Still, how do people conclude Marcoux caused Lack to be bad, yet Sigalet is never the issue with the goalies he coaches? This season is really do or die.
As CMPunk posted, there is a fair bit of documented evidence for the fairly dramatic changes that Marcoux implemented while Lack was in Carolina.
This was posted by ReinhartonD in another thread. It is an interview with Kevin Woodley, from InGoal from magazine before the Lack trade, and he comes across quite strongly with what was wrong with Lack's game in Carolina. You really ought to listen to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReinhartonD
I too think Lack can be better if the Flames work with his strengths--after listening to Kevin Woodley, from InGoal magazine, talk about him before the Flames signed Lack.
Not sure if this link will work, but he pretty much explains his reasoning in an interview with Vancouver radio on June 27--if you can, skip ahead to the 18:10 mark and listen to what he says: http://www.tsn.ca/radio/audio/sekere...our-2-1.790437
__________________
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?"
As CMPunk posted, there is a fair bit of documented evidence for the fairly dramatic changes that Marcoux implemented while Lack was in Carolina.
This was posted by ReinhartonD in another thread. It is an interview with Kevin Woodley, from InGoal from magazine before the Lack trade, and he comes across quite strongly with what was wrong with Lack's game in Carolina. You really ought to listen to it.
Thanks I hadn't heard that before. I guess my question should have been, when is Sigalet's coaching going to be quantifiable or warrant criticism? This article has him at 16 goalies now.
Perhaps it's not the style he has them playing, but he's unable to prepare them mentally? The bottom line is goaltending remains the Flames #1 issue until Smith/Lack show otherwise.
A good goalie coach should just be making minor tweeks to a goalies style, watching video to help fix things and being a sounding board. No one is going to tell an NHL vet how to play goal, they got there for a reason and making a stand up goalie play butterfly is just not going to happen.
Thanks I hadn't heard that before. I guess my question should have been, when is Sigalet's coaching going to be quantifiable or warrant criticism? This article has him at 16 goalies now.
I think the answer to your question is in the question itself: when there is something quantifiable enough for observers to legitimately criticise. So far all anyone has are anecdotal correlations, which in my opinion do not warrant actual criticism. Much like what happened with Glen Gulutzan early in his tenure it is not easy to see whether Sigalet is doing anything to make the Flames's goaltending successful, but that doesn't mean that he is a poor goaltending coach.
Quote:
Perhaps it's not the style he has them playing, but he's unable to prepare them mentally? The bottom line is goaltending remains the Flames #1 issue until Smith/Lack show otherwise.
Perhaps, but who knows? Until there is something tangible that one can identify as an issue with the goalie coach, then it really isn't fair to assert that he is the root of the problem. He might be, we just don't really have any way of knowing at this point. But I cannot imagine that management will simply remain content to keep him in his job if there was in fact cause to relieve him.
__________________
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?"
"He's such a student of the game. You tell him something and right away he's making the adjustment," says Sigalet. "Plus the kid just knows how to win. He's won on every stage so far. Another good playoffs this year. Losing in game 7 in overtime was tough for him but he carried that team to the playoffs again."
Quote:
"With the compete level he has, the athleticism he has, he's got a bright future and a special skill set," effuses Sigalet. "We're excited about him and now it's deciding what we want to do with him whether it's junior for another year or find a place in the pro ranks for him."
And then Haynes adds his take
Quote:
I'd bet on the latter. Calgary's brass knows this guy is special and returning him to junior doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Expect him to end up in Kansas City, the new home of the Flames' ECHL affiliate.
Thanks I hadn't heard that before. I guess my question should have been, when is Sigalet's coaching going to be quantifiable or warrant criticism? This article has him at 16 goalies now.
Perhaps it's not the style he has them playing, but he's unable to prepare them mentally? The bottom line is goaltending remains the Flames #1 issue until Smith/Lack show otherwise.
The problem is that you're using 16 goalies as a benchmark to his success because the article states 16 goalies have come through the organisation.
