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

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by cannon7

You don't see me telling other posters to shut up and take their negativity (or positivity?) elsewhere, do you? No. You don't. Why? Because I know where I am: a place where discussions are supposed to happen. If you show up here confused as to what a message board is, then your views on what people should or shouldn't be posting may be mocked for their inherent logical fallacy.

Who told you to shut up?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

But we will never have all the facts so where do you draw the line on forming an opinion? .

That's up to each person, but in my opinion the line should be higher than what many people are exhibiting here. Which is to say, I think most of us don't have enough information to say if this is a good or bad hire. And I say that based on how most (not all) are articulating their worries about this hire.
Again that's up to each person, but that's why opinions can be challenged.
Folks are welcome to form an opinion on what information they do or don't have. That is their right. It is my right to challenge that opinion.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

That's up to each person, but in my opinion the line should be higher than what many people are exhibiting here. Which is to say, I think most of us don't have enough information to say if this is a good or bad hire. And I say that based on how most (not all) are articulating their worries about this hire.
Again that's up to each person, but that's why opinions can be challenged.
Folks are welcome to form an opinion on what information they do or don't have. That is their right. It is my right to challenge that opinion.

None of us can see the future. I don't even think the question is "will Peters be a good coach for the Flames". Not even Treliving knows that. We can only find out with time.

The discussion should really centre around the Flames decision making -- are they taking a direction that leaves you feeling confident about where they are headed?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by cannon7

For the record, I have no problem with this view. Want to wait and see? Be my guest. I have no choice but to join you since that's how time and causality work. I certainly hope Peters benefits from all this doubt.

But Bill Peters, despite all appearances, does not exist in a vacuum. He is a real person, who has actually coached hockey teams before. It's fine if you want to wait to see him do it some more, but that doesn't mean we can't already learn from history.

Fair enough.

like i said previously, I am not particularly a fan of the hire...

however, people aren't going to sway people from their opinions at this point either... yes, there are data points with Peters...how much those data points correlate from Carolina to Calgary is essentially what people are discussing..

Firings will have a ripple effect through the organization... some players might feel relieved, others anxious...at the end of the day how players respond to Peters will be as important as the system and philosophy that Peters brings to the Flames...and that is why its hard to really draw firm conclusions...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

But we will never have all the facts so where do you draw the line on forming an opinion?

Did I say in the post to which you are responding that anyone should refrain from forming opinions? No. I said and continue to maintain that we should all be pretty careful about how strongly we hold to those opinions—all of which are formed on the basis of incomplete information.

And this is a message board not a discertation maybe you should let go of the obvious hyperbole posts and move along as all the facts are not needed. Obviously very few if any insist their opinion is fact, that's on you and how you read it when people are just venting.

That's fair. But by the same token I would like to think it is not such a high expectation of the number of adults on this message board to take the challenges to their opinions on the basis of incomplete information in stride.

If you have no opinion because you don't have all the facts why are you here other than to call out other posters? Oh sorry, challenge.

This is again not what I said. I maintain that people who are expressing their strongly held opinions should expect them to be challenged, and that an immanently legitimate criticism is the fact that all of us are operating on limited information.

Speaking for myself, I am sceptical. I am concerned about Peters' record, and I have my own doubts about how this will work out. But I also think the reasons provided for why he is probably a better coach than these superficial factors would indicate are pretty sound, and thus am not convinced at the outset that this is a terrible decision. I just don't know, and based on everything I have read on both sides I don't believe that anyone else knows any better than I do about how this will turn out.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Or you could look at it this way

Hamilton had his career year in Boston and has been flat here.
Monahan is in a natural development phase

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Who knows?

Staal was a complementary piece and not intended to displace top line players? New team, takes time to find a role / chemistry? Lots of factors and small sample size

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Vigneault wasn’t using him as a core piece, he was a post deadline acquisition. Insignificant sample size

This seems like a lot of excuses for facts that don’t fit your narrative. I feel like someone has posted something about dismissal of facts with excuses in this thread. Oh, here it is...

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

See, this is what I’m talking about.

Dismissal of facts with excuses. It’s not that complicated.

Ok. Make an excuse and say nobody knows.
It could be really complicated, or it could be pretty damn simple.

Seems like it’s time to take your own advice, or stop spooning it out like it means anything.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I know what an opinion is. And they can be challenged. Particularly if they are formed on questionable knowledge or information.
I don't know how many times this needs to be stated. NO ONE is saying you can't have an opinion they are merely challenging if that opinion is well formed or not.

