Should the coach,GG, be brought back?

[smiggy77]

Didn't Backlund Socks say he's never coming back here again. GTFO man you're posts are insanely annoying.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

While there is some truth to what you say, there are a couple of issues I'd take with it, and I'm thinking only after the first 20 games - forget the start:

1. Yes, they improved their breakouts at times. And, they forgot all about how to break out when they got pressured or flustered. They forgot their game or they'd get lazy if they were winning by 3 goals, say (cf Anaheim game 3) and start playing "cute". It is absolutely incumbent on a coach to stop the team in its tracks when it's doing that, however he needs to. GG never, ever did so in my view - not even once the entire season.

2. Puck possession: again, at times they were good - but as a European team would NEVER do, they often gave possession away to change lines - and it burned them time and time again. Either get it deep and keep someone back while you change, or keep possession back of your own net and change. Making half-assed attempts to clear is a teachable moment. Not sure that lesson got translated to the team, based on how often it happened.

3. Puck distribution: better, but WAY too few shots. Too much focus on control when they needed to score. And, they'd eventually lose possession, so distribution doesn't really matter then, does it?

4. Special teams: again - at times better. But too often there were significant breakdowns where guys on the PP would try to do it all by themselves. The boneheaded stubbornness in keeping certain players on the PP (Brouwer eg.) when they weren't producing, and the failure to adapt to strategic changes suggests that they were out of ideas. Gio is the s-l-o-w-e-s-t passer; great shot when he makes it, but too often was blocked. Dougie has a terrific release from the back end and was a much better choice.

PK improved most of the time. Broke open a few games and that was good.

Biggest problem is not mentioned: failure to prepare the team to be ready to GO at the beginning of games and stay focused at the END of periods. The first failure could be on Sigalet/goalies, or on GG and the team. But too often they gave up goals in the first minute or two of games, and too often in the last minute(s) of periods. That's on the coach to me.

Most of this is anecdotal and a product of your own impressions. If you had hard numbers or quantitative indications to support your notions then I would be more inclined to agree. Whether or not the team's improvement was linear or achieved in groups of games doesn't really matter when all is said and done—the results on the whole were very good. People get fixated on these sorts of things because we are so focussed on what is happening with THIS team, but I suspect that similar sorts of criticisms abound from most fanbases when things do not go as planned for their favourite team.

Quibbling about player selection or "failures to adapt" are also opinions based on conjectures from a fan's perspective outside of any real experience with what is happening in the dressing room, in practice, or on the bench. In the end, very little has changed from the beginning of the year: posters who disliked the hire continue to forward these fairly trivial to downright meaningless criticisms, and I suspect that nothing outside of winning the Stanley Cup will ever change their minds. It is not that I think Gulutzan is perfect or an infallible coach; I just tend to think that the amount of criticism he endures is unreasonable. I am sure there are things he can improve, but on the whole I don't think there is much in his repertoire to complain about.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Most of this is anecdotal and a product of your own impressions. If you had hard numbers or quantitative indications to support your notions then I would be more inclined to agree. Whether or not the team's improvement was linear or achieved in groups of games doesn't really matter when all is said and done—
{snip}

If I had the time to develop hard numbers I'd be working for a team in the NHL instead of bashing away at people's taxes....(which I'm ignoring for today).

I suspect that my impressions could be borne out by stats, or by watching all 82 + 4 games again and seeing where issues arose. But most of those things I mentioned showed up one way or another in the last 4 games. And that is recent enough for everyone to recall.

As for development not being linear, that is true: but development needs to achieve a peak. And the time, in hockey, to peak and bring the development to the fore is in the playoffs. That did, most assuredly, NOT occur with this team.

They showed the same nervousness and fragility that they exhibited earlier in the season. They were unable to hold a lead (Game 3); they gave up early and soft goals (pick your game), they got hemmed in often and gave up possession, or couldn't recapture it (again, pick your game).

Chucky clearly got called off, Johnny looked terrified, Gio looked...and looked...and couldn't make quick plays. GG made dreadful coaching choices (no timeouts after dreadful goals, or before the 5-on-3, goaltender for Game 4).

Having said all of that, am I happy they MADE the playoffs? Sure. Off-season is a week shorter than last year. I guess that's a good thing. Did they improve dramatically enough for me to wholeheartedly endorse the coach/coaching staff? Not by a long shot.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the proof of a hockey club in the NHL is in their playoff performance. And the Flames and their coach(es) were sadly lacking.

