Burke coming up on FAN960

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But don't you look to what they're doing and ask yourself if that's what they're being told to do, or are you looking at players making mistakes?

I know I do.

If the powerplay featured three guys standing in front of the net trying to screen at the same time I'd be all over the coaching staff for having a ridiculous system.

Nobody coaches to turn over the puck. Nobody coaches to take stupid penalties.

Skill players aren't making skilled plays, and those said skill plays are the part of the game that isn't coached, it's feel, read and guts.

Zone entries on the PP are coached. Early you would see things like dropping and trying to skate through a wall that they didn't back off, not adjust to the weak side.

Sorry, the coaches can't be given a pass. It doesn't make sense.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Other than seemingly parroting the very obvious, what was the point of him even spending time on the radio?

Driving traffic for Calgarypuck

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But don't you look to what they're doing and ask yourself if that's what they're being told to do, or are you looking at players making mistakes?

I know I do.

If the powerplay featured three guys standing in front of the net trying to screen at the same time I'd be all over the coaching staff for having a ridiculous system.

Nobody coaches to turn over the puck. Nobody coaches to take stupid penalties.

Skill players aren't making skilled plays, and those said skill plays are the part of the game that isn't coached, it's feel, read and guts.

Hockey is a game of mistakes and also a game of instincts. I believe some coaches can over-focus on systems at the expense of the natural intuitions of the players that as you say, feel and read the game. Right now it looks like that read and feel has been destroyed by overthinking, over strategizing. Some players can take that well (the bottom lines have), other players don't. We saw the exact same thing in the Brent Sutter era.

All I know is you need your best players firing on all cylinders, and right now they all seem stifled. The Flames were a fast and offensively gifted team when they had their most recent success and it seems like they are being tuned in completely different direction that our best players aren't very well suited for. I'm not saying they should play all out river hockey but its up to Gulutzan to figure out how to get the best of all his players, not just the grinders.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Zone entries on the PP are coached. Early you would see things like dropping and trying to skate through a wall that they didn't back off, not adjust to the weak side.

Sorry, the coaches can't be given a pass. It doesn't make sense.

Don't think I've said they're not.

But what zone entry working in other cities have you seen not tried by the Flames?

That's my point. We see the quick pass at the blueline, we see the drop the puck way back to Gaudreau, and we see the dump in.

If the execution on all three is weak then you don't get the zone entry. That's the case right now. If the coaches were insisting on a dump in and then don't get it I'd be irrate

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

OK, but what type of question can be asked of Burke.

Players, coach all fall under the GM, no?

Legitimately, what is the scope of information Burke can comment on?

I will admit I didn't hear him, but from other posters on this form it appears he commented on the Flames top players not playing well, how they were forced to keep a rookie player. These are all the realm of the GM.

I think asking Burke positive player personnel questions, but not negative ones is disingenuous.

So he Burke gets prickly, good he should be.

I guess I wonder if this is media/journalism or lobbing of softballs.

It isn't about positive/negative, it is about the scope of the question and the altitude of it.
Asking the VP of Hockey Operations about the signing of, and playing of a #7 dman just makes no sense.
You would want to focus on the broader, more impactful items that are affecting the hockey team's performance.
And yes, there is an element of keeping a good relationship in place so you can talk to him again. But from what I understand, this wasn't a softball interview.

They didn't ask about Grossman, because despite all the discussion about him on here, he simply doesn't matter enough either way.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Driving traffic for Calgarypuck

Bingo truly is the most powerful man in Calgary.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Zone entries on the PP are coached. Early you would see things like dropping and trying to skate through a wall that they didn't back off, not adjust to the weak side.

Sorry, the coaches can't be given a pass. It doesn't make sense.

Every team has basically the same plays. Execution matters.

Not giving the coaches a pass (I hate the passive PK for example), but the special teams would look a lot better if the players were performing.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Other than seemingly parroting the very obvious, what was the point of him even spending time on the radio?

