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.
Just heard the interview which is now up on FAN 960.
The scope of questions would be anything that falls under BB's purview. Would assume that includes coaches, systems, players and organization-level logistics (which most people don't really care about...).
I totally agree that asking only positive questions is disingenuous - it does the fans no favours and smacks of homerism. Much the same way that announcers on Sportsnet (or many other broadcasters) NEVER smack NHL officials for their often half-baked calls. Call 'em out - that's your job. Or at least ask the hard questions.
The FAN960 crew could have quite legitimately asked BB: "There's a lot of fan anger, angst and confusion out there on forums, discussion groups and at the water cooler about the Flames. What do you have to say to those fans asking for someone's head?"
And, equally legitimately, BB could have responded with "Patience, development blah blah" - whatever he wants.
But ASK the question in a responsible way.
In two months, if nothing has changed - then one can go back to that question and argue that the query was made - and now what?
The Following User Says Thank You to taxbuster For This Useful Post:
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.
This makes a lot of sense, especially the part about the elite talents suffering. You would think that it would be reasonable that one of them would be suffering (for whatever reason), but all of them over the same stretch of time does point to a coaching problem of some sort.
It makes me think that there is a player attitude problem going the other way that GG can't handle. What I mean by that is that when I have seen the elite talent play, it looks they have fallen into the trap of believing that they were going to win through combined individual greatness instead of true, coordinated, team play. Now that individual greatness has failed to get results, they are all stuck having to fight against their own individual instincts every moment of the game and countless poor decisions have resulted. GG just can't seem to fix it. To be fair to him, to the extent that I think it is a problem with individuals, I'm sure how fast anyone else could.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThisIsAnOutrage For This Useful Post:
It's pretty understandable to be upset by what we've seen on the ice. It's fine to say it's the players fault and the best players aren't producing. Because it's true.
I am on board with preaching patience because that's all you can reasonably do right now.
But yet another woeful season for this franchise is not going to go over well with ownership. So there will be plenty of hot seats to go around if things don't improve.
The FAN960 crew could have quite legitimately asked BB: "There's a lot of fan anger, angst and confusion out there on forums, discussion groups and at the water cooler about the Flames. What do you have to say to those fans asking for someone's head?"
And, equally legitimately, BB could have responded with "Patience, development blah blah" - whatever he wants.
When you have a fairly good idea of what sort of questions he's not going to give valuable answers on, or what sort of questions will make it less likely for you to get good answers on other questions, why ask them? To appease a few people who randomly what the "tough questions" asked even though the lack of answer would get just as negative of a reaction (if not more so)?
I might be in the minority here, but I really liked what Burke had to say. He could have easily chased individuals or coaches (much like Ottawa's owner did). Instead in what seems to be a calculated move he goes out and shows that at the most senior levels in the organization the president is alligned with fan sentiment and that continued futility is not acceptable. He was direct and specific in this response. That is how a senior manager puts pressure onto all members of an organization without micromanaging.
The questions that fans want answers too are Brad's department. I respect Brian for not taking these over at the first sign of trouble.
__________________
Go Flames Go
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to tkflames For This Useful Post:
The correct answer would have been "The coaching staff knows we are unhappy with the results, but it wouldn't be fair to any new coaching staff to only give them 14 games".
Would be ridiculous for the fan 960 guys to even ask if the coaches are on the hot seat IMO.
The Following User Says Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
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.
Teams are figuring out how to exploit Gulutzan's breakout/zone-entry system.
1.) D tries for outlet: Send in single forechecker, clog neutral zone to prevent stretch pass/force a tipped dump-in
2.) D tries to skate it out, send in another forechecker to prevent D to D pass
3.) D and Fs try to skate it out as a 5 man unit - line four guys up across the blue line to force the dump in
The dump-in is still an option but it requires very good timing... need one or more forwards with tremendous steam crossing the blue line at around the same time the puck is fired in. We have not yet found a way to do that, so on those dump-ins we get beat to pucks and lose board battles as a result.
__________________
Until the Flames make the Western Finals again, this signature shall remain frozen.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Gaskal For This Useful Post:
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.
Well, the premise of my post is that culture is passed down. Though no players who were coached by Keenan, the culture doesn't suddenly change when the last remaining player leaves. Detroit and New Jersey just keep on going with their existing culture because as new players are brought in, they buy-in and eventually get the next generation to buy-in as well. The opposite is maybe happening with this team - just an inability to buy-in, possibly, and that has been an ongoing issue for many years in Calgary.
I am also not pointing the finger at Keenan and saying "It is all his fault" - it could very well have started under Playfair somewhat, especially with the lack of respect he had during his time in Calgary.
This is of course me just guessing anyways - I just see a pattern of the Flames over many coaches having a difficult time buying-into any solid defensive systems. However, this team also seems to suffer from a difficult time in hiring competent coaching (not saying Gulutzan is one of them, as it is still too early to tell).
The Following User Says Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
I might be in the minority here, but I really liked what Burke had to say. He could have easily chased individuals or coaches (much like Ottawa's owner did). Instead in what seems to be a calculated move he goes out and shows that at the most senior levels in the organization the president is alligned with fan sentiment and that continued futility is not acceptable. He was direct and specific in this response. That is how a senior manager puts pressure onto all members of an organization without micromanaging.
