartley had taken over that role, which seemed odd to me. So I wonder if Hartley started micromanaging the team and not allowing the assistants to do their job.
IDK what's wrong with the power play. Of course it always comes down to the players but since its very likely there is no PP specialist riding to the rescue, I would be concerned about just expecting the PP to improve with the current group unless there is a different approach. Yes it was better during parts of the season, but 22nd overall over 82 games speaks for itself..
The PK was worse. even after signing an elite PK'er as a FA.
I don't know enough to blames Gelinas since who knows what happened behind the scenes. But I am quite certain it is a significant topic in interviews with the new coach.
IDK what's wrong with the power play. Of course it always comes down to the players but since its very likely there is no PP specialist riding to the rescue, I would be concerned about just expecting the PP to improve with the current group unless there is a different approach. Yes it was better during parts of the season, but 22nd overall over 82 games speaks for itself.
mikephoen actually addressed the problem with assessing the team's final ranking pretty effectively.
One of the reasons I am less concerned about improvement is that there is a consistent pattern of dramatic change in special teams rankings from year to year within the NHL. One of the reasons for this is that the difference between the top power play and the mid-ranked power play in total goals scored in the 2015–16 season is 8, and the difference between the mid-ranked power play and the lowest-ranked power play in total goals scored is 10. In a league in which teams score an average of 220 goals, that is a difference of less than 5% of total scoring. In short, the range from top to bottom is so tight, that even small, negligible changes will result in fairly sizeable differences in terms of team rankings on special teams.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
^Friedman was on the Fan as usual this morning, even he has nothing. He said maybe the Flames will be interested in Kirk Muller, but that's 100% his speculation.
If Friedman has nothing, nobody does.
Although he did suggest Anaheim may be waiting to talk to... Hitchcock? I was working at the time and only half-heard
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobHopper
The thing is, my posts, thoughts and insights may be my opinions but they're also quite factual.
