[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Prove he is a part of the solution then. He's not. And don't condesend so much as to imply that we don't have a mind of our own to come to conclusions.

How convinced are you about your conclusions on this matter? And why should I be expected to prove something that I don't even necessarily believe?

You were an obtuse Gully defender last season. Went well. You're being just as obtuse now. More so blatantly ignorant actually.

Ah, yes. I had actually meant to comment earlier on the Gulutzan situation and its outcome.

I still don't believe that most people understood fully the problems with Gulutzan's coaching—I sure didn't. I never believed the biggest issue was his systems, and I was also dubious about anecdotal evidence which suggested that he was ineffective to motivate or will his charges to perform. I probably badly underestimated the importance of having a strong personality on the bench, and that certainly seems to have been a positive change with the Peters hire. I still think the biggest problems last year stemmed from a disconnect between what Gulutzan wanted and how players delivered it. I also think that while he set the appropriate level of importance on controlled movement of the puck in five-man units, it was far too slow overall.

So, all that to say, you are right—I was wrong about Gulutzan, but I don't think I was wrong to hold people to higher standards in their evaluations and assertions of his performance.

Ask yourself these questions. Has any goalie succeed here to the point they kept their jobs? Has any goalie truly succeeded anywhere else after being in CGY. Has the team enjoyed any sort of consistent goaltending since Sigalet joined the team as a coach. Has ANY TEAM RAN THROUGH TEN GOALIES?

I am pretty sure my answers to these questions would look very much like your own. The difference being that in spite of the results I still don't feel like I know much of anything useful about what Sigalet is doing, and I sure don't feel strong enough about him to draw a conclusion one way or the other.

Again. It's staring at you right in face despite your stubborn deference on the subject.

I have addressed this. What is "staring me right in the face" is a lot of correlation and anecdote. It's still not enough for me to form a strong opinion.