[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

My view remains the same - Gulutzan is neither a terrible coach, nor is he a coach that inspires too much confidence.

I put my post withing NSFW tags not for language, but just because it is a long post (even by my standards) and don't want to clutter up the thread.. and I am pretty damn tired as I haven't accumulated 10 hours of sleep so far this week, so it doesn't flow well.... but here are my scatterbrained thoughts at the moment.

NSFW!

I agree with Jiri Hrdina and Bingo, as well as many others that notice some posters expressing their disdain for Gulutzan because he "doesn't talk to players", "has his head down looking at the screen", "isn't passionate enough", and blah blah blah. Those are silly arguments based on nothing of substance. You don't know how much he yells at the players (hint: He does yell, and he has yelled before and after the stick throwing incident!). That's two bench minors in a row, so that is the evidence that Gulutzan does in fact argue calls and 'fights for the team'. Reasons like these just make me skip posts, even if I may agree with the notion that Gulutzan isn't the right fit and would prefer that the Flames move on from him.

As for the whole advanced metrics supporting Gulutzan and showing that Hartley was a poor coach, I think that is also relatively hogwash. Why?

Think of it this way - Hartley had a crap team that played over their heads. Crappy rosters SHOULD have poor metrics, no? Especially a rebuilding team with young hot-shots learning the finer points of the game, and old aging cast-off vets trying to hang on to their careers. I expect those metrics to be bad, just as I expect those teams to lose games. The fact that he got this team working hard in a system that actually fit the strengths and weaknesses of the team, and got them to a higher level than what EVERYONE thought capable of this team speaks volumes in itself. Sure, maybe it was time to let him go. Maybe his professional manner could be questioned. Maybe the players were tired of him and Treliving had no choice in the matter. I just giggle when people say it was 'unsustainable', when it lasted for 1.5 seasons until the goalies decided to crap the bed, and was never given a goalie to try and salvage the season or his reputation. That's fine if you see things differently.

Now Gulutzan comes in to a better team, especially this year. Without question this team is a much stronger team on paper than Hartley's Flames ever were. That's unquestionable. What else is unquestionable? The Pacific division is actually weaker, no? Go back and see how many crap teams were in the Pacific 3 seasons ago. Now look at it. Even worse considering Anaheim was playing their AHL team for a half season.

Treliving came out and called this team a 100point team. So did Gulutzan. They find themselves in the 5th worst spot in the conference. The only teams that they are ahead of are teams that are either in full-blown rebuilds (4 teams) or a team that has taken a big step back and will probably be entering a rebuild this year (Chicago). The next team up is Colorado, tied in points with 2 games in hand over Calgary.

This is March 1. This is the time that teams ramp up their games and jockey for position for the playoffs. This is the first time since November (?) that I have noticed Calgary sitting below EVERYONE that was in the playoff race. Anaheim, SJ, LA, St. Louis, Colorado, Dallas, Minnesota... The Flames are dead last among the teams that matter.

Now, does that mean that Gulutzan should be turfed? His advanced metrics are much better! Well, I didn't pay attention to the advanced metrics with Hartley's team, and I am not going to change my opinion just because Gulutzan's team is doing well in them. Hartley won games with a crap team in a tough division. Gulutzan is winning games with much better players in a crap division. That's what I care about. Don't misunderstand me - I am not pining for Hartley's return (I don't even want Ruff, who plays a very similar system). This comparison is simply meant to explain my opinion of 'results' when people are trying to prove if a coach is effective or not by showing advanced metrics.

You know what makes a good coach? A good coach will get a team to play better than who they really are by designing a system that fits a team, getting players to play harder, and making good adjustments along the way both in-game and as situations come up.

Darryl was a really good coach that way. Hartley continues to be an underrated coach that way. Brent Sutter was a terrible coach. Keenan was semi-retired and didn't want to rattle the star players, so he coached them per dollar value on contracts.

Is Gulutzan a good coach or a bad coach. I guess your opinion should really come down to one thing:

Whether the Calgary Flames are talented enough or not in relation to other teams in the division and the rest of the entire league.

I am also of the opinion that in Hockey, crap rolls uphill, not downhill as is customary in the rest of the working world. Star players are more highlighted when a team does poorly. A coach is more criticized when a team does poorly. The GM becomes more criticized.

A player is responsible for his own play. A coach is responsible for the team play. The GM is responsible for assembling said team, and finding the right coach to be responsible for team play.

In my opinion, here are the adjustments that can be made to a team to try and improve a team, ranked in order from easiest to most difficult.

