IMO, the rebuild is not done and some key pieces are far from fully reaching their potential.
Bennett , Mark Jankowski, and some other not so clearly defined NHL prospects at forward
Parsons, Gillies, Rittich, in Goal
Andersson, Fox, Valimaki, Kylington, Kulak, Hamilton, on D.
With some realistic hopefulness, all or most of the above are close (1 to 3 seasons) to being legitimate NHL contributors.
They hold moderate to considerable value as Flame improvements ( replacements), allowing Flames to trade active Flame players or trading these young assets to ameliorate the Flames specific needs. ( primary ,secondary and tertiary offense for starters).
IMO, the Flames are two to four seasons away from being legitimately done with their rebuild.
Smith and potentially Giordano being the only major cogs that will be on their downside or done.
That is how the bottom 6 will legitimately improve , as well as the bottom 4 D and goaltending....leading to a legitimate and sustainable contender.
If the Iginla trade was the starting point of the rebuild, that was essentially 5 years ago. Another 2 - 4 years from now? If its the latter that's nearing a decade of rebuild time. That is insanely long. There are careers that come and go in that span. I think its reasonable to expect the team to be starting to make some real noise around about now.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
Can you imagine how many fewer PP goals against if we didn’t put Brouwer out there?
The PK isn’t good so your solution isn’t to fix it but to instead just “take less penalties” that’s only solving part of the problem, because penalties happen and you have to be able to reasonably kill them off
Do you even know how many shorthanded goals Troy Brouwer has been on the ice for? He's 6th on the team in short handed ice time so he's not even a primary guy out there.
Also the problem isn't necessarily their penalty killing proficiency, they're 16th, that's league average. So at worst, Brouwer is probably average, but unless you have the actual number that proves he's terrible, your point is foolish.
The real problem is that they take too many penalties and aren't the best at killing them off, so ideally, take less penalties which will equate to less goals allowed. Your boy Sam Bennett is also the poster boy for this issue. When you take as many minor penalties as you score points, you're not helping your team whereas someone like Gaudreau, who helps this team by scoring a lot more points while only taking a handful of minors.
This is a poor way to look at it.
If the Flames had kept the pick their record and place in the standings would almost for sure be different. Therefore the lottery results will be different.
If the ball spits out the Flames with a top pick one should not look at it as that the GM traded that specific pick.
Moreover, I can't grasp how this would be "franchise altering" given they still have the player they traded the pick for.
I don't agree. The GM traded the pick, full stop. He has to be judged on that, if it ends up as a 1 or 2 pick as a result of the Flames falling that far down the standings then that could be a miss on a potential franchise player, and similar to the Kurvers-Neidermayer scenario. Yes, thats a worst case scenario but it could happen:
Duh, with Gord Baldwin, Greg Nemisz and John Arnold.
Once the flames get Andrei Tarathukin in the lineup at the #3 spot, they are playoff bound for sure.
WIth Matt Keetley and Kevin Lalande in net and Akim Aliu on patrol, the Flames are destined for a cup.
That is dark stuff of you to jog those memory cells. Please don’t.
Serious question for those in the middle of the road frame of mind.....Is GG gone if they miss playoffs? What if they make it but get launched in the first round?
__________________
.
"Fun must be always!" - Tomas Hertl
can you respond to my points about team building without trying to paint me as a lunatic fan of another team (that has vastly superior playoff success as compares to the flames over the last decade)?
I laid out what I thought the process was before you went into the foibles of 38 years in Calgary.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
That is dark stuff of you to jog those memory cells. Please don’t.
Serious question for those in the middle of the road frame of mind.....Is GG gone if they miss playoffs? What if they make it but get launched in the first round?
Think he's done if they miss or get swept. If they put up a fight Game 6 or situation they probably keep him. Really depends who is available in the next couple months.
The Following User Says Thank You to kukkudo For This Useful Post:
My view remains the same - Gulutzan is neither a terrible coach, nor is he a coach that inspires too much confidence.