[MarkGio]

Most of your characterizations about critics being trivial are ancedotal and a product of your own impressions. Not supported empirically at all.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Most of your characterizations about critics being trivial are ancedotal and a product of your own impressions. Not supported empirically at all.

No, they are actually a product of the fact that I don't see anything quantifiable to support most of the claims being made, and a whole lot of effort expended in the creation of narratives about the coach's demeanour, motivation, and decision making to counter the unavoidable reality that the team played well.

[automaton 3]

The team just got swept and pretty much imploded in game 3.

I wouldn't characterize that as the team played well.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

The team just got swept and pretty much imploded in game 3.

I wouldn't characterize that as the team played well.

I would not use 10 mins of Game 3 as the definitive measuring stick for the whole season.

This is a young team with a young coach. I think they will be better next year.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would not use 10 mins of Game 3 as the definitive measuring stick for the whole season.

This is a young team with a young coach. I think they will be better next year.

No, but that AND the first two minutes of Game 4 certainly tell a tale, don't they?

I guess if one is "anecdotal" it's easy to ignore the tale those minutes tell.....

I'm not saying they didn't play well. They didn't play well ENOUGH. And the coach didn't coach well ENOUGH. Resulting in the aforementioned dozen minutes.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

No, but that AND the first two minutes of Game 4 certainly tell a tale, don't they?

I guess if one is "anecdotal" it's easy to ignore the tale those minutes tell.....

I'm not saying they didn't play well. They didn't play well ENOUGH. And the coach didn't coach well ENOUGH. Resulting in the aforementioned dozen minutes.

So the meltdown of a young team in the space of 12 minutes is completely on the coach? Against a Stanley Cup favourite no less? I don't buy it.

Like I said: I expect the team to be better next year.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I wouldn't say theres a guarantee he's back next year. We're not even sure Gulutzan was the guy they wanted to begin with. Now that there's some good coaches in the market, it's possible they explore this option. It's possible Gulutzan was a temporary fill until the right guy came around.

Good management involves exploring all options all the time

I just think there is no way they go and fire Gulutzan after the season the Flames had. The statistically improved on everything. Is there still work to do? Of course, but you improve with continuity, not by hiring a new coach every year. That's how you end up like the Panthers.

Besides, who on the market is a better coach right now? (besides Darryl Sutter I guess).

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So the meltdown of a young team in the space of 12 minutes is completely on the coach? Against a Stanley Cup favourite no less?

Originally Posted by chummer

Odds to win the Cup-

Chicago Blackhawks+400
Washington Capitals+450
Pittsburgh Penguins+800
Minnesota Wild+800
Columbus Blue Jackets+1000
Montreal Canadiens+1400
New York Rangers+1400
San Jose Sharks+1400
Anaheim Ducks+1400
Edmonton Oilers+1600
Calgary Flames+2500
Nashville Predators+2500
Toronto Maple Leafs+2500
Boston Bruins+2500
Ottawa Senators+2800
St. Louis Blues+3300

At best Ducks were 9/16 favourites according to Vegas oddsmakers, with Calgary at 11/16.

Odd how Nashville, Toronto and Ottawa are all beating expectations so far. And all rated the same or worse than Calgary.

So yes - the failure and meltdown is on the coach. That's what timeouts and preparation are for. That's what mental toughness is about in sport. And making adjustments when you see your team failing is what a coach is supposed to do. That didn't happen and that's not "anectdotal". That is a simple fact.

How you view the results of those actions (as a GM, say) determines what you decide to do with the coach(ing) for next year.

Will they be better? Potentially, but with a bunch of current guys going off the roster, who knows?

Will the CORE be better? Maybe, if they can integrate the experiences they had in the past 4 games to their regular season play.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Like I said: I expect the team to be better next year.

They have to be.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No, they are actually a product of the fact that I don't see anything quantifiable to support most of the claims being made, and a whole lot of effort expended in the creation of narratives about the coach's demeanour, motivation, and decision making to counter the unavoidable reality that the team played well.

This you creating a narrative about his critics:

"People get fixated on these sorts of things because we are so focussed on what is happening with THIS team, but I suspect that similar sorts of criticisms abound from most fanbases when things do not go as planned for their favourite team."