1) Depth players
2) Bottom 9 wingers (anything but top line players)
3) Coach
4) Star Player (top line players)
5) GM
6) Elite franchise players

This team added 2 top 4 D in consecutive years (Stone and Hamonic - though Stone is a lower tier and was brought in a the deadline). It has added depth players. It has seen the growth of Ferland. Jankowski coming in. A bunch of depth moves. A top 6 winger that bombed (Brouwer). A top 6 winger in Tkachuk that has been great. 6 new goalies have played for the Flames in the last 2 years, some of which were better than Ramo, most of which have been better than anything excluding Ramo since Kipper was around.

You tell me what the next step is in fixing the team given what has occurred in the last two years, the team's stated expectations for this season (and spending assets believing they will get there), and their place so far in the standings.

Tinker all you want with this team, but this is the best defence this team has had since the 80's. This team has an elite top line. This team has an elite shut-down line. This team has some good depth pieces that should continue to improve. This team has good goalies.

There is unquestionably a few holes on this team. I am not going to argue that there isn't. #3 RW'er and a slightly upgraded bottom line (that has been playing well, I have to point out again).

Is this team playing to its' strengths? Is it performing better or worse than the sum of its' parts. Are there teams in the division that are performing better relative to their composition?

I say look at the Ducks. Look at the massive amount of injuries that they have gone through to the most important pieces of their roster. Imagine the Flames without Monahan, Backlund and Giordano for a long stretch, and continue removing top 6 forwards and top 4 defencmen. They were a well-coached team that managed to stay alive and have now passed the Flames.

You can make an argument for every team ahead of the Flame as to why they are a better coached squad (well, almost everyone). I will buy that.

I used to buy the notion that this team just is 'unlucky', that their shooting percentage was a reason for their issues, or that because the Flames don't have a good 3rd line RW'er, or don't have a more offensive 4th line...

Now I just see wins/losses. I see good starts and bad starts. I see an easily rattled team that is losing leads and failing to close out games. I see a team that rarely has it in them to make a comeback, rarely scores that tying goal late in the third period, and often gets an empty net goal against. I see a team that somehow allows another 2 or 3 goals in the span of a short time after allowing the first goal against at some point in a game under duress of any sort.

Is that coaching? Is that players? I don't think it is the goalie, since in the last few games both Gillies and Rittich have made huge saves, and Smith has been fantastic (beyond my expectations, which were pretty good to start with).

Nobody here has any clue on the matter, to be quite frank, and that includes myself. You can point at all the advanced metrics, you can point at all the poor starts and inconsistent play that this team has experienced over the last 2 seasons (but please stop pointing at 'he doesn't talk to players' nonsense).

When answering the question: "Will Gulutzan get canned?", the only thing you should be pointing at is the standings and figuring out if this team has more or less talent than the teams ahead of them or behind them. That will dictate your opinion of whether or not he deserves to be retained or let-go.

I don't think that Treliving will let Gulutzan go now (unless he is intent on hiring an already available coach, and wants to give that coach additional time for next season to grasp this team and help with player movement - like what kind of players he wants for his system he wants the team to play, but lacks, etc).

I think Gulutzan is safe. I think coaching - given the roster turnover over the last 2 seasons and the expectations placed on this team - will be reviewed this off-season. In that review, I don't think that Treliving is going to concern himself too much with advanced metrics, nor will he concern himself too much with Gulutzan not showing enough passion. He is going to sit down, look at the roster, look at the expectations for it, and look at the final standings (including hopefully a playoff performance). Then he figures out if this team is under-performing, over-performing, or meeting expectations, just like every other job.

At this point, the coach of the Calgary Flames is Gulutzan's to lose. Continue to play inconsistent and pile up points inconsistently, and he will be removed as there has been roster turnover all season, including moves to shore-up weaknesses (defence and goaltending). If I am Treliving, I am thinking: "Do I need to field an elite team with no holes just to make the playoffs with this coach?"

It doesn't help Gulutzan's cause that this team has been really healthy the last two seasons (with Smith going down being the most important player out for a length of time).

Gulutzan still has time to be retained, but he will have to convince Treliving not by how good the Flames show up in the advanced metrics department, but how much of an improvement he can make in the standings this season. That's it. Right now, if I am Sportsclubstats, I have odds that he is gone. Every game affects those odds.

It should't be like that though. A good team will have long periods of good play, win some games they don't deserve, and rarely lose more than 2 in a row. This is an incredibly inconsistent squad. You can see their inconsistent play on the ice. If I am Treliving, I of course see it and keep thinking: "How can I help to fix this?"

I think he has tried depth moves and important moves. I think the next step is the coach. If Gulutzan is unable to get this team to perform the way it is expected to, given that there has been roster movement over the course of the last 2 seasons, then Treliving will have to make a change in that department. It is just the expected flow of crap in the end, right or wrong.

I would like to thank you and the others who have put a lot of thought into your posts, whatever the position may be. Much better discussions than there have been of late.

I'm all for the debate. I have little use for the hyperbole, reliance on old (and often incorrect) narratives and plain old unsupported takes. Yeah, mine too.