[PGT] The Flames didn't win

[Red]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Not a compliment? Hamilton has had his 2 best seasons under Gulutzan. The PP is what it is, they were a top 10 PP last season with the same players, same structure. So I can see why that stuck with it.

I get that GG is not too likable in these parts. But the honest truth is, he doesn't get any credit at all from all the haters. He's done some good things for a lot of players on this team, but the haters will gripe on him about everything and anything and generally, if it's positive, it's on the players and if it's negative, then it's all on the coach. Very simple minded. I would take someone's word a little more if they actually looked at everything more objectively then the whole pitchfork, scapegoat thing that I'm seeing.

Kind of a given seeing he was what, 22? How much are Gio and Brodie benefiting?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Red

Kind of a given seeing he was what, 22? How much are Gio and Brodie benefiting?

Another example of explaining away positive results that the coach had been a part of
All of the blame. None of the credit

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Another example of explaining away positive results that the coach had been a part of
All of the blame. None of the credit

Just think how good his season would have been if our coach wasn't so stubborn about his role on a terrible powerplay for most of the season.

Can't wait until he's gone.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Another example of explaining away positive results that the coach had been a part of
All of the blame. None of the credit

Yup. Gulutzan doesn't get enough credit in Hamilton's strong season. The coach was so strong in his player growth strategy that he kept Hamilton off the top pp unit, to the detriment of the team success as the pp completely sucked for half the year....

Imagine Hamilton's numbers and progression if was given top pp mins from the start???

Sorry, it's just another example of horrid player utilization which is nothing but a pattern with this coaching staff.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Another example of explaining away positive results that the coach had been a part of
All of the blame. None of the credit

Hang on. Hamilton had 42 points in 72 games for Boston. A 47 point pace.

Are we really that desperate to give Gulutzan credit for something that his 50 points last season paired with Gio is being trotted out?

This is not some kind of massive step change here.

And you see how Brodie dropped off, while Dougie is marginally better, playing every game with a Norris conversation worthy partner.

What are we giving all of the credit for again? A player meeting but not exceeding expectations, while another drops off a cliff.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Yup. Gulutzan doesn't get enough credit in Hamilton's strong season. The coach was so strong in his player growth strategy that he kept Hamilton off the top pp unit, to the detriment of the team success as the pp completely sucked for half the year....

Imagine Hamilton's numbers and progression if was given top pp mins from the start???

Sorry, it's just another example of horrid player utilization which is nothing but a pattern with this coaching staff.

love the subtle jab at Cameron with the Senators logo for the post haha

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

love the subtle jab at Cameron with the Senators logo for the post haha

LOL.... Pure oops on that one

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If you show up to work not ready to work that's on you. If you repeatedly show up to work not ready that's on your manager for letting it continue.

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Every job? It is my responsibility to show up ready to work. Like a professional.

The above post from EE is the point I was trying to make.
.

Also this.

Originally Posted by mikephoen

This analogy doesn't really work for this situation though. What if you're one of the best in the world at what you do, you have a contract that stipulates you can't be easily fired, and you make many multiples of what your manager does. And he is on a temp contract, and his entire job description is to find ways to get the most out of you and your fellow elite workers.

In that situation, you're not getting fired, he is.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Please explain how Laine is a better sniper than Ovechkin.

Ovechkin: 42 goals - 20:04 ice time & 298 shots = 14.1%

Laine: 41 goals - 16:38 ice time & 200 shots = 20.5%


Based on my interpretation, he scores more goals per minute and on less shots. He's the better "sniper" based on efficiency.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Red

Kind of a given seeing he was what, 22? How much are Gio and Brodie benefiting?

Gio is having a Norris caliber season and is playing the best hockey I've seen from him. If you want to make this a contest based on career years and performance, you'll lose because I talked about this in a different thread already and virtually everyone on the roster who's played with both Hartley and Gulutzan's team has had career highs in the last 2 seasons under GG.

[CroFlames]

Man that is weak.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Hang on. Hamilton had 42 points in 72 games for Boston. A 47 point pace.

Are we really that desperate to give Gulutzan credit for something that his 50 points last season paired with Gio is being trotted out?

