Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Calgary4LIfe · 02-23-2021, 01:00 PM

I personally don't feel like Treliving needs to go, or even should go. Is this team a more talented squad than when he first came on board? Absolutely. You have to really hate Treliving personally not to admit that.

Is this team closer to a Stanley Cup now? I don't know. Part of me sees the team on paper and wants to say "Absolutely", and then the other part of me watches how this team plays and sees the results, and they may be even further away.

The initial rebuild had a lot of promise. I do not doubt that Gaudreau and Monahan are top line players. I really believe that their issues are two-fold:
1) Poor coaching and systems - Under Hartley, they performed fairly in the playoffs even though it was their first playoffs. Watching them every other playoffs, at 5on5, they are targeted heavily, and the systems employed don't seem to be conducive to them winning. They are not cycle players, but that's how they are utilized.
2) Poor support - no other line is really a danger. Backlund's line is always forced to be used as a shut-down line (which I agree with). No other line are much of a scoring threat that other teams need to balance out (ala Crosby line vs Malkin line).

People say this over and over again: "You can't score on the rush in the playoffs", yet every year you see a LOT of goals being scored on the rush, so don't use that as an excuse.

I was getting angry at Peters for how terribly he got out-coached. Dump in? Colorado was set with one guy back. Johnny carrying the puck? Walked into a trap of 3-4 players swinging their sticks in the middle of the ice. Zone entries were brutal. Conversely, they just allowed Colorado an easy time in zone entries. It seemed they were playing man-to-man defence - Brodie and Backlund were tasked at shutting down MacKinnon (and Brodie was exceptional BTW - when Peters couldn't get Brodie out against MacKinnon at 5on5, MacKinnon destroyed the Hanifin-Hamonic pairing).

Yes, MacKinnon is on another level than Gaudreau as a player, and even as a physical specimen. I am not arguing that Gaudreau should have equalled MacKinnon in that series, or that they are somehow 'equitable' players in any way other than Gaudreau being an exceptional talent at carrying the puck, making plays, and even scoring.

I complained about our defence under Hartley and often likened them to race horses, but Gulutzan kept trying to use them as plough horses. Well, this analogy also makes sense when using it on Gaudreau.

The funny thing is, this team still bleeds chances. Last night's game was terrible on the PP in allowing odd-man rushes (Rittich was awesome there).

Why am I bringing up coaching? Because that's Treliving's responsibility as well.

This is the team he built. Yes, Gaudreau is an exceptional talent - not 'generational' and so on, but an exceptional talent and easily one of the most talented players ever to play for this team (right up there with Sergei Makarov and Kent Nilsson in my opinion - but not over-the-hill like Makarov was, and not lazy like Nisson was).

It is up to Treliving to set the direction of the team, acquire assets that fit that direction, trade away assets that don't fit that direction, and hire a coach that fits with the team that he has assembled.

Now, he didn't draft Gaudreau, but he signed him and didn't trade him. Gaudreau is NOT a fit with how this team is trying to play as. Heck, look at a lot of the prospects through the system - they are mostly smaller and talented - not guys that you think of when playing "North-South" hockey along the boards. Phillips, Zavgorodniy, Pelletier, Petterssen, Francis, Kerins and don't forget Dube and Mangiapane. I am not advocating that Treliving shouldn't be drafting smaller talented guys, but at the same time, if 'off the boards' hockey is what you consider effective, then he is drafting and retaining the wrong composition of prospects and players organizationally to supplement his vision, no?

His drafting record to me seems to favour players who would do well in an uptempo system. A majority of the players on the team are like this as well. The defence is built this way for the most part. Why play a system that doesn't seem to fit the roster and seemingly the organizational philosophy? Yes, there are players like Bennett, Tkachuk, Lucic (who I won't exactly count as it seems more like Treliving being forced to get rid of Neal), etc., as well as prospects like Pospisil, Ruzicka, Fischer, etc. I do think you need that mix, but strengths of this team isn't along the boards - definitely not from the line you most need to score. Brodie gone and Tanev in fits more with the philosophy that Treliving seems to be after. But overall, this is a team built to play uptempo hockey that should have a bunch of set plays on their breakouts, and that tries to push the pace and catch teams out of position. Not a heavy cycling team that makes its living in the corners.

Treliving is failing in my opinion if he keeps players around that don't fit the structure of what he is building, and then capping it off with a coach that fits with that direction, rather than the personnel. It just seems like a bit of a mismatch to me. Maybe there is more that I am not seeing and that Treliving's vision is correct. I sure hope so.

So is this team a more talented team than when Treliving took over? Absolutely.

Is this team closer to being a Stanley Cup Champion? Absolutely not.

Treliving should rightly be feeling a bit on the hot seat at the moment, but I don't think he is a poor GM. He has made mistakes, but I don't think he deserves to be fired. I do think that his job should be more scrutinized at the moment, and his job security shouldn't be unquestionable, but he is not a terrible GM.

I just think the pieces don't fit, and if he continues to be the GM of a team that is inconsistent and hasn't experienced any noteworthy post-season success, then I do think eventually you do make the change. It is a results-based business. It has been 7 years. Do you give him 8? 10? 15? At what point do you say that it is time to try someone different? I don't know what the answer is exactly, but just because a GM makes more good moves than bad ones (at least in my opinion), it doesn't mean he is the right person for the job any longer. I am not on the bandwagon to fire him at all. I don't think that there really should be a bandwagon yet. However, the needle sure seems to be going the wrong way for him at the moment.