I put my post withing NSFW tags not for language, but just because it is a long post (even by my standards) and don't want to clutter up the thread.. and I am pretty damn tired as I haven't accumulated 10 hours of sleep so far this week, so it doesn't flow well.... but here are my scatterbrained thoughts at the moment.
NSFW!
I agree with Jiri Hrdina and Bingo, as well as many others that notice some posters expressing their disdain for Gulutzan because he "doesn't talk to players", "has his head down looking at the screen", "isn't passionate enough", and blah blah blah. Those are silly arguments based on nothing of substance. You don't know how much he yells at the players (hint: He does yell, and he has yelled before and after the stick throwing incident!). That's two bench minors in a row, so that is the evidence that Gulutzan does in fact argue calls and 'fights for the team'. Reasons like these just make me skip posts, even if I may agree with the notion that Gulutzan isn't the right fit and would prefer that the Flames move on from him.
As for the whole advanced metrics supporting Gulutzan and showing that Hartley was a poor coach, I think that is also relatively hogwash. Why?
Think of it this way - Hartley had a crap team that played over their heads. Crappy rosters SHOULD have poor metrics, no? Especially a rebuilding team with young hot-shots learning the finer points of the game, and old aging cast-off vets trying to hang on to their careers. I expect those metrics to be bad, just as I expect those teams to lose games. The fact that he got this team working hard in a system that actually fit the strengths and weaknesses of the team, and got them to a higher level than what EVERYONE thought capable of this team speaks volumes in itself. Sure, maybe it was time to let him go. Maybe his professional manner could be questioned. Maybe the players were tired of him and Treliving had no choice in the matter. I just giggle when people say it was 'unsustainable', when it lasted for 1.5 seasons until the goalies decided to crap the bed, and was never given a goalie to try and salvage the season or his reputation. That's fine if you see things differently.
Now Gulutzan comes in to a better team, especially this year. Without question this team is a much stronger team on paper than Hartley's Flames ever were. That's unquestionable. What else is unquestionable? The Pacific division is actually weaker, no? Go back and see how many crap teams were in the Pacific 3 seasons ago. Now look at it. Even worse considering Anaheim was playing their AHL team for a half season.
Treliving came out and called this team a 100point team. So did Gulutzan. They find themselves in the 5th worst spot in the conference. The only teams that they are ahead of are teams that are either in full-blown rebuilds (4 teams) or a team that has taken a big step back and will probably be entering a rebuild this year (Chicago). The next team up is Colorado, tied in points with 2 games in hand over Calgary.
This is March 1. This is the time that teams ramp up their games and jockey for position for the playoffs. This is the first time since November (?) that I have noticed Calgary sitting below EVERYONE that was in the playoff race. Anaheim, SJ, LA, St. Louis, Colorado, Dallas, Minnesota... The Flames are dead last among the teams that matter.
Now, does that mean that Gulutzan should be turfed? His advanced metrics are much better! Well, I didn't pay attention to the advanced metrics with Hartley's team, and I am not going to change my opinion just because Gulutzan's team is doing well in them. Hartley won games with a crap team in a tough division. Gulutzan is winning games with much better players in a crap division. That's what I care about. Don't misunderstand me - I am not pining for Hartley's return (I don't even want Ruff, who plays a very similar system). This comparison is simply meant to explain my opinion of 'results' when people are trying to prove if a coach is effective or not by showing advanced metrics.
You know what makes a good coach? A good coach will get a team to play better than who they really are by designing a system that fits a team, getting players to play harder, and making good adjustments along the way both in-game and as situations come up.
Darryl was a really good coach that way. Hartley continues to be an underrated coach that way. Brent Sutter was a terrible coach. Keenan was semi-retired and didn't want to rattle the star players, so he coached them per dollar value on contracts.
