[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

this is just unfair though. First of all, in your opinion the decisions are benign but are they? You say in proportion to the results but the whole basis of the argument is that the results could be even better. A lot of the complaints lobbied are regarding his player selection in key times in the game. There's validity to the opinion that the Flames are where they are, this 7-2-1 in their last 10, or seemingly performing well because of the players and in spite of the coach...

Is there? I am not convinced. It’s an opinion, sure, but do any of us have good enough of a grasp on the intricacies of NHL head coaching and the condition of the room to make a valid argument for how and why another coach would be better? The numbers over that stretch are all quite good. Defensive coverage needs improvement, but I don’t see any clear and obvious changes that need to occur for that to happen. I would say that the results in combination with the underlying numbers show rather powerfully that Gulutzan is doing his job well.

There's validity in saying, that with the excellent roster Treliving has put together, with a better coach they could be better...

Sorry, but this is still conjecture.

There's validity to the argument that Gulutzan makes head scratching decisions on a frequent basis.

I agree, but then it is very difficult to draw from this a conclusion that another coach making different player-selection decisions will get better results. In the midst of a 7-2-1 run that sees the Flames playing well in nearly all areas, I maintain that it is difficult to find much fault with the performance of the coach. Again, the vast majority of complaints about Gulutzan stem from non-quantifiable impressions with very little basis in the actual data and results.

I think that Gulutzan is most likely an excellent tactician, but a horrible motivator. He doesn't emote at all. He does think the game well. He should be an assistant coach...

This is yet another prime example of precisely what I am getting at. You don’t know Gulutzan, nor do you know any of the players. You have an idea about what makes a successful NHL coach, but without ever having played hockey for a NHL coach—to say nothing of playing for MANY NHL coaches, your opinion strikes me as not especially relevant. More to the point, the fact that Gulutzan reportedly commands an enormous amount of respect from his peers and his charges, I would say that you are almost certainly wrong about this.

And lots of fans or players react differently to different styles of leadership. So to just say that all of these fans are wrong and blowing things out of proportion isn't quite right, because he is basically a mannequin back there...

I’m sorry, but yes, it is. You are again projecting from your own flawed intuition about what makes a “good” or “bad” or “average” coach. There is not just one way to do the job, and Gulutzan’s results thus far suggest he is pretty good at doing it.

Does that make sense all the time? I'm sorry but no, that's such bs. Sometimes human beings need emotion to rally around, and Gulutzan is terrible at that...

I don’t believe that you know this one way or the other.

Plus combined with bizarre player selection in key times during the game, people have some legitimate questions. Does that mean that Gulutzan's strategies or playbook are flawed though? No, this is probably where he excels.



But I don't think it's fair to just constantly come to his defense about everything, because he does make a lot of absurd calls.

There is a huge difference between puzzling over unusual decisions made by the coach, and then drawing from these the conclusion that he is marginal at his job in the face of excellent results. I am not defending Gulutzan so much as I am defending the notion that he—like ANY OTHER NHL COACH—will make questionable choices occasionally, will lose games from time to time, and is not flawless in the execution of his job. The standard a few posters seem to have if him is that he should be perfect, and that is ridiculous.