I didn't hear it, but wouldn't surprise me if it was to plug an up and coming event. Typically the only reason he ever shows up.

[Falclore]

Burke and the GM are telling the fans what they want to here in that the team should make the playoffs and compete this year. That is a 50/50 proposition at best entering the season. The big picture is this team is 1-3 years away from being able to win the division and compete for the cup. In talking to all the GM's out there there are 25+ teams that should be in the finals this year.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Hockey is a game of mistakes and also a game of instincts. I believe some coaches can over-focus on systems at the expense of the natural intuitions of the players that as you say, feel and read the game. Right now it looks like that read and feel has been destroyed by overthinking, over strategizing. Some players can take that well (the bottom lines have), other players don't. We saw the exact same thing in the Brent Sutter era.

All I know is you need your best players firing on all cylinders, and right now they all seem stifled. The Flames were a fast and offensively gifted team when they had their most recent success and it seems like they are being tuned in completely different direction that our best players aren't very well suited for. I'm not saying they should play all out river hockey but its up to Gulutzan to figure out how to get the best of all his players, not just the grinders.

Don't disagree at all.

However at some point a coach had to come in and get the Flames best players to play in a way that will win. Win in October and win in May. Stretch passes and blocked shots with the hope that the transition will result in enough goals to get by was never going to get this team anywhere.

Growing pains to fix it is understandable.

But the NHL is a system based business. If these players can't play in a system they're not going to find another NHL city where they find success.

[Toonage]

My favorite failed entry is the slingshot where they approach the opposition blue line and then fire a back pass through the neutral zone for Brodie to try and march in. Meanwhile the opposing team sets up and waits.

I guess my point is that even when they do execute, the plan can still stink.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Other than seemingly parroting the very obvious, what was the point of him even spending time on the radio?

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

It isn't about positive/negative, it is about the scope of the question and the altitude of it.
Asking the VP of Hockey Operations about the signing of, and playing of a #7 dman just makes no sense.
You would want to focus on the broader, more impactful items that are affecting the hockey team's performance.
And yes, there is an element of keeping a good relationship in place so you can talk to him again. But from what I understand, this wasn't a softball interview.

They didn't ask about Grossman, because despite all the discussion about him on here, he simply doesn't matter enough either way.

The play of the D-corps on this team is impactful, not just Grossman per se.

I still don't get the scope of questions that would be appropriate for Burke.

I think that Burke should expect tough/direct questions when he comes on after the last two games by the team. I get that all this isn't on Grossman (sadly, cuz that would be an easy fix), but I think all questions should be on the table for Burke to deal with both macro & micro.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Gaudreau is a great example. 95% of what makes Gaudreau "Johnny Hockey" is the innate ability to create which isn't coached at all. I don't think Dave Cameron is taking him aside and telling him how to button hook away from traffic or mix up his edges through the neutral zone to fool defensemen. The guy is coaching on a break out, positioning in his own zone, and who to pick up on the back check.

Coughing the puck up, not using his teammates, turning it over with bobbles on his stick is 100% on the player and he'd be the first to tell you that.

It does seem curious that Gaudreau is having all these problems now, and he didn't with his college coaches, Hartley, the WHC coaches, and with McLellan at the World Cup. Maybe all those other coaches just let him play his game and GG is the first to try to impose a system with defensive responsibility on him. I don't know. But he's been productive with a bunch of different coaches and systems before.

Originally Posted by zamler

Goal scoring is not so much a problem for the Flames they are 9th in the league. Team can't keep the puck out of their own net dead last in goals against. If the team was middle of the pack in GA very likely we'd have 3-4 more wins.

I think it's time for Flames fans to recognize that our GA wasn't all down to goaltending last season. The Flames are a poor defensive team. Period. And have been for years. It's a problem of both coaching and personnel. Too many players who get a lot of ice time are indifferent - at best - without the puck. Their scoring stats may have blinded fans to the deficiencies in the other aspects of their game.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Every team has basically the same plays. Execution matters.

