Red does make some good points here, and it is something I continue to watch with this team.
Why was the Jack Adams coach fired and replaced, according to Treliving?
The two main reasons that I recall was that:
- Hartley's system was not one made for possession hockey. That seems to be much better now (though, the talent level of this team has significantly increased too).
- Treliving wanted more focus on defence. That hasn't seemed to be much improved. After 20 games, this team is sitting at a plus/minus of -1.
My argument here is not that Hartley should have or shouldn't have been fired. Gulutzan was brought in to get this team playing possession hockey and playing sound defensively. I would say that he has most assuredly accomplished the first task, but the 2nd task doesn't seem to be better under him, even though Gulutzan has a much better and consistent goalie, and the team's defence is much better. Also, the team up front is more talented, and they are also a bigger team that doesn't get man-handled along the boards like they used to.
The only question for me is "Can Gulutzan get this team to play sound defensive, playoff-type of hockey consistently without completely neutering the offence?".
I think you see moments where they can. However, you also saw moments of it with the Flames. They played a lot of tight games. Tonnes of 1 goal games, setting a record, IIRC, and it wasn't like they were all 5-4 games either. I don't see an improvement in that regard from one coach to another. I still see too many high-danger chances per game.
Now, am I saying that Gulutzan needs to be removed as coach of the Flames and should be replaced? No, I do think some of his work thus far has been good, and the Flames are playing fairly well otherwise. I also don't think this team is 'peaking' yet (it seems few teams - especially cup champs - peak later in the year and really start trying to play 'playoff-hockey' as they ramp up for the post-season).
I think Gulutzan has done enough now that not only does he not deserve to get fired, but he has earned the right to coach this team for the rest of the season (barring some hideous turn-around).
Also, someone posted above that the Flames were lucky under Hartley that they matched up against Vancouver in the playoffs. While that may be true, the results of that match-up might have been different if Hartley wasn't so good at managing his goalies. I felt he had both Hiller and Ramo playing at their best and knew when to make that swap either in-game or before the game. Gulutzan didn't seem to have his finger on that pulse as much last season, and this season that has yet to be really tested as the schedule thus far has allowed for Smith to play this much (and Lack needed 'fixing' as well, which has probably tied Gulutzan's hands anyways).
Thus far, I haven't seen a great coach here, and I haven't seen a terrible coach either. The truth is somewhere in the middle. I do think that there are other coaches out there that can probably get this team to play better, but there are also coaches out there that would get less out of this team as well. Sutter, Babcock, Quenneville - probably can all squeeze out more from this team. Bylsma, Cooper, MacLellan - would probably get this team looking fantastic for a few games, and then fall flat on their faces. That's why I am personally neither married to Gulutzan, nor do I think he should (or even deserves) to get replaced.
I do find the revisionist history about Hartley really disappointing, however. He squeezed blood out of a stone here, made what should have been a painful rebuild fricken fun and exciting, and experienced more success than anyone in their right minds could have predicted. It wasn't pond hockey. It wasn't 5-4 games every day. It wasn't with an irresponsible outlook on defence. It wasn't a 'barely a system' (his system was fairly complex and he demanded players be accountable, and spent hours and hours on ice teaching players individually). Maybe it was time to make a chance, maybe Treliving just wanted his own guy (which is fair, since his own job is directly tied to the team's success as well). Either way, Hartley gave this team a much more successful and enjoyable time during a rebuild, and shouldn't just be tossed under the bus at every opportunity. He still remains only the 2nd coach (the other being Darryl Sutter) to win a damn playoff round in 20+ years, and he did so with a team that most had pegged to draft top 5 that year. That's a damn good coach in my opinion, and 'sustainable' or not, the Flames did incredibly well for 1.5 seasons. I think if you go by their talent level, there would not have been any system that would have made their success 'sustainable'.
Anyways, my two cents into this discussion. Gulutzan's contract runs out this year, right? Flames seem to re-sign (or fire) coaches mostly in the off-season, so it will be interesting what happens there. I do think that if Gulutzan patches up those high-danger chances a bit more, and and lowers the goals against somewhat, he will be re-signed. It will be interesting if other teams move on from their coaches in the off-season as well, with maybe Darryl Sutter still being available, perhaps a Trotz and Quenneville available. If Treliving isn't happy with the success of the season, we know he will replace the coach, especially when there is availability of highly respected and experienced coaches that seem to share in his philosophy of puck-possession and defence.
I just don't see a coach that deserves to get fired at this point, and I argue that things have to go particularly bad for Gulutzan to not finish this season off. I do think things have to go very well for him to get renewed (if indeed his contract is up at the end of the year - not sure if it was a 2 year deal, or 3 year deal, but I am guessing a 2 year deal).