Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore
I'm sorry, I don't mean this to be snarky, but what points have you made?
I initially provided some advanced stats to show that the team is performing well except in terms of shooting percentage. This would indicate that the system the coach has implemented is working and they just aren't getting the puck to go in. The low shooting percentage hardly seems like a coaching issue since they are continuing to get scoring chances as well as high danger scoring chances.
You responded by saying that you disregard advanced stats and then later suggested that no one has been able to provide you with a legitimate argument that Gulutzan is a good coach.
You then suggested that "Special teams, breakouts, response to adversity, etc" are appropriate metrics to judge a coach by. However, even if we want to accept that those are the ways to measure a coach's success, how do you do that?
Special teams can be somewhat cut and dry if you simply want to look at their success rate. However, breakouts and response to adversity are way more subjective.
I'm completely willing to listen to an argument for why Gulutzan is not a good head coach, but if the argument essentially comes down to "I just don't feel like he's that good" I don't see that as a valid argument. It's an opinion you're entitled to have but it's not a valid argument.
|
Sigh.
I did not say that. Not even close. In fact, in the post you quoted, I said: 'you make some valid supporting arguments'.
As for me making arguments as to why he isn't a good head coach, I have already done so multiple times in the various threads on the topic, and (unlike some posters), I don't like re-stating the same things over and over.
Also, the fact of the matter is that I have already stated that, for a rebuilding team, I think that he
is a good coach (because he is a good Xs and Os guy and a good teacher. He is a smart hockey guy, as I have also said multiple times).
I just don't think he is the right coach for the Flames right now. Again, it isn't black and white. It is possible to not think he is the right coach for the Flames without thinking that he is a terrible coach. But since you seem determined to have me make some arguments against him, I will state them again:
I don't like the way the Flames' D are being asked to always circle back with the puck. Sometimes glass and out is a good play. Also, having the D holding on to the puck in their own end longer gives the forecheckers a chance to get on them, and is causing them to spend too much time battling for pucks behind their own net, and too little time joining in the rush.
I don't like the breakout. For two reasons: 1) the winger is usually facing the corner, with his back to the defenseman as he receives the pass from our Dman. This makes it really easy for the opposing Dman to pinch and disrupt the play, which is significantly increasing the amount of zone time in our own end. 2) He is asking them to make little 5-10 foot passes in their own zone. The idea is to have puck support, but the problem is that these short passes end up in skates a lot, causing far too many turnovers. Other teams have been all over our breakout, and that has been causing far too many turnovers in our end.
I don't like the way the forwards are standing at centre ice, waiting for a pass from the D, and then just chipping it in. Two reasons: 1) we suck at dump and chasing, and 2) it doesn't utilize the Dmen in our offense, which should be a strength of our game. The Flames are most dangerous off the rush as a transition team. But Gulutzan has them playing more of a zone to zone style.
I don't like the player utilization, particularly on the PP. He has Gaudreau, Brodie, and Versteeg as the high man and two wings. None of the three are shooters. Having no shooting threats allows the PK to focus down low much more easily. IMO, Gaudreau should be on the off wing (where Versteeg currently is), with two shooters holding the other wing and high positions (Hamilton and Giordano would do just fine). Also, continuing to run Brouwer as the low man, when he has Tkachuk (especially) or Ferland to go to, is a crime.
I don't like the way he (over)utilizes Brodie, playing him 25 minutes a night and against the stiffest competition. Brodie should be a 3/4 guy, that is getting more favourable competition and better situational exposure, so that he is free to jump into the rush more. When he is getting defensive zone starts against the other teams' top lines, that is when he is exposed defensively, and he coughs up too many pucks.
While I like rolling 4 lines (over the course of a season, it really helps to avoid wearing guys out), there are times when you need to shorten the bench. When you're down a goal or two in the third period, you don't parade 4 lines. A novice coach knows this. And this goes back to him being a good rebuilding coach, but maybe not the right guy for the current team. When you're in win-now mode, you have to shorten the bench at times.
A coach defines the personality of a team. And the Flames aren't exactly the most physical or aggressive team in the league. Having Gulutzan standing there stoically, never arguing with the refs, never getting excited, never calling time-outs to regroup the troups, never stirring the pot, creates the wrong atmosphere for this team, IMO. Personally, I prefer more even-keeled coaches to the really crazy ones, but there are times when the coach has to fight for the team. And IMO, this team is more needing of that than some other teams might be. They need more passion and leadership from him on the bench.
I'll stop here. You asked for some arguments (even though I have made all of these before), so there you go. And none of them required any counting stats to back them up. I don't expect everyone to agree with them, nor anyone to agree with all of them, but those are my observations and opinions.
Having stated them, I will say again, that just because I don't think he is the right coach for this team does not mean that I think everything he does is stupid or terrible. Of course the Flames are going to win some games (hopefully enough), and no, you can't blame all the losses or the giveaways on a coach.
But IMO, this team is not playing a style that maximizes its talent. And they are not playing to the best of their abilities.
When a coach is still talking about implementing his systems (and the fact that the team isn't yet) more than 100 games into the coach's tenure, you have to ask if the system is too difficult or rigid to implement. Or possibly that it just doesn't suit the types of players he has.