Is Gulutzan a good coach or a bad coach. I guess your opinion should really come down to one thing:
Whether the Calgary Flames are talented enough or not in relation to other teams in the division and the rest of the entire league.
I am also of the opinion that in Hockey, crap rolls uphill, not downhill as is customary in the rest of the working world. Star players are more highlighted when a team does poorly. A coach is more criticized when a team does poorly. The GM becomes more criticized.
A player is responsible for his own play. A coach is responsible for the team play. The GM is responsible for assembling said team, and finding the right coach to be responsible for team play.
In my opinion, here are the adjustments that can be made to a team to try and improve a team, ranked in order from easiest to most difficult.
1) Depth players
2) Bottom 9 wingers (anything but top line players)
3) Coach
4) Star Player (top line players)
5) GM
6) Elite franchise players
This team added 2 top 4 D in consecutive years (Stone and Hamonic - though Stone is a lower tier and was brought in a the deadline). It has added depth players. It has seen the growth of Ferland. Jankowski coming in. A bunch of depth moves. A top 6 winger that bombed (Brouwer). A top 6 winger in Tkachuk that has been great. 6 new goalies have played for the Flames in the last 2 years, some of which were better than Ramo, most of which have been better than anything excluding Ramo since Kipper was around.
You tell me what the next step is in fixing the team given what has occurred in the last two years, the team's stated expectations for this season (and spending assets believing they will get there), and their place so far in the standings.
Tinker all you want with this team, but this is the best defence this team has had since the 80's. This team has an elite top line. This team has an elite shut-down line. This team has some good depth pieces that should continue to improve. This team has good goalies.
There is unquestionably a few holes on this team. I am not going to argue that there isn't. #3 RW'er and a slightly upgraded bottom line (that has been playing well, I have to point out again).
Is this team playing to its' strengths? Is it performing better or worse than the sum of its' parts. Are there teams in the division that are performing better relative to their composition?
I say look at the Ducks. Look at the massive amount of injuries that they have gone through to the most important pieces of their roster. Imagine the Flames without Monahan, Backlund and Giordano for a long stretch, and continue removing top 6 forwards and top 4 defencmen. They were a well-coached team that managed to stay alive and have now passed the Flames.
You can make an argument for every team ahead of the Flame as to why they are a better coached squad (well, almost everyone). I will buy that.
I used to buy the notion that this team just is 'unlucky', that their shooting percentage was a reason for their issues, or that because the Flames don't have a good 3rd line RW'er, or don't have a more offensive 4th line...
Now I just see wins/losses. I see good starts and bad starts. I see an easily rattled team that is losing leads and failing to close out games. I see a team that rarely has it in them to make a comeback, rarely scores that tying goal late in the third period, and often gets an empty net goal against. I see a team that somehow allows another 2 or 3 goals in the span of a short time after allowing the first goal against at some point in a game under duress of any sort.
Is that coaching? Is that players? I don't think it is the goalie, since in the last few games both Gillies and Rittich have made huge saves, and Smith has been fantastic (beyond my expectations, which were pretty good to start with).
Nobody here has any clue on the matter, to be quite frank, and that includes myself. You can point at all the advanced metrics, you can point at all the poor starts and inconsistent play that this team has experienced over the last 2 seasons (but please stop pointing at 'he doesn't talk to players' nonsense).
When answering the question: "Will Gulutzan get canned?", the only thing you should be pointing at is the standings and figuring out if this team has more or less talent than the teams ahead of them or behind them. That will dictate your opinion of whether or not he deserves to be retained or let-go.
I don't think that Treliving will let Gulutzan go now (unless he is intent on hiring an already available coach, and wants to give that coach additional time for next season to grasp this team and help with player movement - like what kind of players he wants for his system he wants the team to play, but lacks, etc).
