Oct 19 practice

[Rollin22x]

Originally Posted by polak

Isn't the entire game of hockey technically "puck management"?

I would guess that backhanded icecream scoops out of the d zone is not puck management.

[DJones]

haha I like the "teaching moment"

I like those lines. Bouma - Backlund - Frolik are a solid line, switch the other lines up until something clicks.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Torture

I don't know why everyone is so upset with Gulutzan's coaching. Seems like he's addressing all the issues CP wants him to, and he's doing it all right away.

Grossman - out after game 1
Wideman - out after game 2
Kulak, Jokipaka in for game 2/3
Concerns about zone entry - being addressed
Versteeg - bumped down the lineup
Chiasson playing well - gets a chance with Gaudreau/Monahan.

Not sure why he didn't have all of this figured out before Game 1

[EVERLAST]

really glad GG is finally reading this forum and taking notes on how to coach this team, who to bench, line juggling etc



in all seriousness tho he needs to stop being buddies with these guys.
Glad vets are being sat and that meritocracy is alive and well.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Not sure why he didn't have all of this figured out before Game 1

Because the NHL roster group as a whole didn't get to play together for a single exhibition to work the kinks out sooner.

The only major screw up from the coaches so far was probably the D-pairings in game one. Anyone who's followed the team for a couple seasons could tell you that was a mistake. But at least Gulutzan is wasting no time in adjusting.

It's too bad the Monahan back strain, Gaudreau signing and Versteeg acquisition all happened so close to the season. And too bad the Grossmann signing happened at all (though hopefully he can redeem himself when he gets his chance).

[sureLoss]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/10/19...sh-any-of-them

So, when he was questioned about his ... ahem ... colourful language during one particular drill — an exercise that saw more than a few players turn over the puck on zone entries, similar to what they’ve done in their first four NHL games — he was instantly apologetic.

To those that were offended by his language, that is.

“I hope there were no kids in the stands today,” Gulutzan said with a chuckle.

At one point, Gulutzan halted practice and commented — for the entire Scotiabank Saddledome to hear — that turning pucks over in practice is exactly what they’re doing in games. Of course, he used a few words that aren’t fit for a family newspaper.

The message? Clean it up.

But after Tuesday’s positive outcome, a productive morning of video, and then a sloppy start to the late morning on-ice session, Gulutzan had reason to enforce a lesson to his pupils.

“There were mistakes being made that were being made in the game,” Gulutzan said. “You have to get them out. You have to send a message that those mistakes won’t be tolerated. But you move on from it. They got a little whack there, and that was it … they know they need to be better.”

Truth be told, a handful of players were nodding in agreement during Gultuzan’s brief outburst.

For example, a turnover from TJ Brodie in the corner led to Buffalo's first goal.

Their teacher was right.

“Puck management,” Gulutzan said when asked what specifically he was upset about. “Turning the puck over. That’s the biggest thing we haven’t got ahold of in the first four games that we’ve played.

“We need to manage the puck better. That’s not saying we don’t make plays — that’s saying we make plays at the right time.”

Gulutzan said his group needs to make quicker decisions and to get pucks deep if they don’t have the right numbers at the bluelines or the right situations.

“We were letting them know that (Wednesday),” he said.

He identified two areas of their powerplay that needs work: their zone entries and face-offs.

“Hey, the NHL changed the format to have the powerplay start in the offensive zone with a face-off for a reason — to get more offence,” he said. “But if we can’t get that draw, then we’re going to have to be really good at entries because we’re going to have to try and enter every time.

“We need to bear down on those face-offs and we need to be better on our entries.”

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I absolutely love that 4th D pairing

Say what you want about the coach thus far. But you can't deny he's made changes when needed, and quickly. Much more satisfying to see that Hartley's "give him half a season of leash before I make a change'' mentality.

Not that I am necessarily disagreeing with you, but I do think that it is easier right now to do that for Gulutzan. It was also easy for Hartley when he came over too.

He benched Wideman after a game or two, and Wideman responded by being really good after that. Not only that, but people (not saying you) tend to forget that Wideman was playing like a real top-pairing guy for long stretches, including having the 3rd or 4th (around there) highest TOI among defencemen in the NHL - and was doing a pretty good job.

I think that Wideman earned that 'leash' so to speak, and I think a lot of players earn somewhat of a leash on the coach over time. That is what is often helpful at times in changing coaches - it removes all (we hope) the biases that coaches tend to build up over time.

Hartley also benched Gaudreau, Bollig didn't play that much, McGrattan (who Hartley loved) became a daily healthy scratch until Treliving had to send him to the AHL. I think the only guy that Hartley gave a really long leash to was Wideman, but I also think that Wideman really earned it as the more Hartley played him, the better he got in the past - and it took a long time for that to stop being true (and yep, Hartley gave him what we all consider too much rope after that).

Point is, I think it is easy for a new coach to come in and change up ice times. Nobody has earned anything yet with the coach. I will not say that Gulutzan will play favorites down the road for sure either - maybe he will always change up the lineup and not give anyone any rope from now on - who knows? Just think that most coaches in the NHL find it easy to come in and not play favorites at first, but over time, the biases do creep in as players 'prove' themselves and earn trust.

[wingmaker]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Not that I am necessarily disagreeing with you, but I do think that it is easier right now to do that for Gulutzan. It was also easy for Hartley when he came over too.

He benched Wideman after a game or two, and Wideman responded by being really good after that. Not only that, but people (not saying you) tend to forget that Wideman was playing like a real top-pairing guy for long stretches, including having the 3rd or 4th (around there) highest TOI among defencemen in the NHL - and was doing a pretty good job.

