Burke coming up on FAN960

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You make a few leaps there.

"He specifically mentioned that he's not happy with the special teams, so that's on coaching" - players don't play on special teams? why boil it down to coaching only? why say he's boiling it down to coaching? He didn't say that at all.

the rest is based on what he didn't say to prove that he thinks the opposite?

I don't follow that logic at all.

Well he mentioned firstly coaching, and then mention another point as top players, ergo, the two things were distinguished. When he mentioned the issues with top players, not once did he associate his problems with special teams.

And a lack of evidence doesn't "prove" a dissatisfaction with coaching, but it is circumstantial. A hockey club has three simple sources of performance: 1) players, 2) coaching, 3) management, so all discussion can be boiled down to these areas. Since Burke has no trouble giving praise, a lack of praise can be clues IMO. It's like if you're boss has been ignoring you for some time and all of a sudden you get laid off. People do give subtle clues in their behavior

[JiriHrdina]

Given the record no one deserves praise. The absence of praise doesn't really tell us anything

[neo45]

There was a thread at the start of the season, before the first game against the oilers where it was revealed that this awful new coach wanted Wideman to be on the top pairing with Giordano and wanted Brodie to play his offside Engelland. He also wanted Grossmann on the 3rd pairing to give us a slow defenseman on the ice at all times. I lost all faith in the coaching staff as soon as I saw that.

The game went exactly as expected. McDavid had his way with our team and we lost all confidence before we ever had a chance.


People can blame poor execution of players as much as they want but every indication so far is that we have a coach wth zero hockey sense at the helm. Have any of his experiments worked??

Further to that, have any of his experiments not been a massive massive failure?? It's very easy to point to a player or two after a loss and say "poor execution here". The star players haven't been put in a position to succeed because our coach seemingly has no idea how to use their strengths.

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by neo45

There was a thread at the start of the season, before the first game against the oilers where it was revealed that this awful new coach wanted Wideman to be on the top pairing with Giordano and wanted Brodie to play his offside Engelland. He also wanted Grossmann on the 3rd pairing to give us a slow defenseman on the ice at all times. I lost all faith in the coaching staff as soon as I saw that.

The game went exactly as expected. McDavid had his way with our team and we lost all confidence before we ever had a chance.


People can blame poor execution of players as much as they want but every indication so far is that we have a coach wth zero hockey sense at the helm. Have any of his experiments worked??

Further to that, have any of his experiments not been a massive massive failure?? It's very easy to point to a player or two after a loss and say "poor execution here". The star players haven't been put in a position to succeed because our coach seemingly has no idea how to use their strengths.

I think the best parts of our team this year have actually been the pairs that Treliving brought up at the end of last year. Obviously Mony & Johnny haven't been working yet, but Bennett - Brouwer and Backlund - Frolik have worked as well as we could have asked together. Not like it takes rocket science to make those pairs though.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Just a couple of points off the top of my head.

First, I am not surprised that the morning crew didn't ask about the coaching. They really wouldn't dare. It has been a hot topic of discussion on air for some time, so to downplay it as 'they know better than to think coaching is a problem' or 'it is too early to discuss it' is incongruent with many discussions on the Fan. They are just smart enough not to ask him (or were told not to), and/or they know that Burke would just give the only answer anyone in his position would give - would support the coach.

Systems - people talk about the stretch pass like it was the only zone entry that the Flames utilized under Hartley. It wasn't. What the stretch pass did, however, was open up space for the team, allowing more talented players like Gaudreau some more time. 5 man units are great as well, but to defend it the opposing team will clog up the neutral zone more. Teams have to have balance.

This team is still much better at scoring off the rush than cycling, though the cycling game is improving PERSONNEL-WISE. You are still going to look terrible along the boards against the LAs and the Anaheims of the league, however.