I think Gulutzan is safe. I think coaching - given the roster turnover over the last 2 seasons and the expectations placed on this team - will be reviewed this off-season. In that review, I don't think that Treliving is going to concern himself too much with advanced metrics, nor will he concern himself too much with Gulutzan not showing enough passion. He is going to sit down, look at the roster, look at the expectations for it, and look at the final standings (including hopefully a playoff performance). Then he figures out if this team is under-performing, over-performing, or meeting expectations, just like every other job.
At this point, the coach of the Calgary Flames is Gulutzan's to lose. Continue to play inconsistent and pile up points inconsistently, and he will be removed as there has been roster turnover all season, including moves to shore-up weaknesses (defence and goaltending). If I am Treliving, I am thinking: "Do I need to field an elite team with no holes just to make the playoffs with this coach?"
It doesn't help Gulutzan's cause that this team has been really healthy the last two seasons (with Smith going down being the most important player out for a length of time).
Gulutzan still has time to be retained, but he will have to convince Treliving not by how good the Flames show up in the advanced metrics department, but how much of an improvement he can make in the standings this season. That's it. Right now, if I am Sportsclubstats, I have odds that he is gone. Every game affects those odds.
It should't be like that though. A good team will have long periods of good play, win some games they don't deserve, and rarely lose more than 2 in a row. This is an incredibly inconsistent squad. You can see their inconsistent play on the ice. If I am Treliving, I of course see it and keep thinking: "How can I help to fix this?"
I think he has tried depth moves and important moves. I think the next step is the coach. If Gulutzan is unable to get this team to perform the way it is expected to, given that there has been roster movement over the course of the last 2 seasons, then Treliving will have to make a change in that department. It is just the expected flow of crap in the end, right or wrong.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
My view remains the same - Gulutzan is neither a terrible coach, nor is he a coach that inspires too much confidence.
I put my post withing NSFW tags not for language, but just because it is a long post (even by my standards) and don't want to clutter up the thread.. and I am pretty damn tired as I haven't accumulated 10 hours of sleep so far this week, so it doesn't flow well.... but here are my scatterbrained thoughts at the moment.
NSFW!
I agree with Jiri Hrdina and Bingo, as well as many others that notice some posters expressing their disdain for Gulutzan because he "doesn't talk to players", "has his head down looking at the screen", "isn't passionate enough", and blah blah blah. Those are silly arguments based on nothing of substance. You don't know how much he yells at the players (hint: He does yell, and he has yelled before and after the stick throwing incident!). That's two bench minors in a row, so that is the evidence that Gulutzan does in fact argue calls and 'fights for the team'. Reasons like these just make me skip posts, even if I may agree with the notion that Gulutzan isn't the right fit and would prefer that the Flames move on from him.
As for the whole advanced metrics supporting Gulutzan and showing that Hartley was a poor coach, I think that is also relatively hogwash. Why?
Think of it this way - Hartley had a crap team that played over their heads. Crappy rosters SHOULD have poor metrics, no? Especially a rebuilding team with young hot-shots learning the finer points of the game, and old aging cast-off vets trying to hang on to their careers. I expect those metrics to be bad, just as I expect those teams to lose games. The fact that he got this team working hard in a system that actually fit the strengths and weaknesses of the team, and got them to a higher level than what EVERYONE thought capable of this team speaks volumes in itself. Sure, maybe it was time to let him go. Maybe his professional manner could be questioned. Maybe the players were tired of him and Treliving had no choice in the matter. I just giggle when people say it was 'unsustainable', when it lasted for 1.5 seasons until the goalies decided to crap the bed, and was never given a goalie to try and salvage the season or his reputation. That's fine if you see things differently.
Now Gulutzan comes in to a better team, especially this year. Without question this team is a much stronger team on paper than Hartley's Flames ever were. That's unquestionable. What else is unquestionable? The Pacific division is actually weaker, no? Go back and see how many crap teams were in the Pacific 3 seasons ago. Now look at it. Even worse considering Anaheim was playing their AHL team for a half season.
