Gulutzan's unique approach

[Sheva #7]

What is your take on it? Do you like it or not?
http://www.nhl.com/flames/news/gulut...ch/c-286660998

[Cecil Terwilliger]

No big deal to me. His reasoning is sound on why he doesn't. Nothing you say when the game is over will change the results so I don't see any harm in waiting until the next day to review.

[Locke]

Is it that unusual?

I never addressed my teams other than very briefly or specifically after games.

If there was something specific I would address it, but otherwise I'd always let it ride and address the team at the next practice.

"Okay guys, that happened, next practice we're going to focus on....(whatever)."

[Bear]

I heard Babcock say recently that he typically won't talk to the players post game either.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Bear

I heard Babcock say recently that he typically won't talk to the players post game either.

Rhett Warrener said it's common for coaches to wait a day to discuss the game.

[btimbit]

Yeah I didn't get why some posters have made a big deal out of this. If he didn't talk to them in between periods, sure, but after the game what difference does it make

[Erick Estrada]

I don't care if a coach addresses them after the game or not as long as he's getting the results on the ice. I don't believe this has any bearing on the team's performance to date.

[MarkGio]

I agree it shouldn't be done every game, but I don't have an issue with once in while. It's like any workplace. Yes, generally everyone comes to work and does their job without having to be told, but every now and then a meeting is called to light a fire under everyone's butts.

Sports are fuelled on emotion, not logic. When a team is apathetic on the ice, and then you see the apathy on the bench, I question the coachs ability to manage personalities. Just because they're pros, doesn't mean they're capable of leading others or free of error. This same group was disciplined for going out drinking. Every year there are healthy scratches. When the group is like 2-7-1 in its last 10 games, I think the coach should fuel on the emotion. I would also agree the coach should inspire when they're 8-2-1 in their last 10. There's nothing wrong with raising the emotion levels so long as you're not embarrassing yourself, being unprofessional or singling people out in a group.

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Yeah I didn't get why some posters have made a big deal out of this. If he didn't talk to them in between periods, sure, but after the game what difference does it make

you're post #6 and none of the posts before you made a big deal out of this

just sayin'

[AC]

Originally Posted by handgroen

you're post #6 and none of the posts before you made a big deal out of this

just sayin'

In this thread, but many posters have made a huge deal about it in a lot of threads since the news came out.

[Mike F]

It bothers me that he thought anything Totarella did consistently in Vancouver was worth emulating. That season was a tire fire for the Canucks, with the team making the playoffs both the year before and after.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Mike F

It bothers me that he thought anything Totarella did consistently in Vancouver was worth emulating. That season was a tire fire for the Canucks, with the team making the playoffs both the year before and after.

Tire fire or not, Tortorella is proving to be a hell of a lot better a coach than Willie Desjardins, under whom Gulutzen also served as an assistant in Vancouver.

But I agree with most here: this is a total non-issue.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mike F

It bothers me that he thought anything Totarella did consistently in Vancouver was worth emulating. That season was a tire fire for the Canucks, with the team making the playoffs both the year before and after.

So a strategy that has worked for him for his entire career is somehow invalid because one year his team sucked?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by handgroen

you're post #6 and none of the posts before you made a big deal out of this

just sayin'

It's been talked about for weeks

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Tire fire or not, Tortorella is proving to be a hell of a lot better a coach than Willie Desjardins, under whom Gulutzen also served as an assistant in Vancouver.

But I agree with most here: this is a total non-issue.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So a strategy that has worked for him for his entire career is somehow invalid because one year his team sucked?

The Canucks were (effectively) a 101 point team before Torts, had an 18 point drop when he arrived, and jumped back up 18 points to 101 after he left... Yet Gulutzen looks at the guy at the helm in the middle and says, "I'll do what he was doing!"

And FWIW, this year is only Tortorella's 2nd really successful season since '04 and, according to HNIC tonight, the players on Columbus just requested a closed door meeting with Torts to address his coaching style after the team has gone 8-9-1 in the last 19.

So, no, "cause Torts did it his whole career" isn't enough for me.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Mike F

The Canucks were (effectively) a 101 point team before Torts, had an 18 point drop when he arrived, and jumped back up 18 points to 101 after he left... Yet Gulutzen looks at the guy at the helm in the middle and says, "I'll do what he was doing!"...

Is Tortorella the only NHL coach who abstains from addressing his team after games? If not, then I don't think this really applies as "emulation." By most accounts it is a fairly common tactic.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mike F

The Canucks were (effectively) a 101 point team before Torts, had an 18 point drop when he arrived, and jumped back up 18 points to 101 after he left... Yet Gulutzen looks at the guy at the helm in the middle and says, "I'll do what he was doing!"

And FWIW, this year is only Tortorella's 2nd really successful season since '04 and, according to HNIC tonight, the players on Columbus just requested a closed door meeting with Torts to address his coaching style after the team has gone 8-9-1 in the last 19.

So, no, "cause Torts did it his whole career" isn't enough for me.

Again, you are trying to make the argument that, just because of a bad year, his coaching styles are thus somehow invalid.

Every coach, every player, every executive has bad years. That doesn't mean that all of their career-long practices and habits are suddenly wrong or stupid.

[Machiavelli]

So is it unique, or fairly common? I'm confused

[Cali Panthers Fan]

I like that he forces players to do a self-assessment before he gives him his thoughts the next day. Often you don't even have to say anything to a guy, he'll own it and tell you exactly what you're going to talk to him about.

The only thing I worry about is if you had a team with a lot of young guys and little veteran leadership, but thankfully we've got guys like Gio, Stajan, Brouwer, Backlund, etc. to talk to guys about things if they're freaking out.

All in all, I think it's totally professional to wait to the next day.

[badger89]

Glad to hear that those anger management courses are paying off for Torts. Not a bad approach in general though.