02-23-2021, 01:00 PM	#302
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	I personally don't feel like Treliving needs to go, or even should go. Is this team a more talented squad than when he first came on board? Absolutely. You have to really hate Treliving personally not to admit that. Is this team closer to a Stanley Cup now? I don't know. Part of me sees the team on paper and wants to say "Absolutely", and then the other part of me watches how this team plays and sees the results, and they may be even further away. The initial rebuild had a lot of promise. I do not doubt that Gaudreau and Monahan are top line players. I really believe that their issues are two-fold: 1) Poor coaching and systems - Under Hartley, they performed fairly in the playoffs even though it was their first playoffs. Watching them every other playoffs, at 5on5, they are targeted heavily, and the systems employed don't seem to be conducive to them winning. They are not cycle players, but that's how they are utilized. 2) Poor support - no other line is really a danger. Backlund's line is always forced to be used as a shut-down line (which I agree with). No other line are much of a scoring threat that other teams need to balance out (ala Crosby line vs Malkin line). People say this over and over again: "You can't score on the rush in the playoffs", yet every year you see a LOT of goals being scored on the rush, so don't use that as an excuse. I was getting angry at Peters for how terribly he got out-coached. Dump in? Colorado was set with one guy back. Johnny carrying the puck? Walked into a trap of 3-4 players swinging their sticks in the middle of the ice. Zone entries were brutal. Conversely, they just allowed Colorado an easy time in zone entries. It seemed they were playing man-to-man defence - Brodie and Backlund were tasked at shutting down MacKinnon (and Brodie was exceptional BTW - when Peters couldn't get Brodie out against MacKinnon at 5on5, MacKinnon destroyed the Hanifin-Hamonic pairing). Yes, MacKinnon is on another level than Gaudreau as a player, and even as a physical specimen. I am not arguing that Gaudreau should have equalled MacKinnon in that series, or that they are somehow 'equitable' players in any way other than Gaudreau being an exceptional talent at carrying the puck, making plays, and even scoring. I complained about our defence under Hartley and often likened them to race horses, but Gulutzan kept trying to use them as plough horses. Well, this analogy also makes sense when using it on Gaudreau. The funny thing is, this team still bleeds chances. Last night's game was terrible on the PP in allowing odd-man rushes (Rittich was awesome there). Why am I bringing up coaching? Because that's Treliving's responsibility as well. This is the team he built. Yes, Gaudreau is an exceptional talent - not 'generational' and so on, but an exceptional talent and easily one of the most talented players ever to play for this team (right up there with Sergei Makarov and Kent Nilsson in my opinion - but not over-the-hill like Makarov was, and not lazy like Nisson was). It is up to Treliving to set the direction of the team, acquire assets that fit that direction, trade away assets that don't fit that direction, and hire a coach that fits with the team that he has assembled. Now, he didn't draft Gaudreau, but he signed him and didn't trade him. Gaudreau is NOT a fit with how this team is trying to play as. Heck, look at a lot of the prospects through the system - they are mostly smaller and talented - not guys that you think of when playing "North-South" hockey along the boards. Phillips, Zavgorodniy, Pelletier, Petterssen, Francis, Kerins and don't forget Dube and Mangiapane. I am not advocating that Treliving shouldn't be drafting smaller talented guys, but at the same time, if 'off the boards' hockey is what you consider effective, then he is drafting and retaining the wrong composition of prospects and players organizationally to supplement his vision, no? His drafting record to me seems to favour players who would do well in an uptempo system. A majority of the players on the team are like this as well. The defence is built this way for the most part. Why play a system that doesn't seem to fit the roster and seemingly the organizational philosophy? Yes, there are players like Bennett, Tkachuk, Lucic (who I won't exactly count as it seems more like Treliving being forced to get rid of Neal), etc., as well as prospects like Pospisil, Ruzicka, Fischer, etc. I do think you need that mix, but strengths of this team isn't along the boards - definitely not from the line you most need to score. Brodie gone and Tanev in fits more with the philosophy that Treliving seems to be after. But overall, this is a team built to play uptempo hockey that should have a bunch of set plays on their breakouts, and that tries to push the pace and catch teams out of position. Not a heavy cycling team that makes its living in the corners. Treliving is failing in my opinion if he keeps players around that don't fit the structure of what he is building, and then capping it off with a coach that fits with that direction, rather than the personnel. It just seems like a bit of a mismatch to me. Maybe there is more that I am not seeing and that Treliving's vision is correct. I sure hope so. So is this team a more talented team than when Treliving took over? Absolutely. Is this team closer to being a Stanley Cup Champion? Absolutely not. Treliving should rightly be feeling a bit on the hot seat at the moment, but I don't think he is a poor GM. He has made mistakes, but I don't think he deserves to be fired. I do think that his job should be more scrutinized at the moment, and his job security shouldn't be unquestionable, but he is not a terrible GM. I just think the pieces don't fit, and if he continues to be the GM of a team that is inconsistent and hasn't experienced any noteworthy post-season success, then I do think eventually you do make the change. It is a results-based business. It has been 7 years. Do you give him 8? 10? 15? At what point do you say that it is time to try someone different? I don't know what the answer is exactly, but just because a GM makes more good moves than bad ones (at least in my opinion), it doesn't mean he is the right person for the job any longer. I am not on the bandwagon to fire him at all. I don't think that there really should be a bandwagon yet. However, the needle sure seems to be going the wrong way for him at the moment.