I think that Wideman earned that 'leash' so to speak, and I think a lot of players earn somewhat of a leash on the coach over time. That is what is often helpful at times in changing coaches - it removes all (we hope) the biases that coaches tend to build up over time.

Hartley also benched Gaudreau, Bollig didn't play that much, McGrattan (who Hartley loved) became a daily healthy scratch until Treliving had to send him to the AHL. I think the only guy that Hartley gave a really long leash to was Wideman, but I also think that Wideman really earned it as the more Hartley played him, the better he got in the past - and it took a long time for that to stop being true (and yep, Hartley gave him what we all consider too much rope after that).

Point is, I think it is easy for a new coach to come in and change up ice times. Nobody has earned anything yet with the coach. I will not say that Gulutzan will play favorites down the road for sure either - maybe he will always change up the lineup and not give anyone any rope from now on - who knows? Just think that most coaches in the NHL find it easy to come in and not play favorites at first, but over time, the biases do creep in as players 'prove' themselves and earn trust.

Really astute comments. We have already seen Gulutzan show some favouritism to Higgins and Chiasson due to this exact dynamic. As fans, I think it will always be hard to understand this dynamic, but if a player earns a coaches trust, they get more of a leash. And this is as it should be. Players are human beings, which is not something that fans get to see very much. Human beings can come through, even when the stats say otherwise. It's what makes coaching in all sports so difficult and so ineffable.

I am happy that Gulutzan seems willing to make changes so far. But inevitably he will have his favourites, as well. Would be great if we could all understand it a little more.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Mike FAIL covered this at length.

From when Cameron was first hired:

After last night's game:

Cameron wouldn't have been running the PP as a head coach, plus different players can make a huge difference.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

We have already seen Gulutzan show some favouritism to Higgins and Chiasson due to this exact dynamic.

He showed favoritism by not having Higgins make the team and playing Chiasson on the 4th line?

[renny]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Cameron wouldn't have been running the PP as a head coach, plus different players can make a huge difference.

Fair point, but you have to agree the PP has looked pretty silly. Last night every single time they tried to enter the zone it was a back pass to a secondary rusher who had to try and dangle everyone at the blueline. It was hard to watch.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by renny

Fair point, but you have to agree the PP has looked pretty silly. Last night every single time they tried to enter the zone it was a back pass to a secondary rusher who had to try and dangle everyone at the blueline. It was hard to watch.

That was their PP last year as well. Always dropped it back to the guy coming with speed, then he'd lose it and it never worked. Usually be Johnny the D would drop it to.

[DoubleK]

I'm ok with the forward lines.

Still want to see Wideman in place of Engelland on the 3rd pairing.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I'm ok with the forward lines.

Still want to see Wideman in place of Engelland on the 3rd pairing.

That's crazy talk. I like Wideman and thinks he takes too much heat here but Engelland is easily the better choice. What he gives up in offense (although it's not like Wideman provided any in his first two games) he makes up for with better defense and far more physicality. Engelland-Kulak are a solid 3rd pair. Wideman isn't effective unless he's scoring and the odd PP point you get from him is outweighed by his poor defense, turnovers and ridiculously slow skating. What he did filling in for Gio 2 years ago is admirable and one of the reasons we made the post-season but he's not that player anymore. I think he'll be lucky if he gets some PTO offers next offseason.

[DoubleK]

Wideman has more PPG than the rest of the team combined. Engelland is a pylon with zero offensive upside.

Wideman-Kulak are a far better 3rd pairing, especially at home where you can shelter them.

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Wideman has more PPG than the rest of the team combined. Engelland is a pylon with zero offensive upside.

Wideman-Kulak are a far better 3rd pairing, especially at home where you can shelter them.

Engelland is consistently our toughest and most physical defender, as well as a deterrent to opposing players who might be thinking about taking a run at our younger and smaller players. That's something I want in a third pairing defenseman. Kulak's offensive upside makes for a nice balance with Engelland's stay at home approach. He has the occasional blunder and can be exposed due to his lack of speed, but I don't think he gets enough credit for how steady he is on the back end for us on the majority of nights.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Wideman has more PPG than the rest of the team combined.

Except that he doesn't. He has 1 point in 2 games (0.5 PPG). The rest of the team has 27 points in 4 games (6.75 PPG)

I'm not the greatest at math but I'm almost certain that 6.75 > 0.5

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

Except that he doesn't. He has 1 point in 2 games (0.5 PPG). The rest of the team has 27 points in 4 games (6.75 PPG)

I'm not the greatest at math but I'm almost certain that 6.75 > 0.5

He meant the other PPG, power play goals.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

He meant the other PPG, power play goals.

Talk about cherry picking.
He is also tied for first in the league for most "Wideman(s)" in his last name.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Wideman has more PPG than the rest of the team combined. Engelland is a pylon with zero offensive upside.

Wideman-Kulak are a far better 3rd pairing, especially at home where you can shelter them.

No. God no.

Wideman's game AND his skating has deteriorated horribly over the last 2 years. In fact, it's deteriorated so badly even from last year to this year so much that he's now clearly even much worse than Engelland.

Literally the only thing Wideman has left that he can use to relative effect is his shot on the PP. That's absolutely it. The rest of Wideman's game is SO bad now that his one thing he still has left that's sort of decent can't even come close to making up for the rest of his terrible game and deficiencies. And you call Engelland a pylon, yet Engelland, believe it or not is now considerably faster than Wideman is as slow as Engelland may also be.

There is no good reason to play Wideman at all anymore anytime soon. At this point, the only reason to dress him right now would be if they don't want to put their best lineup out there and aren't serious about winning, or if they want to tank for the 1st overall pick in the upcoming draft.

Wideman can barely even move on the ice anymore. It's painful how slow he's become. And the rest of his game has also fallen off the cliff. He's done like dinner. The game has now passed him by.