One thing that this team absolutely doesn't have is any swagger at all. People will point at the 'comeback wins' from the year that they made the playoffs as 'unsustainable' - of course it was. What should have sustained itself was that swagger. The Flames lost much of it last season (under Hartley - could have been inept goaltending that rattled them, or simply lost it due to losing). This season they look absolutely 'wimpy' out there for the most part. I expected a lot more physicality from them. Flames are not flush with the highly skilled finesse type of players. They are not a black and blue intimidating team either. They don't have swagger. They don't have a real identity any longer. Under Hartley, they were a 'young and hard-working team'. Right now, they seem to be a lot of different things.

Nothing brings back swagger like winning. Swagger can also come from actually physically dominating opposing teams as well. They at least need to start finishing their checks more often. Get back to the basics. This team doesn't have much of a pulse.

With that being said, is it the coach? All I know is that there should be no defending of any players, coaching staff or management staff at this point. The only players that should be completely absolved of being part of the problem are Backlund, Frolik and Tkachuk. Maybe add Stajan and Ferland in there as well. Literally everyone else has been having at least a couple real bad games now and then, and some have had nearly every single one of their games as 'bad'.

What do you do? The only thing you can do is ride this out. There isn't going to be a coaching change. Looks like Gulutzan is on for just the year, so if he has any hopes of an extension - or any hopes of ever being a head coach ever again - he will do whatever it takes to right this ship.

I am of the opinion that this team isn't good enough yet anyways, regardless of the coach, to win a cup. I would have liked to see the in the playoffs, both to enjoy watching them, and also for them to gain that valuable experience, but this team wasn't going to challenge this year. I think they have enough horses to do it eventually, but the players themselves aren't mature enough and don't have enough experience as a group.

This team hasn't played a strong defensive system since Darryl (maybe Playfair as well) stepped away from the head coaching job. Keenan had them playing without structure. Brent Sutter spent 3 seasons trying to make this team play a system that wasn't suited to them. Hartley got this team playing 'as a team' again for the first time since Darryl Sutter, but it wasn't that strong defensively.

Can Gulutzan change this team's mindset? There is a certain culture on this team still. They are used to playing run and gun river hockey, and it started under Keenan. Now, I am not going to blame Keenan - a coach that is 7 years removed from the team - for this team's ills. However, what this team hasn't done since Keenan's first season as head coach was play a sound, defensive system in which they could consistently close out games defensively.

If it takes a full season of Gulutzan forcing this team to play defence - as long as the system is sound unlike Brent Sutter's system that was an ill-fit for the team - resulting in a losing season, then so be it. They can't play LA's system. They can't play St. Louis' system. Those systems are still very much geared for playing along the boards, cycling and powering guys off the puck. Unless Hunter Smith, Carroll, Kanzig, Falkovsky and some other notable large players that can play a more physical brand of hockey develop enough and graduate into significant roles on the team, those systems just won't work, especially when having to go up against those aforementioned teams. If you are smaller, you have to beat those teams with speed, a wider variety of zone entries and high-pressure defence.

What Hartley brought to this organization was the 'hard-working' mentality, and a creative offence (and once again, much more than just relying on stretch passes, as Hartley also had dump-ins, back-passing, and everything else Gulutzan is running right now too). Those things shouldn't be discarded. A better defensive awareness and a better defensive system need to be implemented, but the strength of this team offensively is still very much derived from a very mobile and offensive back-end.

The culture on this team is one that doesn't believe in strong defensive systems to win games, and that just simply has to change - either with Gulutzan (who will become a lame-duck if this team doesn't start performing better defensively by mid-season) or his eventual replacement.

I am not a fan of the coaching hire, but the only coaches I think this team really needs are all taken - Sutter, Trotz, Babcock and maybe Hitchcock. They are all known for having strong systems, are very respected (unless your name is Commodore) and all have successfully implemented strong defensive systems. I am sure there are others - and I won't rule out Gulutzan either (still too early to tell, even if it means the season may be lost by the time he shows himself to be the right hire). This to me is what has been ailing this franchise since Darryl stopped being a coach.

Actually, this is what has ailed the Franchise when this team was coached by anyone other than Badger Bob (and I guess Crisp) and Darryl Sutter. Though the defensive system was weaker, Hartley at least got this team to play as a team, if even just for 1.5 seasons. Other than that, I really believe this team has suffered from a lack of competent coaching, and it has become ingrained in the culture of this team.

