Amusing stuff here. We're now in a philosophical quandary over whether it's better to have the right result or have an established thought process which produces the wrong result. Supposedly those who came to an early opinion and then saw examples confirming that early opinion are more biased than those who stuck to a position supporting everything the coaching and management say and do, and stuck to stats that indicated that somehow the results had it wrong and things would even out.
I say hiring Gulutzan was wrong. Not many people supported it when it happened. He did not appear to be the best candidate, even among coaches in the Canucks organization. After one year of Travis Green as Canucks' HC I would agree.
There are numerous reasons to reach the conclusion that Gulutzan is not a good coach. These have been in evidence from the outset, and as time has passed, it has crystallized. Even so, as recently as three weeks ago, there were still some true believers that thought the Flames were about to turn it around.
It is an aspect of human nature that people are reluctant to admit they are wrong. Treliving maintains that Gulutzan is a good coach, as do a number of posters here. Or at least that the poor coaching is somehow disconnected with how the Flames have regressed. May as well tune in to Sarah Huckabee-Sanders.
|