Not giving the coaches a pass (I hate the passive PK for example), but the special teams would look a lot better if the players were performing.

I think execution still falls on coaching. The team on the ice looks like they are having trouble reading the other team, and then making poor decisions. They need to anticipate and have a counter.

Again, the drop pass as used by the Flames early this year seemed to be running in to a brick wall, dropping for the sake of dropping, then having the next guy try and run through the same wall. Not, say, drawing the outnumbered team to one side, then dropping, and attacking the weak side.

When some good teams get the zone on the PP, you can sometimes see them adjust from an umbrella to, say, a half boards driven structure. There is some fluidity that forces the defenders to be on the ball.

Seems like the Flames are at the point where they are trying to execute plan A, and when the opposing team is reading it, their adjustment to plan B is problematic.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The play of the D-corps on this team is impactful, not just Grossman per se.

I still don't get the scope of questions that would be appropriate for Burke.

.

Right, so they way I would have framed a question is exactly at that level. Don't ask about a specific player or coaching decision, but just ask about the blueline overall.
Something like
"Traditionally, the blueline has been a strength for this club, but top to bottom, it seems like they are struggling right now. What are you seeing right now when it comes to the play of the D".

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It does seem curious that Gaudreau is having all these problems now, and he didn't with his college coaches, Hartley, the WHC coaches, and with McLellan at the World Cup. Maybe all those other coaches just let him play his game and GG is the first to try to impose a system with defensive responsibility on him. I don't know. But he's been productive with a bunch of different coaches and systems before.

I do agree with Burke when he mentions how a player sometimes behaves after signing their first big deal and I think thats what we're seeing with Johnny. In the example(s) you noted above he never had the weight of big money expectations on him.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It does seem curious that Gaudreau is having all these problems now, and he didn't with his college coaches, Hartley, the WHC coaches, and with McLellan at the World Cup. Maybe all those other coaches just let him play his game and GG is the first to try to impose a system with defensive responsibility on him. I don't know. But he's been productive with a bunch of different coaches and systems before.

But are you seeing that?

A system that is taking away from Gaudreau's ability to be Gaudreau? Or are you seeing him doing the same things he's always done but with mistakes, bad reads, and bobbling the puck uncharacteristically?

I certainly don't see the team playing the left wing lock with Gaudreau the defensive conscious of the first line.

[Shazam]

This is a team with a bunch of players that haven't played in a formal system in years.

Years.

Hartley had no system. It was run and gun. There were literally two offensive zone entry plays. There was no PK system. There was no PP system. It was total ad hoc.

For the first time in years, many of the players on the team have to think before they make a play.

Hell this may not work out at all. It wouldn't surprise me. Many of the players have fallen into very, very bad habits as a result.

[868904]

On the topic of systems and execution, I don't know what it is about this team cause this goes back many years, but i'm always amazed at how they are unable to execute a proper "dump and chase".

It is the simplest zone entry available, but it never works for the Flames in recent years because of poor execution.

Puck carrier dumps the puck into a corner, forwards who are not the puck carrier attack with speed into said corner, retrieve the puck or battle for puck.

Yet, recent Flames teams will always screw up in one of if not all of the following ways:

- No speed by forechecking "chaser";
- dumped into the wrong corner;
- "dumper" holds on too long, forcing "chaser" to slow down at the blueline, resulting in no speed on the forecheck;
- wrong forechecker (ie., Johnny Gaudreau should not be the "chaser" when Monahan and Chiasson are his linemates, makes no sense);
- weak dump.

It's almost like under Hartley and now Gulutzan, they never practice a "dump and chase". You see other teams do it very well against a very mobile Flames defence and you wonder, why can't the Flames do the same thing?

If you eliminate one potential zone entry, you make it much easier for the opposition to defend you.

[MarkGio]

Is there a link to this interview?