As for now, you can't give Gulutzan the vote of confidence, and you can't dismiss him either. You just have to ride it out and hope that he is indeed capable of turning this team around given enough time - even if it means that this season is lost.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You make a few leaps there.

"He specifically mentioned that he's not happy with the special teams, so that's on coaching" - players don't play on special teams? why boil it down to coaching only? why say he's boiling it down to coaching? He didn't say that at all.

the rest is based on what he didn't say to prove that he thinks the opposite?

I don't follow that logic at all.

yep ... having a Laine as a trigger man on the PP makes coaches a lot smarter and PP systems a lot better.

It is Burke's fault for not being lucky enough to move up in the lottery.

[Wood]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Just a couple of points

*Longest post in CP history*

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Frick do I hate this argument.

The company man? Just love it when someone just labels you when you don't agree with them, such a weak weak argument.

It's like a pessimist calling out an optimist.

It's November 7th today. That month is pretty close to October. Hell Haynes even listed out the average turnaround for new coaches is at 18 games over the past several years.

If you want to overreact and panic fill your boots, but forgive me for not being a lemming and jump with you.

I see the Flames system as dramatically improved from last season. I see the execution some nights as not so much. I don't think they're coaching turnovers, or Gaudreau to try and beat everyone himself, or Bennett to hook someone every time he gets a chance, or to make sure they blow all four of the NHL trusted zone entries for powerplays, or to cough the puck up whenever you get a chance.

It's nonsensical.

But go ahead and call me a company man ... but man the Flames are about 17 years behind on their cheques

For the record I said "you sound like a company man" and I took offense to the bolded below which is clear misinformation as we know the coach plays a role in how well his players are playing. I've been pretty diplomatic saying many times that the players have to be better but as has been discussed all the top players on this team are playing their worst career hockey and that simply can't be a coincidence. There's more here than just players not playing to their capabilities and the head coach is as much part of the problem as the players are at this point.

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't think most think the coaching staff is the question of the day. When you're top players aren't playing well it's not the coach ... and I would think Burke would be pretty qualified to land at that assessment on his own.

Good on the morning crew for not lofting stupid questions.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Timbo

Semantics , you know what I was getting at. Maybe I should have used harbinger.

Or maybe even yet, foreshadowing is fine as it's defined.

verb (used with object)
1.
to show or indicate beforehand; prefigure:
Political upheavals foreshadowed war.

This is a common usage, but a bad one. Bad historians tend to write that way, because they already know what happened next, and think that it was inevitable, and that all previous events can be interpreted as signs pointing in that direction. Dictionaries report the way words are used; they don't distinguish whether a word is used in an intelligent statement or a foolish one.

Next time I will get my lawyer to insure my posts on CP don't get the minutae police after me

How about you just don't toss around language that implies that you know the future?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Wood

*Longest post in CP history*

I didn't say they would be a concise couple of points.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

For the record I said "you sound like a company man" and I took offense to the bolded below which is clear misinformation as we know the coach plays a role in how well his players are playing. I've been pretty diplomatic saying many times that the players have to be better but as has been discussed all the top players on this team are playing their worst career hockey and that simply can't be a coincidence. There's more here than just players not playing to their capabilities and the head coach is as much part of the problem as the players are at this point.

Misinformation?

Who are you to say my opinion is misinformation?

You suggest I "sound" like a company man, and now I post misinformation, yet you're the one that took offense?

I don't think you can just name off four players not playing well, suggest it's not a coincidence and then link it to a coach as a matter of fact. Three of the four players struggling are starting brand new expensive contracts, that seems a little more tied to performance than a head coach that can't possibly coach skilled players to lose the yips.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Can Gulutzan change this team's mindset? There is a certain culture on this team still. They are used to playing run and gun river hockey, and it started under Keenan. Now, I am not going to blame Keenan - a coach that is 7 years removed from the team - for this team's ills. However, what this team hasn't done since Keenan's first season as head coach was play a sound, defensive system in which they could consistently close out games defensively.

