The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Well I'd prefer to not have another start like 2016 where we went 5-10-1 because of a new coach. We almost missed the playoffs that season because of that poor start.

I also disagree with the notion that the players didn't grasp the season because after a horrid 5-10-1 start, the team went 40-23-3 afterwards to comfortably make the playoffs. Also not losing in regulation after 50+ games is also pretty damn impressive and appears pretty mentally tough to me.

This season they've underachieved and it may cost the coach his job. But obviously my concern would be mainly that the team takes a step back or we start off terribly again which could easily happen.

The big question Treliving has to ask is why did they underachieve?

The goals for is almost identical to last year and the coach has been able to get career high type levels of production out of his top 5 or 6 players. GA 5v5 is slightly higher as is the shots against. Smith has had a 10 point increase in sv% over the tandem last year, but nearly identical GAA.

Goals against when down a man have taken a huge hit and are way up over last year. Partly due to a worse PK, and partly due to an increase in the number of times shorthanded.

GGs main fault has been his inability to get a consistent effort from this team. Get the first goal in 4 straight and end up losing them all. Give up the first goal in 3 straight and end up winning them all. Games of dominance, and periods of flatulence. His system has allowed the top tier players to succeed but the bottom tier to flounder, where I would have expected the opposite.

Placing the whole season of underachieving on the coaches head is a luxury of the fanbase, where I hope management looks a little deeper to see why the team can go 40-23-3 to end one season and stumble the next under the exact same regime.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I still don't understand this criticism of moving up as a 5 man unit though? We're not a fast team and only one player has the ability to beat defenders up the ice. It's generally a smart idea to move up the ice with an organized break out with short passes and additional support rather then to have a disorganized and chaotic break out and long bomb passes that just leads to turnovers.

I also don't understand why 1 line or 1 player like Johnny has the freedom to transcend Gulutzan's orders and then to deny everyone else. Makes zero sense and isn't true. It sounds very made up to frame your opinion.

The criticism is relying on it too much.

It reliably allows us to exit our zone and enter their zone even against a good defensive team. It generates a fair bit of zone time and shot volume and cuts down on turnover.

BUT

It also means we struggle to counterattack quickly, allowing the other team time to set up defensively. So we're attacking against 5 defenders who are where they want to be, and as a result we struggle to generate open high-danger shots.


The way we play is a good baseline that's reasonably effective against most things other teams can throw at us. But we sacrifice opportunities at fast counterattacks that sometimes create a great scoring chance and instead choose to turn back, get set up, and move as a unit for a safer, guaranteed zone entry and some lower-danger shots.

I agree that we're not a fast team - that's why I think we need to do a better job giving ourselves a head start. Moving the puck quickly to a player that's already in stride can create the speed we lack, instead of waiting to get set up and accelerating from a standstill.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Locke

This I will agree with.

It seems that Gulutzan wants to play the super-safe brand of hockey. Which is boring.

Furthermore, its slow. He would probably prefer to call it 'possession-based' hockey but what it really amounts to is: waiting.

You wonder why our powerplay entry sucks? Because its slow.

Possession is all well and good, but if you arent moving the puck quickly it allows everyone else to get good and ready for your next, painfully predictable, move.

You mentioned Johnny. Why is he effective? Because hes fast and difficult to predict.

Actually, our PP entry is actually fantastic and is extremely effective. It's taylor-made for Johnny Gaudreau to use his skillset and creates the easiest entry.

And yes Johnny Gaudreau is incredible, but we need more players like him. We won't find any at the same level, but without a doubt we need more skill, speed and talent.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

You keep posting this. If they are going to hire a clone of GG, why would the team require an adjustment period? If it's the same brand of crap hockey, the Flames will already have two full seasons of playing it.

Gulutzan should go because it's the first logical move to make. If the team doesn't improve with a different coach, gut the roster again. Then it's a question of letting Treliving do it vs. a different GM.

I will rejoice when this team dumps Gulutzan.