Treliving came out and called this team a 100point team. So did Gulutzan. They find themselves in the 5th worst spot in the conference. The only teams that they are ahead of are teams that are either in full-blown rebuilds (4 teams) or a team that has taken a big step back and will probably be entering a rebuild this year (Chicago). The next team up is Colorado, tied in points with 2 games in hand over Calgary.
This is March 1. This is the time that teams ramp up their games and jockey for position for the playoffs. This is the first time since November (?) that I have noticed Calgary sitting below EVERYONE that was in the playoff race. Anaheim, SJ, LA, St. Louis, Colorado, Dallas, Minnesota... The Flames are dead last among the teams that matter.
Now, does that mean that Gulutzan should be turfed? His advanced metrics are much better! Well, I didn't pay attention to the advanced metrics with Hartley's team, and I am not going to change my opinion just because Gulutzan's team is doing well in them. Hartley won games with a crap team in a tough division. Gulutzan is winning games with much better players in a crap division. That's what I care about. Don't misunderstand me - I am not pining for Hartley's return (I don't even want Ruff, who plays a very similar system). This comparison is simply meant to explain my opinion of 'results' when people are trying to prove if a coach is effective or not by showing advanced metrics.
You know what makes a good coach? A good coach will get a team to play better than who they really are by designing a system that fits a team, getting players to play harder, and making good adjustments along the way both in-game and as situations come up.
Darryl was a really good coach that way. Hartley continues to be an underrated coach that way. Brent Sutter was a terrible coach. Keenan was semi-retired and didn't want to rattle the star players, so he coached them per dollar value on contracts.
Is Gulutzan a good coach or a bad coach. I guess your opinion should really come down to one thing:
Whether the Calgary Flames are talented enough or not in relation to other teams in the division and the rest of the entire league.
I am also of the opinion that in Hockey, crap rolls uphill, not downhill as is customary in the rest of the working world. Star players are more highlighted when a team does poorly. A coach is more criticized when a team does poorly. The GM becomes more criticized.
A player is responsible for his own play. A coach is responsible for the team play. The GM is responsible for assembling said team, and finding the right coach to be responsible for team play.
In my opinion, here are the adjustments that can be made to a team to try and improve a team, ranked in order from easiest to most difficult.
1) Depth players
2) Bottom 9 wingers (anything but top line players)
3) Coach
4) Star Player (top line players)
5) GM
6) Elite franchise players
This team added 2 top 4 D in consecutive years (Stone and Hamonic - though Stone is a lower tier and was brought in a the deadline). It has added depth players. It has seen the growth of Ferland. Jankowski coming in. A bunch of depth moves. A top 6 winger that bombed (Brouwer). A top 6 winger in Tkachuk that has been great. 6 new goalies have played for the Flames in the last 2 years, some of which were better than Ramo, most of which have been better than anything excluding Ramo since Kipper was around.
You tell me what the next step is in fixing the team given what has occurred in the last two years, the team's stated expectations for this season (and spending assets believing they will get there), and their place so far in the standings.
Tinker all you want with this team, but this is the best defence this team has had since the 80's. This team has an elite top line. This team has an elite shut-down line. This team has some good depth pieces that should continue to improve. This team has good goalies.
There is unquestionably a few holes on this team. I am not going to argue that there isn't. #3 RW'er and a slightly upgraded bottom line (that has been playing well, I have to point out again).
Is this team playing to its' strengths? Is it performing better or worse than the sum of its' parts. Are there teams in the division that are performing better relative to their composition?
I say look at the Ducks. Look at the massive amount of injuries that they have gone through to the most important pieces of their roster. Imagine the Flames without Monahan, Backlund and Giordano for a long stretch, and continue removing top 6 forwards and top 4 defencmen. They were a well-coached team that managed to stay alive and have now passed the Flames.
You can make an argument for every team ahead of the Flame as to why they are a better coached squad (well, almost everyone). I will buy that.