The actual number of goalies that have played at least one game for the Flames since Sigalet was hired is 7.
Of those 7, only 4 played more than 6 games during Sigalet's tenure.
Of the 3 that didn't play more than 6 games, 2 were prospects and 1 was a 38 year old who hadn't played a single game all season (and was acquired in Feb).
Of those 4 that did play a substantial amount, 1 had his career best and worst season(Ramo), 1 posted the 3rd best numbers and worst numbers of his career (Hiller), and 2 posted SV% within .5 of their career average on a team that struggled from top to bottom for the first half of the year.
All told, Sigalet had coached two goaltenders that have been trusted as number 1 goaltenders in the past, Hiller and Backstrom. Of those, both had previously lost their starter jobs on their teams and only one played a significant amount of time for the Flames (giving us one of his best seasons and his worst).
Of the 7 goalies, only 2 still have jobs in the NHL, 1 is a prospect, and the rest are in Europe.
The narrative that Sigalet is the problem is a convenient but ultimately wrong one when you actually look at it. It's made up by fans so they have a scapegoat, something to point to and say "If we only fixed that, we'd be so much better." It's no different than the whipping boy. There's always one problem player that if we just improved, we'd be better. There's always some front office position that is somehow the problem (coaching, scouting, development, GM, president) that if somehow we fixed it, everything would be better, but it's rarely based on something real.
The real problem is that we've had garbage to work with, a high level of turnover, and quite frankly haven't been that good of a team in front of these guys for a full season yet.
So can you blame Sigalet for our woes? Sure, but it looks silly doing it.
The Following 24 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
If Sigalet is good at doing "little" tweaks, why was he not able to help Johnson with high glove hand goals? Maybe that's more than a little tweak I guess.
I don't know, I suppose you can give Sigalet the benefit of the doubt, I just can't personally. There may be hidden positives (maybe he has a lot of good intangibles?) but I certainly haven't seen any.
If Sigalet is good at doing "little" tweaks, why was he not able to help Johnson with high glove hand goals? Maybe that's more than a little tweak I guess...
Maybe he was unable to help Johnson because Johnson is not good enough. Maybe Johnson decided that he was more comfortable playing his game and ignored Sigalet's advice. Maybe the problems Johnson was experiencing had nothing at all to do with Sigalet's coaching.
To be clear, no one here is saying that Sigalet is doing a good job, only that there is no good evidence to suggest that he is a poor goaltending coach. I don't think of it so much as "benefit of doubt" as I do a lack of evidence from which to form a conclusion.
__________________
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?"
Why does anyone think the organization would have a blind spot for the goalie coach? As if they don't know goaltending has been a problem, and wouldn't have reviewed his role and whether he has contributed to this organizational weakness or has in fact ameliorated it?
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Five-hole For This Useful Post:
Why does anyone think the organization would have a blind spot for the goalie coach? As if they don't know goaltending has been a problem, and wouldn't have reviewed his role and whether he has contributed to this organizational weakness or has in fact ameliorated it?
Exactly. Treliving strikes me as a fairly tough taskmaster - nobody gets a free pass. I'm sure he has vetted Sigalet more than once and came away satisfied.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Gaudfather For This Useful Post:
Who will be surprised if Elliott and Johnson both play better on their new teams this season? I certainly won't. People can defend Sigalet all they want but nobody can deny the results at the position he coaches haven't been acceptable. The blame goes into three directions; the goaltenders, the GM that brought them in, and the goaltender coach. The GM has once again brought in two new goaltenders and if they play below expectations either the GM has terrible feel for the position or the goaltending coach isn't part of the solution as I refuse to believe that every goaltender brought in isn't capable of playing at higher levels than they have played for the Flames.
Who will be surprised if Elliott and Johnson both play better on their new teams this season? I certainly won't.
I don't think there will be many who will be surprised by this, myself included. However, better performances from both Johnson and Elliott hardly constitute proof that Sigalet was the problem in Calgary all along.
Quote:
People can defend Sigalet all they want but nobody can deny the results at the position he coaches haven't been acceptable...