Well what I mean is he'll likely hire a an advanced analytics clone, but if he doesn't, I could see that happening and needing a big adjustment period. But based on the checklist of items that Gulutzan meticulously met, I would suspect someone similar.

But even then, there's other things that go into coaching then the system. I mean there's likely going to be line up changes, different roles, changes to practices, possibly new special teams coaches, different personalities and etc. It's not improbable to think that with a brand new coaching staff that there will be some form of adjustment period.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Well what I mean is he'll likely hire a an advanced analytics clone, but if he doesn't, I could see that happening and needing a big adjustment period. But based on the checklist of items that Gulutzan meticulously met, I would suspect someone similar.

But even then, there's other things that go into coaching then the system. I mean there's likely going to be line up changes, different roles, changes to practices, possibly new special teams coaches, different personalities and etc. It's not improbable to think that with a brand new coaching staff that there will be some form of adjustment period.

What the players need now is the KISS system.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

The 5 man unit doesn’t work because in GGs system we reverse the puck from d to d where other teams who play a fast transitions game just move it forwards.

This is where the whole 5man unit fails because it allows the other team to set up defensively. It’s defijitely, like you said a more organized break out but the issue is that other teams know what we’re doing and can counteract it.

Boston, Tampa and Vegas make that d to d pass much less frequently and move the puck north south much quicker than we do.

But the game is purely read and react from the transition from defense to offense. They don’t just wait around for the defenses to set up. They attempt to push the puck up the ice to counter attack when possible.

I personally believe that if we had quicker forwards, then they we could play with higher pace. Hypothetically if we had 4 Johnny’s on each line instead of just 1, would it be crazy to think this team could play a faster transition game? Seems strange to me that Gulutzan gives 1 line the freedom to play and then chains everyone else down.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Actually, our PP entry is actually fantastic and is extremely effective. It's taylor-made for Johnny Gaudreau to use his skillset and creates the easiest entry.

And yes Johnny Gaudreau is incredible, but we need more players like him. We won't find any at the same level, but without a doubt we need more skill, speed and talent.

Do you even read what you write?

Our PP isnt fantastic because it relies entirely on Gaudreau.

Hes one player. Out of 10 on a 2 minute PP.

Its great that it works for him. Perhaps a bit more work is required so that it works when he doesnt 'magic it?'

Sure. We'd all love a team with more Gaudreaus. All with the same skill level, etc.

Not going to happen and...man, I'm not even going to get into the myriad of reasons.

So anyways. The powerplay works awesome when JG makes it work awesome, otherwise its a total dog's breakfast.

No, no, by all means, keep going. This is going well. Depending on your perspective.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by belsarius

The big question Treliving has to ask is why did they underachieve?

The goals for is almost identical to last year and the coach has been able to get career high type levels of production out of his top 5 or 6 players. GA 5v5 is slightly higher as is the shots against. Smith has had a 10 point increase in sv% over the tandem last year, but nearly identical GAA.

Goals against when down a man have taken a huge hit and are way up over last year. Partly due to a worse PK, and partly due to an increase in the number of times shorthanded.

GGs main fault has been his inability to get a consistent effort from this team. Get the first goal in 4 straight and end up losing them all. Give up the first goal in 3 straight and end up winning them all. Games of dominance, and periods of flatulence. His system has allowed the top tier players to succeed but the bottom tier to flounder, where I would have expected the opposite.

Placing the whole season of underachieving on the coaches head is a luxury of the fanbase, where I hope management looks a little deeper to see why the team can go 40-23-3 to end one season and stumble the next under the exact same regime.

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying for the most part. But I think that’s the NHL for you. The other teams get paid to play too and they want to win as much as any other team.

It’s not like the Kings, Ducks, Sharks, Stars, Blues and etc aren’t without their own faults and inconsistencies or else they wouldn’t be where we are in the standings. I’ll bet every fan base in and around us thinks the exact same thing about their own team. Probably using the same buzzwords like inconsistent, mentally weak and etc.