I used to buy the notion that this team just is 'unlucky', that their shooting percentage was a reason for their issues, or that because the Flames don't have a good 3rd line RW'er, or don't have a more offensive 4th line...
Now I just see wins/losses. I see good starts and bad starts. I see an easily rattled team that is losing leads and failing to close out games. I see a team that rarely has it in them to make a comeback, rarely scores that tying goal late in the third period, and often gets an empty net goal against. I see a team that somehow allows another 2 or 3 goals in the span of a short time after allowing the first goal against at some point in a game under duress of any sort.
Is that coaching? Is that players? I don't think it is the goalie, since in the last few games both Gillies and Rittich have made huge saves, and Smith has been fantastic (beyond my expectations, which were pretty good to start with).
Nobody here has any clue on the matter, to be quite frank, and that includes myself. You can point at all the advanced metrics, you can point at all the poor starts and inconsistent play that this team has experienced over the last 2 seasons (but please stop pointing at 'he doesn't talk to players' nonsense).
When answering the question: "Will Gulutzan get canned?", the only thing you should be pointing at is the standings and figuring out if this team has more or less talent than the teams ahead of them or behind them. That will dictate your opinion of whether or not he deserves to be retained or let-go.
I don't think that Treliving will let Gulutzan go now (unless he is intent on hiring an already available coach, and wants to give that coach additional time for next season to grasp this team and help with player movement - like what kind of players he wants for his system he wants the team to play, but lacks, etc).
I think Gulutzan is safe. I think coaching - given the roster turnover over the last 2 seasons and the expectations placed on this team - will be reviewed this off-season. In that review, I don't think that Treliving is going to concern himself too much with advanced metrics, nor will he concern himself too much with Gulutzan not showing enough passion. He is going to sit down, look at the roster, look at the expectations for it, and look at the final standings (including hopefully a playoff performance). Then he figures out if this team is under-performing, over-performing, or meeting expectations, just like every other job.
At this point, the coach of the Calgary Flames is Gulutzan's to lose. Continue to play inconsistent and pile up points inconsistently, and he will be removed as there has been roster turnover all season, including moves to shore-up weaknesses (defence and goaltending). If I am Treliving, I am thinking: "Do I need to field an elite team with no holes just to make the playoffs with this coach?"
It doesn't help Gulutzan's cause that this team has been really healthy the last two seasons (with Smith going down being the most important player out for a length of time).
Gulutzan still has time to be retained, but he will have to convince Treliving not by how good the Flames show up in the advanced metrics department, but how much of an improvement he can make in the standings this season. That's it. Right now, if I am Sportsclubstats, I have odds that he is gone. Every game affects those odds.
It should't be like that though. A good team will have long periods of good play, win some games they don't deserve, and rarely lose more than 2 in a row. This is an incredibly inconsistent squad. You can see their inconsistent play on the ice. If I am Treliving, I of course see it and keep thinking: "How can I help to fix this?"
I think he has tried depth moves and important moves. I think the next step is the coach. If Gulutzan is unable to get this team to perform the way it is expected to, given that there has been roster movement over the course of the last 2 seasons, then Treliving will have to make a change in that department. It is just the expected flow of crap in the end, right or wrong.
I would like to thank you and the others who have put a lot of thought into your posts, whatever the position may be. Much better discussions than there have been of late.
I'm all for the debate. I have little use for the hyperbole, reliance on old (and often incorrect) narratives and plain old unsupported takes. Yeah, mine too.
Do you even know how many shorthanded goals Troy Brouwer has been on the ice for? He's 6th on the team in short handed ice time so he's not even a primary guy out there.
Also the problem isn't necessarily their penalty killing proficiency, they're 16th, that's league average. So at worst, Brouwer is probably average, but unless you have the actual number that proves he's terrible, your point is foolish.
The real problem is that they take too many penalties and aren't the best at killing them off, so ideally, take less penalties which will equate to less goals allowed. Your boy Sam Bennett is also the poster boy for this issue. When you take as many minor penalties as you score points, you're not helping your team whereas someone like Gaudreau, who helps this team by scoring a lot more points while only taking a handful of minors.