But what is the point? An opinion that is "well formed" proves what exactly? If someone forms an opinion using a methodology you believe to be poor or inferior but the opinion ultimately turns out to be correct, do you revise your methods? Or is the opinion wrong because of it's methods?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This seems like a lot of excuses for facts that don’t fit your narrative. I feel like someone has posted something about dismissal of facts with excuses in this thread. Oh, here it is...

Seems like it’s time to take your own advice, or stop spooning it out like it means anything.

Thanks for your interest. Did you have anything to contribute to the subject?

For example, did Bill Peters get the most individually and/or collectively out of the roster available in Carolina?
Obviously the answer is we can’t know for 100 percent certain
So what do you think and why?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by cannon7

But what is the point? An opinion that is "well formed" proves what exactly? If someone forms an opinion using a methodology you believe to be poor or inferior but the opinion ultimately turns out to be correct, do you revise your methods? Or is the opinion wrong because of it's methods?

It can be. People who consult horoscopes or harbour superstitions form all sorts of "right" opinions for silly reasons. I happen to believe the analysis is important, and that comprehensive data is always preferable to have when forming opinions or making decisions.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I've warmed up to the idea of Peters since we first started looking into him.

Things I like:
-He seems to be a bit gruff and blunt. These were qualities that I liked about Sutter
-He seems to have put some young players in positions to succeed and had them develop well. Case in point guys like Aho, Teravainen, Slavin, Pesce, etc. It's promising for the future of guys like Jankowski and Bennett
-He demands hard work above all else. As fans its easy to cheer for teams who bust their ass off and try hard. What we can't stand is lazy, lackadaisical play.
-He seems very well prepared and seems to have successful systems in terms of possession. I know people hate the idea of possession because Glen failed with it but IMO Glen failed more due to how he composed his lineup and how long he stuck with mediocre lines. Possession is what almost every modern coach is preaching so to dislike Peters because he wants possession is silly.

Personally I don't think he had anywhere near the depth in CAR that he'll have in CGY. He had very little star power. I think CGY's top trio of Gaudreau, Monahan and Tkachuk trump CAR's equivalent by a large margin. I think CGY's goaltending is quite a bit ahead of CAR's. I think our defences are probably the closest of any of the areas. If Treliving gets another depth scorer I think our team has the depth to contend. If Peters proves to be an upgrade on GG and I don't see how he wouldn't be, I think we're looking pretty good for next season.

GG was horrible for many reasons we've talked about. Peters does not seem to have the same shortcomings. Peters knows that ice time is the way he gets players to play the way he wants. GG just seemed to trot out the same groups over and over regardless of performance. Peters has a history of developing young players and putting them in situations to succeed. GG IMO put Bennett and Jankowski in a tough spot to succeed and we didn't really see any progression from Bennett under his watch.

I see lots of reasons for optimism. Doesn't surprise me the same negative nancies are whining and bitching like they usually do. Only time will tell. It will be interesting to see who the assistants are and if Treliving makes a major move to add another offensive depth piece. My outlook on the team is very different now that GG is gone. Hope has been restored.

[Bourque's Twin]

Coaching is a difficult subject for a fan. We truly don’t know much about systems, styles or the type of guy a coach is. Knowing Sutter is possibly available and having watched his success, I am a bit disappointed that he’s not being hired. Same goes for AV as he seems to always be coaching good rosters far in the playoffs.

Now we get Peters who didn’t prove anything special in Carolina. He had bad goaltending and an average roster at best. But great coaches should be able to get the most out of their team. I do remember watching Carolina earlier this season and being impressed though.

We have to wait and see. To me, BT seems like a great GM when it comes to his roster, but his coaching decision of GG was horrible. I hope it was a mistake he learned from rather than a mistake that wil continue into another bad coaching hire. If that happens, it will be the end of BT, which is too bad because I think he’s a great GM in every category but coaching decisions.

I’m crossing my fingers that BT is making the right move, because the Flames can’t afford to waste more good years of having young talent.

Most importantly, I just want to watch a hard working and committed team.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by nik-

i'm a frothy mess

tmi.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I've warmed up to the idea of Peters since we first started looking into him.

Things I like:
-He seems to be a bit gruff and blunt. These were qualities that I liked about Sutter
-He seems to have put some young players in positions to succeed and had them develop well. Case in point guys like Aho, Teravainen, Slavin, Pesce, etc. It's promising for the future of guys like Jankowski and Bennett
-He demands hard work above all else. As fans its easy to cheer for teams who bust their ass off and try hard. What we can't stand is lazy, lackadaisical play.
-He seems very well prepared and seems to have successful systems in terms of possession. I know people hate the idea of possession because Glen failed with it but IMO Glen failed more due to how he composed his lineup and how long he stuck with mediocre lines. Possession is what almost every modern coach is preaching so to dislike Peters because he wants possession is silly.