This is not some kind of massive step change here.

And you see how Brodie dropped off, while Dougie is marginally better, playing every game with a Norris conversation worthy partner.

What are we giving all of the credit for again? A player meeting but not exceeding expectations, while another drops off a cliff.

As I said in my lose post, virtually everyone on the roster who's played with both Hartley and Gulutzan's team has had career highs in the last 2 seasons under GG.

I actually liked Hartley and was hoping he got to play out his last year, but let's be real here, we allowed 260 goals that season under Bob? That was the worst in the entire NHL with a bullet. If you want to give Gulutzan any credit, it's that he has at very least, cleaned up the goals allowed without butchering the offensive output.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

The above post from EE is the point I was trying to make.
..

In the general workplace if someone shows up repeatedly not ready to work they get fired. So that comparison isn't fair as GG doesn't really have that option.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

As I said in my lose post, virtually everyone on the roster who's played with both Hartley and Gulutzan's team has had career highs in the last 2 seasons under GG.

I actually liked Hartley and was hoping he got to play out his last year, but let's be real here, we allowed 260 goals that season under Bob? That was the worst in the entire NHL with a bullet. If you want to give Gulutzan any credit, it's that he has at very least, cleaned up the goals allowed without butchering the offensive output.

No, I think that credit goes to Smith being a superior goalie compared to what Hartley had his last year with the Flames. Don't think that has much to do with coaching.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

In the general workplace if someone shows up repeatedly not ready to work they get fired. So that comparison isn't fair as GG doesn't really have that option.

In general, if an entire division in the workplace shows up repeatedly not ready to work the manager gets fired. In general, if an entire division in the workplace does not achieve expectations the manager gets fired. In general, if an entire division in the workplace shows the business plan is not effective and results in poor performance, the manager gets fired. This is not one or two players not getting it and not performing well, its the whole damn team. I would say it has gone well past the individual workers and is clearly on the managers. The metrics used to measure success of the team performance clearly shows the current managers are incapable of getting acceptable results from those they oversee.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by redforever

No, I think that credit goes to Smith being a superior goalie compared to what Hartley had his last year with the Flames. Don't think that has much to do with coaching.

Yeah except the Flames only allowed 221 goals last season, an even better pace than this season with worse goaltenders in Elliott and Johnson.

After that despicable start last season, they actually one of the top 5 teams in the league in goals allowed which also allowed them to win something like 40 wins in their last 65 games or so.

I don't doubt that Smith has been fantastic and has stolen us games this season. But the defensive play is night and day when comparing Hartley and Gulutzan's systems.

I know there seems to be an irrational hate for Gulutzan in this place. But when your team finishes last in the league goals allowed under Hartley, you can do better.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ Jonas Hiller, man.

(Why compare Smith to Elliott and Johnson when talking about Hartley).

He gave historically poor goaltending and stats bear that out

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ Jonas Hiller, man.

(Why compare Smith to Elliott and Johnson when talking about Hartley).

He gave historically poor goaltending and stats bear that out

Oh I know Hiller was an absolute nightmare that season. But he also only played 26 games. Give him statistically average GAA on our team and I still think we would've been a bottom 5 team in goals allowed.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by New Era

In general, if an entire division in the workplace shows up repeatedly not ready to work the manager gets fired. In general, if an entire division in the workplace does not achieve expectations the manager gets fired. In general, if an entire division in the workplace shows the business plan is not effective and results in poor performance, the manager gets fired. This is not one or two players not getting it and not performing well, its the whole damn team. I would say it has gone well past the individual workers and is clearly on the managers. The metrics used to measure success of the team performance clearly shows the current managers are incapable of getting acceptable results from those they oversee.

ok sure. But the entire team isn't failing to show up.
Your observation is that "the whole damn team isn't doing well"
This simply isn't true.

I would further add, that while tempting to compare managing an NHL team with managing a workplace team, the dynamics at play are so very different, that I'm not sure that comparison really holds much, if any value.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Except that the most important metrics used to determine team performance versus their peers - wins/losses, goal differential, the standings - indicate the team is not performing. Try and spin it any way you like, using as many fancy stats as you like, but it doesn’t change the most important measures.