All true. Brouwer is on the second unit. PK is one of the things he actually does well IMO (because it's about positioning and good stick, which he still can do, as opposed to skating and creating, which have turned into a struggle for him).
I counter your point with the Panthers firing Gerard Gallant.
He took them to a 100+ point season for the first time in their history. They had a bit of a rough start to the next year after the lineup was DRASTICALLY altered due to some AGMs influence on getting "advanced stat darlings" on the team instead of some of the other guys on that 100+point team. 20 games in, they fired Gallant in a reactionary move to attempt to save the season. The team tanked, and hasn't really recovered since. There has been a power shift yet again in the management of the Panthers to where Tallon was put back in charge. It will be a struggle to even make the playoffs this year whereas Gallant has coached Vegas to the best record in hockey.
I'm not saying that Gulutzan's job is safe, but I sure hope there is some careful analysis of the pros and cons of him as a coach before a change is made. Grass is not always greener and all that.
That's a strange comparison, considering
a) Gulutzan has not coached the Flames to a 100+ point season or anything special really and
b) Gulutzan himself is the advanced stat darling here.
I didn't want Glass in last night, and I thought Lazar didn't deserve a scratch (I thought Hathaway did). I think he puts Bart in every month just to make sure he can be ready if called upon. You can't sit a guy 100% of the time and expect anything good if he's called in due to injury.
"4th line after every goal" is a myth.
That was an odd slip. I think Gulutzan now outs Bartowski in once a month to keep him ready, bit earlier in the year he was forcing him to play way too often when it was clear Kulak was ready.
As for his 4th line after a goal being a myth, I've seen it many times, but you are right I can't quantify how often it happens (other than it feels like way too often). I don't even know where those numbers could be found. But it definitely does happens, so it's not a myth.
Didn't the Kings fire Darryl Sutter who was a 2 time Stanley Cup winning coach who so many posters here yearn for? Well if John Stevens is a better coach then Darryl and Stevens is barely out performing Gulutzan, would that mean that Darryl is worse than Gulutzan?
I don't know about you but I'd rather roll the dice on a guy that has 2 Cup rings as a coach. And happens to be the man that took the Flames to a Cup final.
I laid out what I thought the process was before you went into the foibles of 38 years in Calgary.
Well, let's just talk about the last year then.
Is not picking until the third round and potentially missing the playoffs after getting swept in the first round the year before a sign the process is working or not working?
Has the process been successful?
Last edited by Flash Walken; 03-01-2018 at 02:08 PM.
Great post C4L. I think it encapsulates the situation quite well. Main points that I agree with:
- good and great coaches get the most out of their rosters/get them to over-achieve
- GG (and all coaches, imo) should be judged on their records and their team's position in the standings.
- Advanced stat metrics that support GG or admonish Hartley are overstated and often taken out of context
The Following User Says Thank You to jemjey For This Useful Post:
I don't know about you but I'd rather roll the dice on a guy that has 2 Cup rings as a coach. And happens to be the man that took the Flames to a Cup final.
That's fine, I take the opposite approach. I don't think a new coach changes much nor do I think a new coach masks this team's real problems.
I remember seeing Jets fans calling for a new coach after Paul Maurice failed to find much success for the last 4-5 years. Now they're a top 5 team with the same coaching staff and basically the same roster.
Oiler fans swore that Eakins was the worst coach of all time and that hiring a "good" coach in Todd McLellan would change things around. The next season they finish 29th, an even worse ranking and they had Connor McDavid as well.
Or how about the great Mike Babcock who finished dead last in 30th despite all the Stanley Cups and finals appearances. Same deal with Claude Julien, terrible now in Montreal after the great run with Boston who by the way, are dominant now with out him. Just tons of examples of how coaching doesn't do much. Others can disagree, but I've already heard all the counter arguments here and I haven't been converted.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Classic_Sniper For This Useful Post:
That's fine, I take the opposite approach. I don't think a new coach changes much nor do I think a new coach masks this team's real problems.