And so is this:

"posters who disliked the hire continue to forward these fairly trivial to downright meaningless criticisms, and I suspect that nothing outside of winning the Stanley Cup will ever change their minds."

You have no empirical evidence that his critics can't change their minds lol

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

So yes - the failure and meltdown is on the coach. That's what timeouts and preparation are for. That's what mental toughness is about in sport. And making adjustments when you see your team failing is what a coach is supposed to do. That didn't happen and that's not "anectdotal". That is a simple fact.

It did happen though, so now what?

What evidence do you have to support your claims of "zero adjustments" because I saw line shuffling, shortening the bench, and changing a goalie. Literally all the adjustments you can make in-game were made. That's a fact.

What do you have that shows they weren't prepared? Or when would you have chosen a timeout?

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Longest winning streak in franchise history under Gulutzan.

You have to throw that out, because... well, because.

[Stay Golden]

It is no secret as it is well documented I did not like the hire before GG was even hired
I have to access his first season in 3 phases. First half, second half and playoffs. Honestly it was a bizarre ebb and flow of the season.

1st half of the season was horrendous. The way it was going fans, national and local media were wondering would he be toasted after the first 20 games. Would he last to the end of season or would the Flames just play out the rest of the season and let GG there after.

Then there is the second half of the season, some line and personal adjustments were made GG was the toast of the city. The team was hot and definitely so were simultaneously Johnson then Elliott.

The playoffs we all saw were a nightmare. The Flames were swept, the last time the Flames were swept was I think Chicago in 1995 so that is not exactly a badge of honor for GG.
Anytime a team is swept in the first round coaching always plays a big part. GG made a number of blunders his inexperience really showed in the playoffs but how much of that can be evaluated by bad luck and inconsistent goal tendering.
Depends how much weight you put on bad goaltending, bad bounces and bad line changes that All directly cost the Flames one way or another each game.

The Flames blew leads 2 out the 4 games. In 3 out the 4 games they lost by not keeping their same tempo of play and dialing way down the hitting that got them those leads. Game 4 even prior to the soft opening goal they were coasting. They coasted most of game 4 that is the HC to change that. GG fell way short as a leader in the post season as did the Captain.

Carlyle for sure out coaches him.
He showed GG behind the bench in the playoffs this is chess not checkers.

I find that during the season and playoffs GG and the goaltending were eerily similar. So did GG turn the season around or was it riding a hot goalie?

But in life it is better to be objective in spite of all that I think GG showed enough how he matured as the season went on.
GG as a HC is not a slam dunk he is a project. I think that project should get another year to prove what is really there with an option for a second.
But the Flames would be foolish to award a multi year contract because there are too many questions marks still about GG. He needs to really lead by not allowing the really poor starts and recognizing when his team is fading away from what built them leads.

Not sure what the stats are but the Flames were shut out more times than usual, lost leads too many times and had brutal starts too many times.
And for that reason I would resign GG no more than 1 year with an option for 1 more.
If it works out with GG then he gets a 3 year after 2019

[robaur]

Has Sutter been mentioned in this thread yet ? I haven't read it fully yet.

I'm interested to see what ownership does now that Sutter is available.

He's got tons of fans and support within the city and the ownership.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Of course Glen Gukutsan will be brought back.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Not sure what the stats are but the Flames were shut out more times than usual, lost leads too many times and had brutal starts too many times.

Number of Times Shutout By Opposition:
2014 4SO
2015 3SO
2016 4SO


Goals For/Against Per Period:
2014 P1 54/70 P2 75/71 P3 99/68
2015 P1 70/68 P2 82/94 P3 68/91
2016 P1 66/69 P2 78/74 P3 69/74

So technically they were shutout more (+1) compared to last year. I don't know where to look for things like starting off poorly or losing leads but between the stat of something like 33 wins and no regulation losses when leading after 2 periods and the huge hot/cold streaks, I'm inclined to think that the team is somewhere in the middle regarding starting bad/losing leads (in the first two periods) When I compare the 2016 Flames to other teams, their balanced scoring/goals against per period is only shared by a couple other teams. Hard to make anything out of that other than the Flames were consistent in their scoring over the season. That stability is reassuring if not lacklustre.

Stats from NHL.com and Sportingcharts

[GeoRock]

We scored two goals 5 on 5 in the series. Ducks scored 11. Think about that. Our special teams were good no doubt, but the guys gotta fund their 5 on 5 game under GG.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk