[News] Flames hire Bill Peters as the franchise's 19th head coach

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I could, but why? Again it all comes out even.

13 goals, 50 points, and +12 is objectively better than 10 goals, 42 points, and -3.

First of all let's drop +/- as it is a bad stat

Second you are comparing the wrong years. Dougie had 12G and 43 pts under Hartley. He had 13G and 50 pts the next year.

That's a seven point improvement that could easily be attributed to the adjustment period after he was traded to a brand new team (Dougie had 1 point in his first nine games as a Flame, and produced at a 48 point pace over his final 72 games.).

Compare that to Brodie dropping from a 53 point pace to 36 or Giordano dropping from 56 points to 39. Now add Hamonic dropping from a 25 pt guy to 11 points.

That is not "balancing out" by any definition. That is falling off the proverbial map.

Finally, while Hamilton had 50 last year, he only had 44 this year. One point more than he did under Hartley. It's not as if he exploded into a 65pt beast to offset the simultaneous declines of Brodie, Giordano, Hamonic.

This is a roster where we should very reasonably expect 200 points from our defensemen give or take. The onus is on Peters to realize and implement that. Our D gave us 146 points last year - that difference is a ticket to the playoffs right there.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

So what's the point of all of this? Post the news and shut the thread down? Why have any of it open for discussion as we will never have all the facts on anything that happens around hockey and even deep dives won't show everything. So post that the game is on and that's it? Post the score and close the site?

The point is for everyone to exercise an ounce of humility in expressing their own opinions about this. I have all the time in the world for those who are sceptical about this hire, have good reasons for their scepticism, but are also self-secure and aware enough to recognize that their own opinion is also extremely limited and likely very flawed. I have no time for those who insist that their opinions are facts, and that selecting the right coach in this coaching search was an obvious choice that every fan endorsed.

This whole we don't have enough info, don't rush to judgement, any opinion formed without all the facts is not a good opinion crap is just complete bull####. People, believe it or not are able to form opinions on all kinds of things including hockey coaches based on available information. We do it in everyday life all the time. Hell, people probably married somebody and lived long happy lives with less info than we can gather on this coach.

No. Being honest about the things that we do not know is not "crap." It is the truth. The thing is, in this instance it is an admission on behalf of the ENTIRE fanbase that honestly does not have all the facts. It is a good step towards learning, and a position that I certainly respect a good deal more than those who are certain about everything they know.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

the thing is, the people who are saying "Give it some time" or "Don't rush to judgement" or similar statements are NOT shilling for the organization.

not one bit.

I didn't like the GG hire and took a "Wait and see attitude". With Peters, I'll do exactly the same thing, for one simple reason:

You have no say in that decision process...

Now, undoubtedly, some posters will continue to shout from the mountain tops about what a crappy hire this was... and for all their wailing and teeth gnashing, it does exactly nothing.

This is an anonymous message board...if people are really that angry, don't renew you season's tickets. Stop going to games. Stop watching games. Because the Flames, like any other business, won't change their philosophy if they feel that their cash flow isn't being damaged.

We get it. There are some people that HATE Peters, even though he hasn't coached a game or even has been named coach... The bigger question is whether any of those posters will actually do something other than angrily post and argue with people that disagree with them and will continue to post simply to have an outlet where they can vent their frustrations

You know where fans also don't have a say in the outcome? The games themselves. So why even bother watching? We should all just shut up and find something else to do. Right? What a great attitude. The Flames should hire you for PR.

Hey, hey, you can be a fan. But be nice about it? Ok? Losing is just another way to look at winning. Can't we just be happy for the other team? Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, now, do we?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I've seen plenty of Canes games the past four seasons. And not just games against the Flames. I'm probably not the only Flames fan who tuned out a handful of Flames games this season and just started watching other teams. I, also, like other posters here have dug through team statistics for the past four seasons. It all looks way too familiar.

What are you doing to evaluate Peters? He who casts the first stone and all...

The presumption that other posters are being irrational in their opinions is truly arrogant, by the way.

I haven’t said if the hire is good or bad because I admit I don’t know enough. Challenging someone as to why they think it’s a bad hire isn’t the same thing as saying it’s a good one

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The point is for everyone to exercise an ounce of humility in expressing their own opinions about this. I have all the time in the world for those who are sceptical about this hire, have good reasons for their scepticism, but are also self-secure and aware enough to recognize that their own opinion is also extremely limited and likely very flawed. I have no time for those who insist that their opinions are facts, and that selecting the right coach in this coaching search was an obvious choice that every fan endorsed.


No. Being honest about the things that we do not know is not "crap." It is the truth. The thing is, in this instance it is an admission on behalf of the ENTIRE fanbase that honestly does not have all the facts. It is a good step towards learning, and a position that I certainly respect a good deal more than those who are certain about everything they know.

"I don't know something. So you must not either." Just another form of ignorance.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

So what's the point of all of this? Post the news and shut the thread down? Why have any of it open for discussion as we will never have all the facts on anything that happens around hockey and even deep dives won't show everything. So post that the game is on and that's it? Post the score and close the site?

This whole we don't have enough info, don't rush to judgement, any opinion formed without all the facts is not a good opinion crap is just complete bull####. People, believe it or not are able to form opinions on all kinds of things including hockey coaches based on available information. We do it in everyday life all the time. Hell, people probably married somebody and lived long happy lives with less info than we can gather on this coach.

People are unhappy with the direction of the team going back over two years and this move with the opportunity to make changes to the direction of this club does not look good at the moment. They are simply expressing their opinion. At least they have one, better in my mind than saying nothing so you can never be wrong and then being sanctimonious about not being wrong. I never said Gulutazan should not be fired just that we need more info before we rush to judgements...Happening more and more and it is bloody annoying.

It sounds like to me that the people that were unhappy with the Gulutzan hire see similar issues with the Peters hire and surprisingly enough are unhappy seeing how things have worked out with Gulutzan. Is there potential for things to work out? Of course, absolutely and 99% of Flames fan will be happy if it does. Doesn't mean they won't have reservations going in.

No one is saying you can’t have an opinion. They are just challenging it. I don’t know when I or others have ever said we aren’t wrong
And no I don’t agree having a poorly informed or premature opinion is better than admitting one doesn’t know enough to form one

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

First of all let's drop +/- as it is a bad stat

Second you are comparing the wrong years. Dougie had 12G and 43 pts under Hartley. He had 13G and 50 pts the next year.

That's a seven point improvement that could easily be attributed to the adjustment period after he was traded to a brand new team (Dougie had 1 point in his first nine games as a Flame, and produced at a 48 point pace over his final 72 games.).

Compare that to Brodie dropping from a 53 point pace to 36 or Giordano dropping from 56 points to 39. Now add Hamonic dropping from a 25 pt guy to 11 points.

That is not "balancing out" by any definition. That is falling off the proverbial map.

Finally, while Hamilton had 50 last year, he only had 44 this year. One point more than he did under Hartley. It's not as if he exploded into a 65pt beast to offset the simultaneous declines of Brodie, Giordano, Hamonic.

I think you need to re-read my segment on Hamilton. It was a comparison between best years in Calgary and Boston, showing that he hasn't been "flat" in his time in Calgary coming from Boston.

Admittedly I allowed myself to be misdirected from the foundation of the original argument, but you're still missing it. I'm not trying to argue GG or BP's quality, or individual seasons, or team seasons, or anything like that.

I am trying to undercut the argument that when a star player struggles under a coach it means they are a poor coach.

It doesn't, because in almost all cases there are examples where other players develop and improve under the same coach in the same time frame.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Wasn’t staal already trending down before Peters?
Appears to be more at play there than the coach

He had 76 points this regular season for the Wild, and had 65 points last season, so I would say that question is pretty settled. Eric Staal is still a very good player.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Itse

He had 76 points this regular season for the Wild, and had 65 points last season, so I would say that question is pretty settled. Eric Staal is still a very good player.

He’s had an impressive late career turnaround
I don’t think we can attribute that all to coaching though
That’s my point

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I could, but why? Again it all comes out even.

13 goals, 50 points, and +12 is objectively better than 10 goals, 42 points, and -3. By the numbers, those are the best Hamilton years with Calgary and Boston, respectively. Hamilton has improved every year since the trade.

Monahan = Teravainen. Both improved and developed under their respective coaches.

Gio is as good now as he ever was.

Brouwer is Brouwer. What were the expectations? He's a bottom 6 forward often playing out of his depth. GG misused him, IMO.

But I don't get how that, or any of this, is furthering your original argument.

You basically said some players do well under some coaches and others struggle and it all balances out.

And then you use examples under GG

I say GG had a lot of players performing as expected, flat or worse.

I say Gio at 39 points is not the same as Gio pushing 60 points. You say he is the same
I say Hamilton with 42 points in 72 (a 48 point pace) followed by 43, 50 and 44 is flat, and you say he is improving every year
Expectations on Brouwer were clearly more than the coach got out of him

Not saying either of the D guys are bad, but I don’t see the career year / flourished in Calgary argument from Hamilton. I see primarily flat offensive output. Gio played damn well but Gully got 15 or so less points out of him than he has shown he can produce.

If we disagree on those points, as we seemingly do, then there really is no point.

I think not only does it not come out even, but the number of players on Calgary that underperformed outweighed the ones that did perform and I think the whole team collectively underachieved. And I see these things as linked

We have differing opinions, and we have differing interpretations of how data supports your narrative.

And with respect to Peters, I questioned whether he got all he could out of his top players and overall roster

Doesn’t matter, he is the coach. We will see what he does

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The two years before Carolina hired Peters, Staal scored 53 and 61 points. Peters did not magically cause a 70-point player to drop off the face of the earth. The drop-off was already happening.

Incidentally, if Peters is a bad coach because he only got 0.62 PPG out of Staal (87 points in 140 games), what does it say about Vigneault that he only got 0.3 PPG from the same player?

In spite of those 53 points coming in 48 games. He was starting to drop off immediately after that. It wasn't directly him but it was overall team depth. He had the likes of Tlusty, Jussi Jokinen and Semin. That year he head 33 points in 63 games for Carolina he was traded to NYR at the deadline and had only 6 points in 20 games. There was no boost, there was only continued mediocrity. He had zero points in the playoffs. That year as a one off abysmal year.

He then signed in Minnesota and rebounded. Look at the depth on Minnesota. More offense spread around through better players. Of course a player like Eric Staal is going to do better when surrounded by better players.

I don't think you can point Staal's lack of production on coaching. The year Staal had 54 points during Peters' first year of coach the next highest scoring forward had only 39 points. Defensman, Faulk, had 49 points that year. The entire team lacked scoring, and they lacked top line players. That wasn't Peters' fault.

People shouldn't blame Peters on Staal's last two seasons in Carolina. They need to look at the entire situation.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

He’s had an impressive late career turnaround
I don’t think we can attribute that all to coaching though
That’s my point

Well few major changes are all about one thing. But I think it's pretty safe to assume that coaching played a part here.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Itse

Well few major changes are all about one thing. But I think it's pretty safe to assume that coaching played a part here.

A part perhaps but how much is impossible to tell particularly since he changed teams. So there are a ton of changing variables including the quality of his teammates

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

No one is saying you can’t have an opinion. They are just challenging it. I don’t know when I or others have ever said we aren’t wrong
And no I don’t agree having a poorly informed or premature opinion is better than admitting one doesn’t know enough to form one

I get the feeling you and other posters don't even know what an opinion is in the first place. Let me help you with that:

Originally Posted by Dictionary

1. a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2. a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge

By pointing out that I can't see into the future you are not challenging my opinions. You're just pointing out a fact that applies to all of us. It adds very little to the discussion.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

He’s had an impressive late career turnaround
I don’t think we can attribute that all to coaching though
That’s my point

I don’t think people are saying coaching made him a good player. Certainly you have to be put in a position to succeed in order to succeed

The concern is if it was coaching that held him back, if and, if so, why he was not put in a position to succeed

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A part perhaps but how much is impossible to tell particularly since he changed teams. So there are a ton of changing variables including the quality of his teammates

And maybe he just stopped giving a crap in Carolina. Sure seems to be a lot of that happening the last few years

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A part perhaps but how much is impossible to tell particularly since he changed teams. So there are a ton of changing variables including the quality of his teammates

Granted. I would also agree that staring at the stats of one guy isn't really useful.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

You basically said some players do well under some coaches and others struggle and it all balances out.

Unless I completely misunderstood your original argument, then this is the only point I'm trying to make.

You can't say that Bill Peters is a bad coach because Eric Staal struggled under his tenure (that is how I understand your argument). There are examples of other players excelling in the same structure. One player under performs. A similar player exceeds expectations. Which of these facts is indicative of a coach's quality?

The answer is neither. Did Bill Peters get the most out of his top players? Yes for some, no for others.

GranteedEV's comprehensive analysis of style in relation to players and coaching systems is more relevant to assessing a coach's quality, at least with respect to the team he coached. It's speculative when applied to another team's players, but it has more merit.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by btimbit

And maybe he just stopped giving a crap in Carolina. Sure seems to be a lot of that happening the last few years

Exactly. Or any number of other reasons.

The bottom line is that a single player's stats, in and of themselves, do not shed any significant light on the coach. Literally every coach ever, from Bowman to Gilbert, has had players blossom under them, and players struggle under them. Sometimes it is because of the coach, or partially because of the coach, and usually it is not about the coach at all.

Building an argument on a singular example like this, and hammering away on it as if it is some nugget of wisdom that others are missing, so it should be repeated over and over, is beyond weak. And screams of propping up an agenda.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Unless I completely misunderstood your original argument, then this is the only point I'm trying to make.

You can't say that Bill Peters is a bad coach because Eric Staal struggled under his tenure (that is how I understand your argument). There are examples of other players excelling in the same structure. One player under performs. A similar player exceeds expectations. Which of these facts is indicative of a coach's quality?

The answer is neither. Did Bill Peters get the most out of his top players? Yes for some, no for others.

GranteedEV's comprehensive analysis of style in relation to players and coaching systems is more relevant to assessing a coach's quality, at least with respect to the team he coached. It's speculative when applied to another team's players, but it has more merit.

See, I think, using a Gulutzan as an example that
- the roster was good enough to make the playoffs
- many, many individuals underperformed
- a few (top line and Tkachuk) did well
- the ones that performed well are the elite talent or fortunate enough to be the winger playing with 2 elite players
- almost everyone else on the whole team underperformed
- no it didn’t balance out
- badly coached team lost too many games

I am asking with Peters if this may be a concern.
Anecdotally he has many of the same general criticisms as Gulutzan

I think that there is concern in a franchise player becoming temporarily mediocre

I’m not saying the guy is a bad coach. But there are a few big red flags. And I don’t think you can simply look past them. You absolutely have to look deeper, but I have not seen them as summarily dismissible