Agree with a lot of what you said but how can the Keenan era have any influence on this team? The only player around from then is Giordano. That old team is ancient history.

The other thing I find quite interesting, and I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me on this one -- why is the offensive style of play automatically dismissed as one that can't succeed? IMO the two best Flames teams since D. Sutter, both in results and entertainment -- Keenan's Flames and Hartley's Flames. None of coaches that leaned more towards rigid systems really achieved anything compared to those guys.

There seems to be this general assumption that a rigid system is needed for success. I don't necessarily think that's true. I think you give the team a framework to play within but ultimately you need your best players to do what they do best in order to win. Sometimes that means loosening the reigns and letting them go.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

yep ... having a Laine as a trigger man on the PP makes coaches a lot smarter and PP systems a lot better.

It is Burke's fault for not being lucky enough to move up in the lottery.

Well having Laine in the slot or down low or at the point is different than having Laine at the half wall ready to pull the trigger. Having a good entry and set-up is important to allowing Laine to pull the trigger. And allowing Laine to pull the trigger is different than asking for point shots and digging for second chances.

It's not like the Flames don't have the assets to make a successful power play. We don't need Laine.

[FaFaFlamey]

I think the most frustrating part of this is that most of us have been watching sports for many years and we are just disappointed by how things are going this year. You see who they get in the summer and it always seems to play out in a positive way in your head. (Johnny will have an even better year, as will Sam and Sean, now we have goaltending, Tkachuk will be awesome, we have a new coach with new ideas, we have Brouwer...etc etc etc). It's a disappointing feeling when none of this really works out. As much as everyone here hates the Oilers, you have to admit, all they ever did was keep drafting number 1 picks over and over and that still didn't work. Obviously, it's not easy rebuilding a team and having things work out quickly. The trouble is that we really haven't had much success over the last twenty years and people start to get tired of it. All I can say is, I sure hope this isn't gonna be yet another year where we struggle, but it kind of looks like that's where they are headed. Here's hoping they turn it around.

[Timbo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

How about you just don't toss around language that implies that you know the future?

Where in my post did I imply I knew the future?
I said either an over reaction or a foreshadowing of things to come.
I gave no bias to either stance. I feel that waiting another 14 games will give us a better outlook on the state of Flames position. Why, well in that time frame we meet the Ducks on Dec 4. The regular season is slightly over 1/3 completed.

How about you don't toss out random conclusions to something that wasn't said.
You are obviously looking for an argument where one is not needed. I am not an antagonistic poster nor will I be goaded into being one.
Maybe you just misunderstood what I was trying to communicate.

This will be my last post on the matter.
Have a good day.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Timbo

Where in my post did I imply I knew the future?
I said either an over reaction or a foreshadowing of things to come.

You implied it by using the word ‘foreshadowing’. Period.

Even if the future turns out as badly as the present (which is highly unlikely), what we are seeing at present is an overreaction. The time for such a strong reaction has not yet arrived. The posters who are most upset, and who want Gulutzan, Treliving, or Burke to be fired, are precisely the ones saying this is a lost season: which is to say, they are reacting to events that have not yet occurred and may never happen. Based on present events alone, they are overreacting. Their reaction is justified only if the future turns out as they predict.

[Isikiz]

[shadowlord]

Here's my observations:

Yes, Johnny is doing all the button-hooks at the line and unable to gain the zone. Obviously, he didn't just forget how to play hockey. What's happening is that GG's 5-man system is forcing his teammates in the wrong spots that don't help Johnny, so he can't make an effective play. I also think that Johnny should use his shot more, but he tends to take shots that get blocked, which means he's not able to find those open spaces. Again, it's GG's system that's forcing Johnny to the crowded spots so that he can support his teammates who are following the system.

The team has zero speed, and can't play dump-and-chase. I watched a TB game, and their forecheckers have about 20-30% more speed and are noticeably quicker to the puck on dump-ins. Plus, I'm not sure GG's possession-based system even allow for dump-ins.

