Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
C4L, there's plenty I agree with and disagree with in your post. One thing though, I think GG is on a 3 year contract, so he has an additional year. however, I don't think one year makes a difference.
I think Hartley was good at managing his goalies in the PO year. But the next year, with the same goalies, we suddenly wasn't. Maybe they both got worse and that was unrecoverable. GG kind of did the same in-season - he rode each one while they were hot, but both goalies got really cold at the end of the year.
I'm interested to know how you know so much about Hartley's practices and his system.
|
Thanks for clarifying Gulutzan's contract. I thought it was only a 2 year, but definitely wasn't positive.
The goalies in Hartley's last year - there wasn't too much he could do there. Treliving was trying to move a goalie, and felt that any of the ones on the team would get claimed. When Ramo started doing well after his recall, I think Hartley rode him pretty hard, then the injury hit. After that, not much to pick from, so not much to manage. I won't disagree with your assertion that Hartley didn't manage his goalies well that year, however. I guess it is how you see it.
As for his practices and systems - I guess I got it from just following the team? I was particularly interested in Hartley's system because I felt the Flames suffered from a poor system from Brent. Brent's system may not have been a poor system, but it was a poor fit for the Flames. I felt that Hartley's system fit the Flames identity more, and that the 'unsustainability' of it probably had a lot to do with the lack of talent/experience on the Flames. There were a number of outlets that broke down the system now and then (good analysis by some of the media talking heads), other coaches discussing it, etc. Sportsnet did a couple of articles on it that I felt were very thorough as well, though it may have been more about the PK than anything.
As for his practice habits, it was hard NOT to notice. So many articles showered Hartley with praise for having his practices being run so hard, and for always teaching. That was what Hartley did on the ice a lot during practices - teaching teaching teaching. If you watched the away game's broadcasters, they were often extremely complimentary of even the game day skates, and how they saw it as more of an up-tempo practice session and a lot of on-ice instruction/teaching by Hartley. Did you not remember Shane O'Brien saying that out of all the clubs he played for, Calgary had the most difficult practices?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Excellent post Calgary4LIfe
So much this. I was okay with Hartley being replaced, but I also love the fact that he was here. He was absolutely the right coach for those years.
I think if the Flames don't make it past the first round Gulutzans job is in danger, but that would also have a lot to do with how it happens. Gulutzan shortcomings are bench management and in-game adjustments. Especially the latter can be a real issue in a playoff series, where the opposing team has so much time to really dig into our weak spots. Win or lose, he can't get clearly outcoached.
I would however claim that he seems to be aware of where he should improve, and trying to do something about it. I believe Gulutzans line-mixing frenzy especially to start the season was in large part about teaching players to play with different combinations so he has more to work with when trying to find the right matchups. I also think there have been a few games where this has worked pretty well.
I would also say he's had a lot of problems to solve with his players. Out of the 10 or so player who have played in the bottom 6 only Jankowski and Jagr can be fairly called brights spots. A good coach will find ways for his players to succeed and shelter them when they're having problems, but there's only so many problems you can hide at a time.
|
I also think Hartley was the perfect coach for the rebuild, even if it was just for the constant teaching element from his repertoire. I do think that he made the rebuild a lot more exciting.
That's a good point - it really depends on HOW it happens if the the Flames don't make it out of the first round. Injuries, sudden goalie issues, etc., where the Flames are otherwise playing well, but lose, may mean he remains the coach. Running into the Stanley Cup champs in the first round (or the finalist), while giving them a heck of a series, is probably also a satisfactory rationale as to retain Gulutzan. I definitely agree that being out-coached consistently in the playoffs will cost him his job.
As for too many players performing poorly at the same time, I am not sure what to think of that. I have often felt that if a team has a few players under-performing, then that is usually on the players (either for them doing poorly, or losing their spot to a better player, then having to get forced into a slot that they don't excel at). When you have a lot of players under-performing at the same time, I usually assume the coach.
With that being said, the top line has been amazing, the 3M line seems like they are rounding into form nicely, the Jankowski line seems like they are playing great hockey now but just not getting the bounces, and I don't really have a problem with the bottom line either. Brouwer - who I developed a huge dislike for last season - has been decent. He needs to provide some depth scoring, but I do think he has been mostly decent (interspersed with a few bad games). Versteeg started the season awful, but he is turning it around. I like that Gulutzan is at least playing around with the center on that line trying to find something that works.
I don't have much to complain about Gulutzan at the moment. I do wish the defence would tighten up a bit, but without constricting the offence too much. Some happy balance. The Flames have been winning, and therefore more difficult to criticize, but I feel that regardless of how many games they win, they won't get far in the playoffs until they tighten up their defence.
I don't even need to see them in the top 5 GA, or top 5 in shots against, or anything like that. Just reduce it. The Flames' defensive strength isn't on preventing goals as much as it is in their transition/offensive ability anyway. If it was a team full of defensive defencemen, I would be much more alarmed with the goals against.