I will continue to refrain from criticism until I see some actual evidence to demonstrate Sigalet's contribution to these results one way or the other. Conceding that I don't know seems like a perfectly rational response to the question of how he has performed in his job, and while it may look to some as a tacit endorsement I would like to repeat that refusing to vilify Sigalet is not the same thing as defending him.
__________________
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?"
Of those 7, only 4 played more than 6 games during Sigalet's tenure.
Of the 3 that didn't play more than 6 games, 2 were prospects and 1 was a 38 year old who hadn't played a single game all season (and was acquired in Feb).
Of those 4 that did play a substantial amount, 1 had his career best and worst season(Ramo), 1 posted the 3rd best numbers and worst numbers of his career (Hiller), and 2 posted SV% within .5 of their career average on a team that struggled from top to bottom for the first half of the year.
All told, Sigalet had coached two goaltenders that have been trusted as number 1 goaltenders in the past, Hiller and Backstrom. Of those, both had previously lost their starter jobs on their teams and only one played a significant amount of time for the Flames (giving us one of his best seasons and his worst).
Of the 7 goalies, only 2 still have jobs in the NHL, 1 is a prospect, and the rest are in Europe.
The narrative that Sigalet is the problem is a convenient but ultimately wrong one when you actually look at it. It's made up by fans so they have a scapegoat, something to point to and say "If we only fixed that, we'd be so much better." It's no different than the whipping boy. There's always one problem player that if we just improved, we'd be better. There's always some front office position that is somehow the problem (coaching, scouting, development, GM, president) that if somehow we fixed it, everything would be better, but it's rarely based on something real.
The real problem is that we've had garbage to work with, a high level of turnover, and quite frankly haven't been that good of a team in front of these guys for a full season yet.
So can you blame Sigalet for our woes? Sure, but it looks silly doing it.
Lots of valid points. But I wonder - at what point can any fan criticize a goalie coach then? We don't see him work in practices - we just just see the results. Seems to me that a goalie coach often gets credited for an improvement (like with Burke and Dubnyk or Allaire/Giguere).
The other thing missing from your post is that Sigalet is also the goalie coach for the various AHL teams. So one can look at Ortio, for example, in the context of play in both leagues.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Well I hope Marcoux was the reason for Lack's play. I'm still a little skeptical, and I don't recall hearing his version of his Carolina tenure which I'm sure is quite different.
I hope this is a great reclamation story but just like there is little real evidence that Sigalet is a bad goalie coach, there is also little evidence he is a good one beyond his continued employment.
So I'm in the wait and see camp, leaning slightly to the Lack is just not a great goalie side, regardless of the reasons.
The other thing missing from your post is that Sigalet is also the goalie coach for the various AHL teams. So one can look at Ortio, for example, in the context of play in both leagues.
Stockton had its own goalie coach now. Colin Zulianello or something like that. Quite highly regarded
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 07-13-2017 at 02:19 PM.
Lots of valid points. But I wonder - []B]at what point can any fan criticize a goalie coach then?[/B] We don't see him work in practices - we just just see the results. Seems to me that a goalie coach often gets credited for an improvement (like with Burke and Dubnyk or Allaire/Giguere).
I think it is fair to criticise a goalie coach where there is something identifiable to criticise. The criticism of Marcoux's time in Carolina is a good example of this.
__________________
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 think it is fair to criticise a goalie coach where there is something identifiable to criticise. The criticism of Marcoux's time in Carolina is a good example of this.
Sure, but in almost all cases, other than where a guy is known for a particular system, like Allaire, we never hear of what exactly the goalie coach is doing in a meaningful way. We get lots of fluff and standard-from answers.
So I guess the default is - if you think Treliving is good at his job, you trust his hires. For sure if he had major issues Sigalet would have been gone with Hartley, so there's that.
I think it is fair to criticise a goalie coach where there is something identifiable to criticise. The criticism of Marcoux's time in Carolina is a good example of this.
So what you're saying is that if you don't know what a guy does other than his title, then he is free from critique?