The damn 5-man unit thing always results in at least 2 players waiting at the blue line during zone entries. Almost every game, I see at least one player desperately stretch his back leg to stay on-side during a zone entry; because they tried to jump the gun and enter the zone with speed while puck carrier is trailing behind. Putting themselves off-balance and off-stride usually means they can't get around a defender or catch up to a pass soon enough.

I'm not saying the Flames players are slow, but GG's system has snuffed out our speed game.

Just watch the next games for the following things:

1) Johnny having no one to pass to on a zone-entry and coughing up the puck. Read: System is putting teammates in poor positions.
2) Johnny not using his shot, or shooting with a crowd in front of him.
3) Non-puck carrying forwards standing at the line unable to enter the zone with speed.
4) Wasted dump-ins where the opposition gets to the puck first.

This is all on coaching. If this is how the system works, then the system sucks. If the players aren't executing the system correctly, then HE NEEDS TO COACH the players to tell them where to go. Either way, by 14 games, something should have sunk in by now.

I could see if it is not working with 1 or 2 players; but we have so many top players underperforming, that this is not an individual player attitude problem.

[PepsiFree]

Big fan of the "foreshadowing" argument that's randomly going on in the midst of this.

Serious question though:
If it's a terrible system, if it's on coaching, why is it working just fine for a big group of players?

I'm not saying coaching isn't partially responsible, it just seems like people don't want to focus on more than coaching despite the fact that Tkachuk, Bennett, Brouwer, Backlund and Frolik are outplaying Gaudreau and Monahan by a big margin, while Jokipakka and Kulak aren't just playing better than Wideman or Grossman, they're playing just at well as (or better than) Gio and Brodie.

This isn't a "system works for only one type of player." Multiple different players who succeed with different styles are doing the same or better than our very best guys.

The players who seem to "get it" are doing well, and the players that don't (and those that just suck in general) are not.

Is the system bad? I don't think so. Are the pairings bad? Not necessarily (people seem to forget that Brodie/Engelland was great when Gio went down). Is our coach failing to get through to the star players? Absolutely.

Whatever the problem, neither seems to be working hard enough to resolve it, but I don't think it's a system issue.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Big fan of the "foreshadowing" argument that's randomly going on in the midst of this.

Serious question though:
If it's a terrible system, if it's on coaching, why is it working just fine for a big group of players?

I'm not saying coaching isn't partially responsible, it just seems like people don't want to focus on more than coaching despite the fact that Tkachuk, Bennett, Brouwer, Backlund and Frolik are outplaying Gaudreau and Monahan by a big margin, while Jokipakka and Kulak aren't just playing better than Wideman or Grossman, they're playing just at well as (or better than) Gio and Brodie.

This isn't a "system works for only one type of player." Multiple different players who succeed with different styles are doing the same or better than our very best guys.

The players who seem to "get it" are doing well, and the players that don't (and those that just suck in general) are not.

Is the system bad? I don't think so. Are the pairings bad? Not necessarily (people seem to forget that Brodie/Engelland was great when Gio went down). Is our coach failing to get through to the star players? Absolutely.

Whatever the problem, neither seems to be working hard enough to resolve it, but I don't think it's a system issue.

Some players respond and play better in different systems and some perform better when they allowed to react and create at their own pace (like most elite talents).

A good coach knows how to get the best out of different types of players and doesn't stick to one template. Right now, Gulutzan is getting acceptable results from bottom 9 players, but the elite talents are suffering.

Poor coaching doesn't mean that every player is going to suck at the same rate. A lot of people didn't like Hartley or Keenan, but they had histories of getting career years out of skilled players. Not every player sucked on the Oilers under Eakins either, but the overall results were terrible. It happens.

Just to add, systems is only one aspect of coaching and not even necessarily the most important aspect. Being able to adapt, make decisions on the fly, motivate, manage personalities, manage the bench, communicating with officials and staff, running effective practices, knowing when to push and know when to punish/reward, etc.... One can be a bad coach even if the system isn't the main issue.