Personally I don't think he had anywhere near the depth in CAR that he'll have in CGY. He had very little star power. I think CGY's top trio of Gaudreau, Monahan and Tkachuk trump CAR's equivalent by a large margin. I think CGY's goaltending is quite a bit ahead of CAR's. I think our defences are probably the closest of any of the areas. If Treliving gets another depth scorer I think our team has the depth to contend. If Peters proves to be an upgrade on GG and I don't see how he wouldn't be, I think we're looking pretty good for next season.

GG was horrible for many reasons we've talked about. Peters does not seem to have the same shortcomings. Peters knows that ice time is the way he gets players to play the way he wants. GG just seemed to trot out the same groups over and over regardless of performance. Peters has a history of developing young players and putting them in situations to succeed. GG IMO put Bennett and Jankowski in a tough spot to succeed and we didn't really see any progression from Bennett under his watch.

I see lots of reasons for optimism. Doesn't surprise me the same negative nancies are whining and bitching like they usually do. Only time will tell. It will be interesting to see who the assistants are and if Treliving makes a major move to add another offensive depth piece. My outlook on the team is very different now that GG is gone. Hope has been restored.

It’s isnt that we hate possession.

It’s more that there are two kinds of possession teams

Teams like Tampa, Boston, Vegas, Pittsburg, etc who have strong possession but they do it through transition and constant pressure. They defend as a five man unit but transition north south very quickly

And then teams like Calgary last year where we defend as a five man unit but we also slowly move up the ice compared to teams in the other group. How many times did our forward onthe boards pass back or the d to d pass instead of going forward with the puck as soon as it was regained.

This is why people on here don’t like possession hockey because all we really know as flames fans is the slow and plodding possession game which doesn’t yield the same results and excitement as the quick transition possession game

[AustinL_NHL]

From what I'm gathering, people here hate Peters because his teams also tend to out-chance, out-shoot, and out-possess opposing teams.

So are we supposed to only be happy with a coach who is the opposite and gets out-chanced, out-shot, and out-possessed regularly?

Peters was and has been #1 on my wish list for next Head Coach since way before Gulutzan was fired. I'll be absolutely ecstatic if it's him and by all accounts, it's looking like it will be him!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

It’s isnt that we hate possession.

It’s more that there are two kinds of possession teams

Teams like Tampa, Boston, Vegas, Pittsburg, etc who have strong possession but they do it through transition and constant pressure. They defend as a five man unit but transition north south very quickly

And then teams like Calgary last year where we defend as a five man unit but we also slowly move up the ice compared to teams in the other group. How many times did our forward onthe boards pass back or the d to d pass instead of going forward with the puck as soon as it was regained.

This is why people on here don’t like possession hockey because all we really know as flames fans is the slow and plodding possession game which doesn’t yield the same results and excitement as the quick transition possession game

So what tells everyone here that Peters coaches slow plodding transitions? Nothing, that's what.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by AustinL_NHL

From what I'm gathering, people here hate Peters because his teams also tend to out-chance, out-shoot, and out-possess opposing teams.

So are we supposed to only be happy with a coach who is the opposite and gets out-chanced, out-shot, and out-possessed regularly?

No, people are hating on him because he's a "possession" coach, whatever that means, and because he has a losing record (but with a crappy team).

[flamesfever]

I am not all that impressed with Peter's record. However, you can't always predict how players will react to a new coach, and my hope is that things will change for the good. I am also hopeful that a few key trades, or acquisitions, will also mean the difference.

I've always had high expectations for the team, at the start of each season for the past number of years, and ended up being disappointed. Perhaps this year, when my expectations are significantly lower, the opposite will occur and the team will, to my surprise, outperform.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by AustinL_NHL

From what I'm gathering, people here hate Peters because his teams also tend to out-chance, out-shoot, and out-possess opposing teams.

So are we supposed to only be happy with a coach who is the opposite and gets out-chanced, out-shot, and out-possessed regularly?

No, we will be happy with a coach whose team outscores their opponent regularly.

[dieHARDflameZ]

I’m going to take the wait and see approach. There’s no sense *****ing and moaning about something we have no control over and have yet to see what the on-ice results are.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

So what tells everyone here that Peters coaches slow plodding transitions? Nothing, that's what.

I also think this description of the Flames transition as slow and prodding is a little overblown. I agree that it looked that way most of the time at the Saddledome, but the team seemed to always play with a lot more pace and fluidity in the neutral zone on the road.

I still think the problems with the system are easily correctible, and that the key to fixing this group lies in unravelling why they were so bad at home, and so bad on the powerplay.