To me, the competitive balance of the league is insanely close and any team on any given night can win. I don’t see us as an elite team which is why we’re not sitting where the Jets are, or where the Preds are or where the other top teams are.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

The criticism is relying on it too much.

It reliably allows us to exit our zone and enter their zone even against a good defensive team. It generates a fair bit of zone time and shot volume and cuts down on turnover.

BUT

It also means we struggle to counterattack quickly, allowing the other team time to set up defensively. So we're attacking against 5 defenders who are where they want to be, and as a result we struggle to generate open high-danger shots.


The way we play is a good baseline that's reasonably effective against most things other teams can throw at us. But we sacrifice opportunities at fast counterattacks that sometimes create a great scoring chance and instead choose to turn back, get set up, and move as a unit for a safer, guaranteed zone entry and some lower-danger shots.

I agree that we're not a fast team - that's why I think we need to do a better job giving ourselves a head start. Moving the puck quickly to a player that's already in stride can create the speed we lack, instead of waiting to get set up and accelerating from a standstill.

But this is all read and react, our defensemen aren’t being coached to not find forwards in stride and etc. Our players defend and create a turnover, then they attempt to counter in transition. That’s how it goes.

The 1st line scores the majority of their points on the rush and in transition, they’ve mastered this. Problem is, we don’t have the proper personnel from the other 3 lines to countrr attack the same way. This is just a skill and talent difference.

It just seems very strange to me that everyone rags on the system but then you have 1 line that bucks the trend. Like someone explain to me why Gulutzan gives the 1st line total atonomy and then puts the chains on everyone else?

[theinfinitejar]

Originally Posted by Locke

Do you even read what you write?

Our PP isnt fantastic because it relies entirely on Gaudreau.

Hes one player. Out of 10 on a 2 minute PP.

Its great that it works for him. Perhaps a bit more work is required so that it works when he doesnt 'magic it?'

Sure. We'd all love a team with more Gaudreaus. All with the same skill level, etc.

Not going to happen and...man, I'm not even going to get into the myriad of reasons.

So anyways. The powerplay works awesome when JG makes it work awesome, otherwise its a total dog's breakfast.

No, no, by all means, keep going. This is going well. Depending on your perspective.

He didn't say the PP was fantastic, just the entry. The problem is once they gain the zone the PP is completely lifeless and doesn't do anything to open up shooting lanes in dangerous places.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Locke

Do you even read what you write?

Our PP isnt fantastic because it relies entirely on Gaudreau.

Hes one player. Out of 10 on a 2 minute PP.

Its great that it works for him. Perhaps a bit more work is required so that it works when he doesnt 'magic it?'

Sure. We'd all love a team with more Gaudreaus. All with the same skill level, etc.

Not going to happen and...man, I'm not even going to get into the myriad of reasons.

So anyways. The powerplay works awesome when JG makes it work awesome, otherwise its a total dog's breakfast.

No, no, by all means, keep going. This is going well. Depending on your perspective.

Actually I was strictly speaking to your comment about the PP zone entries. Maybe you need to do a better job of reading because I didn’t talk about the actual in zone set up at all. So you’re flipping out for no reason dude, like relax, it’s just a fan forum.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Who is slow on this team? Brouwer? That's about it.

Gaudreau (fast) - Monahan (average) - Ferland (fast)
Tkachuk (average - slightly below) - Backlund (fast) Frolik (fast)
Bennett (fast) - Jankowski (fast) - Stewart (average - fast)
Lazar (fast) - Stajan (average - below average) - Brouwer (slow)
Hathaway (fast)

Giordano (fast) - Hamilton (fast)
Brodie (fast) - Hamonic (Fast)
Kulak (fast) - Stone (average - slow)

You may disagree in a matter of shades, but this is fairly accurate. Gaudreau and Bennett might be super fast (especially carrying the puck), but just included under fast.

This is NOT a 'slow' team. They just play slow.

The whole trial and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan comes down to this for me:

Treliving let Hartley go (in part probably because of how tough he was on players - shelf life and all), but in the media his reasoning was this:

"

“Bob has taken this team as far as I feel he can take it,” Flames general manager Brad Treliving said during a news conference at Scotiabank Saddledome.”