I remember seeing Jets fans calling for a new coach after Paul Maurice failed to find much success for the last 4-5 years. Now they're a top 5 team with the same coaching staff and basically the same roster.
Oiler fans swore that Eakins was the worst coach of all time and that hiring a "good" coach in Todd McLellan would change things around. The next season they finish 29th, an even worse ranking and they had Connor McDavid as well.
Or how about the great Mike Babcock who finished dead last in 30th despite all the Stanley Cups and finals appearances. Same deal with Claude Julien, terrible now in Montreal after the great run with Boston who by the way, are dominant now with out him. Just tons of examples of how coaching doesn't do much. Others can disagree, but I've already heard all the counter arguments here and I haven't been converted.
That's fine, I take the opposite approach. I don't think a new coach changes much nor do I think a new coach masks this team's real problems.
No, but sometimes an injection of new blood, a new voice, a new approach and new ideas might lift the team to another level when the current voice isnt getting it done and they're in a dogfight for a playoff spot.
It wouldnt be historic or anything.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
I don't agree. The GM traded the pick, full stop. He has to be judged on that, if it ends up as a 1 or 2 pick as a result of the Flames falling that far down the standings then that could be a miss on a potential franchise player, and similar to the Kurvers-Neidermayer scenario. Yes, thats a worst case scenario but it could happen:
That's fine, I take the opposite approach. I don't think a new coach changes much nor do I think a new coach masks this team's real problems.
I remember seeing Jets fans calling for a new coach after Paul Maurice failed to find much success for the last 4-5 years. Now they're a top 5 team with the same coaching staff and basically the same roster.
Well they added a 40 goal scorer to there roster in Laine. Also have good goaltending this year. Maurice is a decent coach
Oiler fans swore that Eakins was the worst coach of all time and that hiring a "good" coach in Todd McLellan would change things around. The next season they finish 29th, an even worse ranking and they had Connor McDavid as well.
Edmonton is no good
Or how about the great Mike Babcock who finished dead last in 30th despite all the Stanley Cups and finals appearances. Same deal with Claude Julien, terrible now in Montreal after the great run with Boston who by the way, are dominant now with out him. Just tons of examples of how coaching doesn't do much. Others can disagree, but I've already heard all the counter arguments here and I haven't been converted.
The leafs get Matthews and now they are on a role (Some say they tanked). Babcock's name speaks for itself they were never going be last forever. Montreal has a terrible roster Claude Julien can't do much in that situation.
A team with Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, Gio, Hamiliton, playing all well and good goaltending from Smith should be sitting comfortably in the wildcard or in one of the division spots. The Flames this year have been very inconsistant. Nothing against GG but he is the perfect NHL assistant coach or AHL head coach.
Anytime there's 3-4 different major points in the season where you're seriously considering firing the coach (or suspect, at the very least, that he and Treliving had a 'behind closed doors' conversation), that's not a good sign.
Glen did alright last year, even though we had hot and cold goalies. But this year, with the positions of need clearly having been upgraded, is actually worse than last year. It feels like the team is regressing rapidly, and that's only after one year. The players like him, I get that, but are they willing to go to battle for him? Would they go through walls like Hartley got them to? No, not consistently. This team has struggled to identify itself his entire tenure.
He is gone if we miss the playoffs with an upgraded roster from last year. He will stay and get one last year if he can rally his team to a Wild Card spot at least, but this is his last breath of life to work with now. These next few weeks will decide the fate of his career - any coach who gets fired from the Flames don't seem to do so well afterwards. He'd better buckle up and be The Man.
__________________
Until the Flames make the Western Finals again, this signature shall remain frozen.
The Following User Says Thank You to Gaskal For This Useful Post:
. 
