I have no idea what is really going on behind closed doors with respect to Peters, or how well or how badly he treats players. I am fairly certain that nobody on this site knows as well.
With that said, I see absolutely no argument that either side can definitely make. For those that suggest that Peters should be retained and that he is a good coach - I can see the merit in that. Likewise, I see the argument for canning Peters as well, and I am totally sick of the counter-argument: "Yeah, sure, can another coach. That will solve the problem. - sarcasm".
There are a number of strong points to consider in that a new coach - the right coach - can be beneficial to this team. Hartley made gold out of lead for 1.5 seasons. Peters had a hell of a regular season. Gulutzan was always terrible. Aside from Hartley, none of these coaches are the type of 'proven coach' that a contending team usually has.
So no, it is not stupid or crazy to think that a new coach could actually change the direction of this team. I got criticized a bit for saying that Edmonton got a pretty good coach this off-season (though long-term you can probably expect some drama with management). They fired a whole whack of coaches, and arguably this is the least talented squad that they have had outside the top line. I still say that their couple of racehorses are going to be tired at some point in the grind of the season, but for now, Tippett has that team going.
Is Peters the right coach? I don't know. What I do know is that just because this team makes a few coaching changes doesn't mean that they 100% got it right with the Peters' hire. This is what did Darryl Sutter in as GM (IMO) when he stopped being the coach to concentrate on his GM job. He wasn't able to hire a single good coach. Anyone thing that Playfair, Keenan or Brent Sutter were any good? Maybe Keenan at some point in his coaching career, but definitely not the semi-retired coach the Flames got.
I loved Hartley because he got a lot out of the team, but he was too rough. Gulutzan didn't seem to know what to do. Peters? I am not convinced either way, but I am not convinced Babcock and his coaching philosophy that seems to be popular is really a 'thing'. Hartley showed that you can consistently win by having a strategy that involved more of a counter-attack philosophy. That DID work for 1.5 seasons, and then it worked again when Ramo returned and gave the team solid (unspectacular, but solid) goaltending right up until he got hurt.
However, I have always believed that coaching is a heck of a lot more than 'Xs' and 'Os'. You have to be the general, the motivator, the tactician that adjusts on the fly, the emotional evaluator, the psychologist. Probably a few more related disciplines. Does Peters do that? I thought that he was completely unable to settle the Flames down in the playoffs and have them neutralize Colorado. I didn't see any answers during that series. Was it really all on the players?
I don't know if there should or shouldn't be a move. However, it isn't like the Flames have just gone through Darryl Sutter, Barry Trotz and Scotty Bowman either. Just because they have gone through three coaches in the last number of years doesn't mean that it must be on the players. It just might mean that they aren't able to hire a good coach. No? What is crazy is people DEFINITIVELY stating as absolute fact that it HAS to be on the players since they went through enough coaches. No, that's completely wrong. It might STILL be the coach, it might be the coach and the players, or it may just be the players. To shut down any discussion on whether or not the coach should get canned and to claim that you know better than anyone else on this forum is what is stupid.
|