“Our special teams for a good portion of the year were 30th in the league.”

Look at the roster. Look at the 'fixed' goaltending. Now tell me two things:

Could/would Hartley have been able to take this team to this exact same spot as the current Flames find themselves in now?

They sit 11th in the conference. Go take a look at the actual standings right now - 11th places them EXACTLY at the bottom of the teams that have a chance to make the playoffs, with 73 points. Then there is a large gap with Chicago leading the 'basement' with 62 points.

Now look at the PP and PK.

23rd in PP%.

16th in PK%.

14th in GA.

17th in GF.

16th in ROW wins (Anaheim is the ONLY team ahead of the Flames with less).

11th on shots/GP though, that's decent.

16th in shots against/GP.

So Treliving went and let go a coach (one season removed from winning the Jack Adams, and at the time at least, a fan favorite) because he was too hard on the players (I agree with this), that he felt that Hartley couldn't get more out of this squad, and that the PP and PK numbers were bad.

Well, there is a bit of an improvement on the special teams (compared to that single year anyway), but not something I would call substantial. Gulutzan has a much better squad and, IMO, is NOT pushing this team further than what Hartley would be.

This leads me to believe that Gulutzan is probably on his way out. Treliving might agree with HOW this team plays, but I can't imagine he will retain Gulutzan based on performance.

Now, before any bias enters the equation, let's compare teams.

Which forward group is better from the Hartley era to the Gulutzan era? I have to say LW and Center is MUCH improved in the Gulutzan era, and RW is probably a push (if I have to choose, I choose Gulutzan's era simply because Ferland has matured and become a legitimate scorer on the right side).

Who has better defence? This isn't even close, is it?

Who has better goaltending? Again, not even close.

Now, some people here think that Hartley is a crap coach and couldn't possibly do much with this team, but I think he would have at least been in the same spot as Gulutzan's Flames find themselves now, which is not good enough.

This is my point. If Hartley was let go in large part to performance of the team, then I don't see how Gulutzan survives this season (unless they go on some streak, make the playoffs, and at least take the first series to a 7 game loss).

I don't see an argument any other way right now.

(Plus, I argue that the Pacific Division is WEAKER than in Hartley era, with more crap teams this year).

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Actually, our PP entry is actually fantastic and is extremely effective. It's taylor-made for Johnny Gaudreau to use his skillset and creates the easiest entry.

And yes Johnny Gaudreau is incredible, but we need more players like him. We won't find any at the same level, but without a doubt we need more skill, speed and talent.

Maybe Gulutzan's weakness isn't in designing a system, it's in his inability to figure out which players fit into which spot in that system. For example, Troy Brouwer brings literally nothing to the PP, yet he's out there game in and game out.

[Joborule]

Currently Flames have a bajillion shots attempted against the Rangers, yet trail 3-1 to them in the 2nd period.

Some can poop on Hartley (which is unfair considering where the franchise was in the rebuild cycle. He overachieved), but he won a Jack Adams award, and got the Flames the furthest the team has been since '04. He got more winning results than Gulutzan has.

This is why all this advance stats crap is fairly insignificant to me. What I care about is end results. The one stat that I feel really defines a team is their goal differential. Flames have been in the red all season long, and is the primary reason they're not going to make the playoffs.

[icecube]

Glen Gulutzan isn't worthy of sniffing Hartley's jock strap and I'm not even close to being a Hartley fan. AHL calibre coach. He's done in the NHL after this season.

[I_H8_Crawford]

I wonder if GG has given up on the season too.

I think he knows he's finished.

[browntrout]

Originally Posted by Bingo

What exactly are you saying?

Every GM has to assess their prospect cupboard for likelihood to make it, and in what role.

The Flames have had some pretty terrible prospect lists in the past and if that was the case today you wouldn't want to deal picks as it would put the team in a terrible position.

The relative quality of this group makes it more palpable to make those moves.

That's the reality. They're not players until they make it is just a bumper sticker.

