Quote:
Originally Posted by kyuss275
Hartley had one year where the flames made comebacks because teams took them lightly at the start and then a bunch of lucky bounces. The following year teams figured out his stretch pass/river hockey and he could not adapt . While GG has just as many flaws, at least he taught this group the fundamentals of hockey. At least the coach that replaces GG won't have to start from scratch like, GG did.
The crowd that thinks Feaster stock piled the organization with prospects better start to look at how those prospects are turning out. He hit a grand slam with Johnny Hockey , but whiffed on all returns for Iggy, Jbo, Reggie, and Tanguay. We have nothing , absolutely nothing to show for them. As for your Oreilly trade it's not Bennett that would have been missed it was Mony. Don't forget about Brad Richards. Jesus flames would still be paying that contract, or close to it.
Burke was hired because Ken King had turned the flames into a joke. That is not a lie. The rest of the league was starting to think the flames was a joke organization. For that alone he is better than King will ever be.
|
I agree 100% on your take on Feaster. Feaster's biggest strength it seemed was his relative incompetence. He allowed the 'experts' on his club to their jobs - mainly let Todd Button decide who to draft or not.
I thought he was terrible in the media. I thought his trades were abysmal. I thought his plans - especially in hindsight - were lunacy.
As for Hartley, I actually quite disagree. It wasn't 'river hockey'.
Hartley would chew out his players right on the bench for not covering defensively. The Flames were really good at defensive awareness I thought. The forwards on the team really did a great job that year at rotating with the defencemen and not allowing that many odd-man opportunities. When they did blow it, Hartley didn't waste any time blowing up at them right on the bench. I remember him chewing out Backlund specifically one game.
Monahan under Hartley was turning into a really good 2-way center. Remember when Backlund and Stajan were both out? It was Monahan - the 2nd year, 3rd line center - that ended up playing on the 1st line. He was GOOD defensively that year. How good? Hartley came out and said: "You need to focus on offence too, not just defence. You need to do both well."
The Flames under Hartley had a very strict system defensively, with a very open offensive system. Hartley made everyone play 2-way hockey. What sucked was the goalie situation, and everyone came unglued that last year. Look at any team that plays in front of weak goaltending, and you will see a rattled team.
You say it was river hockey - and MANY posters say this still. However, how does one explain the following:
2015-16 - Shots Against per game: 29.0 (11th in the NHL)
2017-18 - Shots against per game: 31.9 (17th in the NHL)
Hartley's really bad year where he received crap goaltending, with less capable forwards, less capable defencemen and an arguably tougher Pacific Division to deal with, allowed fewer shots on net.
Mind blowing, right?
In fact, in 2014-15, the Flames allowed 29.2 (12th)
and in 2013-14, they allowed 28.6 (8th!).
Gulutzan's first year: 2016-17: 28.7 (8th)
The Flames allowed less shots against in Gulutzan's first year, which was close to Hartley's second season (and first rebuild year) in Calgary. All of Hartley's years were still better than Gulutzan this year.
It doesn't compute to the notion that the Flames were playing "River Hockey". In fact, Hartley's defensive system was more stifling than Gulutzan's system (both in actual shots on goal allowed AND relative ranking among other teams).
The defensive structures are very similar. Both are relatively passive defensive systems (which really bug me at times). Hartley relied on shot blocking with a quick transition out (either with a stretch pass, or skating up the ice - Brodie was PHENOMENAL under Hartley). Gulutzan wants that puck moved around in the zone and set-up a as a 5 man unit on the counter.
The transition and the offensive systems differ greatly. Gulutzan is, IMO, still a big upgrade on Brent Sutter. This is why I can't say that Gulutzan is a horrible coach. However, he is NOT a better DEFENSIVE coach than Hartley. That is simply mind-blowing. It becomes especially apparent when you look at the actual differences in talent level between the two rosters.
The point of this whole exercise is to figure out if Gulutzan has, so far in his tenure, taken the Flames 'further'. I get that Treliving fired Hartley. What is NOT happening right now is Gulutzan taking this team further. Sure, their underlying analytics are better, but one would expect a much more talented team (especially defensively) would have much better numbers, especially when they aren't rattled by shaking goaltending.
This team has not taken a step defensively under Gulutzan (sans a good goalie). They have taken a huge step back in goals scored (which is laughable considering how Gaudreau and Monahan are doing in that respect).
I was not so against Gulutzan before, but taking a closer look at the differences, and I really don't see any reason why the Flames should tie themselves to him. Sure, Hartley had to go for one reason or another. That is very apparent to some, less apparent to others. What I think is just as apparent is that Gulutzan is simply NOT an upgrade anywhere but on the advanced metrics. That's two seasons of: "the underlying stats are good, so this thing should be turning around".
Scratch Hartley's first year with the team with a half season to play due to the lockout and lack of a training camp. The following season - first year of a rebuild - this team had terrible numbers that predicted this team would stumble. They played hard and were lauded league-wide, and didn't stumble - not for that second half of the season. They next season they improved and made the playoffs (playing just as well as that back-half of the first rebuild year). The underlying metrics kept saying: "They are just lucky".
Sure, that last year the team stumbled. However, it had injuries and it had the worst goaltending period.
It wasn't other teams taking the Flames lightly. That's not why they made the playoffs. It was a complete effort every night with forwards hustling back on defence. It was the entire team hustling out there.
Now under Gulutzan, the advanced metrics point that this team is just 'unlucky'. Hogwash. They were damn lucky that the game last night wasn't a 8-1 blowout. We can wait another season of "just unlucky and are poised to break out".
Well, Hartley's team did breakout and did much better than expected, even though the advanced metrics predicted that they wouldn't. Gulutzan's teams have advanced metrics that say they should be doing better than they are, but just don't.
All I care is about what I see and what the standings are. I cheer for a boring team that is not meeting expectations. I used to cheer for a team that was damn exciting to watch and that exceeded expectations.
Sorry, but the analytic crowd is wrong. It is painfully wrong while watching this team flounder. This is not a team that is on the verge of breaking out. My eyes tell me that this is a team on the verge of imploding. I want a coach on this team that can actually implement a system that works and gets results, not just one that seems to cater to advanced analytics.
Hartley was a very popular coach with the fanbase and media for exceeding expectations and winning the Jack Adams - and when you look at the shots against, . That's fine - I am not arguing that at all. My argument is that Gulutzan has not been an upgrade anywhere but on advanced analytics. He should be done too. Flames are currently 18th in goals against. In 2015-16, the Flames were last (hardly surprising since goaltending imploded, but were good at SA on net), and in 2014-15, they were 16th. That was with mediocre goaltending with Hiller and Ramo's good years.
For Gulutzan to survive into next season, I argue that he needs to not only make the playoffs, but have a better than expected playoffs winning a round or two.
Judging by how Hartley's shelf life probably wore off, I won't argue with his dismissal. It just really seems like the wrong replacement, and that needs to be looked at this off-season. What Hartley didn't get this team to play was river hockey.