The price this gm may have to pay if this pick goes 1st overall will be steep

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Who is slow on this team? Brouwer? That's about it.

Gaudreau (fast) - Monahan (average) - Ferland (fast)
Tkachuk (average - slightly below) - Backlund (fast) Frolik (fast)
Bennett (fast) - Jankowski (fast) - Stewart (average - fast)
Lazar (fast) - Stajan (average - below average) - Brouwer (slow)
Hathaway (fast)

Giordano (fast) - Hamilton (fast)
Brodie (fast) - Hamonic (Fast)
Kulak (fast) - Stone (average - slow)

You may disagree in a matter of shades, but this is fairly accurate. Gaudreau and Bennett might be super fast (especially carrying the puck), but just included under fast.

This is NOT a 'slow' team. They just play slow.

The whole trial and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan comes down to this for me:

Treliving let Hartley go (in part probably because of how tough he was on players - shelf life and all), but in the media his reasoning was this:

"



Look at the roster. Look at the 'fixed' goaltending. Now tell me two things:

Could/would Hartley have been able to take this team to this exact same spot as the current Flames find themselves in now?

They sit 11th in the conference. Go take a look at the actual standings right now - 11th places them EXACTLY at the bottom of the teams that have a chance to make the playoffs, with 73 points. Then there is a large gap with Chicago leading the 'basement' with 62 points.

Now look at the PP and PK.

23rd in PP%.

16th in PK%.

14th in GA.

17th in GF.

16th in ROW wins (Anaheim is the ONLY team ahead of the Flames with less).

11th on shots/GP though, that's decent.

16th in shots against/GP.

So Treliving went and let go a coach (one season removed from winning the Jack Adams, and at the time at least, a fan favorite) because he was too hard on the players (I agree with this), that he felt that Hartley couldn't get more out of this squad, and that the PP and PK numbers were bad.

Well, there is a bit of an improvement on the special teams (compared to that single year anyway), but not something I would call substantial. Gulutzan has a much better squad and, IMO, is NOT pushing this team further than what Hartley would be.

This leads me to believe that Gulutzan is probably on his way out. Treliving might agree with HOW this team plays, but I can't imagine he will retain Gulutzan based on performance.

Now, before any bias enters the equation, let's compare teams.

Which forward group is better from the Hartley era to the Gulutzan era? I have to say LW and Center is MUCH improved in the Gulutzan era, and RW is probably a push (if I have to choose, I choose Gulutzan's era simply because Ferland has matured and become a legitimate scorer on the right side).

Who has better defence? This isn't even close, is it?

Who has better goaltending? Again, not even close.

Now, some people here think that Hartley is a crap coach and couldn't possibly do much with this team, but I think he would have at least been in the same spot as Gulutzan's Flames find themselves now, which is not good enough.

This is my point. If Hartley was let go in large part to performance of the team, then I don't see how Gulutzan survives this season (unless they go on some streak, make the playoffs, and at least take the first series to a 7 game loss).

I don't see an argument any other way right now.

(Plus, I argue that the Pacific Division is WEAKER than in Hartley era, with more crap teams this year).

I completely agree with your analysis here. Based on the previous handling of Hartley I can't see how Gulutzan could be around for another season. Gulutzan has taken this team as far as it can go under his direction. His coaching style and system don't work with this team.

If I'm not mistaken Treliving and Gulutzan have a long history together going back many years. If Gulutzan is still around next season I think it is because of nepotism.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I completely agree with your analysis here. Based on the previous handling of Hartley I can't see how Gulutzan could be around for another season. Gulutzan has taken this team as far as it can go under his direction. His coaching style and system don't work with this team.

If I'm not mistaken Treliving and Gulutzan have a long history together going back many years. If Gulutzan is still around next season I think it is because of nepotism.

I don’t believe Gulutzan and Treliving have any prior history.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

I wonder if GG has given up on the season too.

I think he knows he's finished.

Well, if you believe Friedman we may yet get another ride on this merry-go-round of horrors.