The questions that fans want answers too are Brad's department. I respect Brian for not taking these over at the first sign of trouble.
Completely agreed. Just heard it now. Good interview good questions without coming across aa a witch hunt and then Burke himself stated why he isn't slamming guys by name for struggles.
The Following User Says Thank You to bubbsy For This Useful Post:
Well I'm wondering what people think these PP coaching strategies are that we are missing out on. End of the day you need a group of 5 that is creative and executes. Certain plays can be drawn up, movement of players, zone entry, staggered traffic, etc, etc, but at end of the day players need to execute. Detroit PP for years was guy in front of net, Lidstrom big shot from the point. Simple, but effective. More importantly they had players who played their role and could get it to that point where it could be executed.
Right now top players can't create enough space to sustain pressure enough for decent scoring chances. The Backlund line on the other hand is. Not necessarily more skilled, but perhaps not thinking too much and more doing. I think Monahan needs to simplify his game a lot more, and Johnny needs to bring himself down make his linemates more effective. Very good at creating 3 seconds of space, and terrible at puck decisions after.
I think you need to be patient. They are character guys in that room. They'll figure it out.
I think another thing fundamentally wrong with the makeup of this team is that we lack a forward with the acceleration and speed to make defenders back off. Johnny can get going sometimes, but he's more of a shifty on his skates type rather than straight line speed.
Last year we had Raymond (but he sucked and got bought out, so moot).
2013-14 we had Byron. Ask yourself, who would you rather have on the team at the moment (assuming healthy) - Bouma or Byron? Pretty easily the latter for me.
And much before that I have to dig deeper to remember Matt Lombardi (who, much like Byron, had the speed but no hands) and Shean Donovan (actually had the hands to finish) It was the sheer speed and tenacity of that third line of Nieminen - Nilson - Donovan that drove everyone nuts during that playoff run, particularly Detroit.
But who do we have now with the kind of speed that will make defenders back off? There are some players who can skate well, like Gaudreau and Bennett, but they're not exactly roadrunners in the sense that the others above were.
We're actually a slower team than last year. I'm not looking forward to facing the Rangers this weekend... who have both Hagelin AND Grabner to throw at us.
__________________
Until the Flames make the Western Finals again, this signature shall remain frozen.
I think another thing fundamentally wrong with the makeup of this team is that we lack a forward with the acceleration and speed to make defenders back off. Johnny can get going sometimes, but he's more of a shifty on his skates type rather than straight line speed.
Gaudreau relies on his smarts to be in the right place. He an outside-the-box thinker and goes from point A to point C at a normal pace because he knows where point C is going to be when most players are still at point B. Unfortunately, I don't think it's what the coach wants. The system calls for specific patterns.
Hopefully more practices can sort this out.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I think a lot of our problems can be narrowed down to Gaudreau and Monahan playing below par. Both of them were Hartley's golden boys and they probably miss him, like Kane missed Savard when he was fired. It's time for them to get their chit in gear and play like they can. I thought they were half decent in Anaheim and I look forward to more from them.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
Why sign him, why play him any would do.
If Burke doesn't want difficult questions maybe he shouldn't go on air.
It is a legitimate question, many fans see Grossman and honestly scratch their head.
So to be clear it is ok to ask about other aspects of the team's play, IE: the best players not being our best, but it isn't ok to ask about why we play a tugboat like Grossman.
Where is the line with what he can answer or be asked. In that case, all questions should be broad based general hockey operations, with no discussion regarding on ice play or player/coaching issues.
So what can "we" ask Burke?
Burke shouldn't go on air when the reason he was there was to promote the superskills competition and how its a huge charity event for the Flames Foundation as well as a great tool for minor hockey teams as a fundraiser?
How it's a great and affordable way to get kids up close and personal with their hockey heroes as they are the future fanbase and season ticket holders?
You are suggesting he shouldn't do that without having to answer difficult questions about the hockey team? (which he absolutely did BTW just not about the coaching staff which is entirely understandable 14 freaking games into their tenure)
This place sucks sometimes.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
Gaudreau relies on his smarts to be in the right place. He an outside-the-box thinker and goes from point A to point C at a normal pace because he knows where point C is going to be when most players are still at point B. Unfortunately, I don't think it's what the coach wants. The system calls for specific patterns.
Hopefully more practices can sort this out.
Do you think they're dictating actual patterns that players should follow as in predefined routes? That would be sad if true and at this point I'm not saying it isn't a possibility.
I think another thing fundamentally wrong with the makeup of this team is that we lack a forward with the acceleration and speed to make defenders back off. Johnny can get going sometimes, but he's more of a shifty on his skates type rather than straight line speed.
Last year we had Raymond (but he sucked and got bought out, so moot).
2013-14 we had Byron. Ask yourself, who would you rather have on the team at the moment (assuming healthy) - Bouma or Byron? Pretty easily the latter for me.
And much before that I have to dig deeper to remember Matt Lombardi (who, much like Byron, had the speed but no hands) and Shean Donovan (actually had the hands to finish) It was the sheer speed and tenacity of that third line of Nieminen - Nilson - Donovan that drove everyone nuts during that playoff run, particularly Detroit.
But who do we have now with the kind of speed that will make defenders back off? There are some players who can skate well, like Gaudreau and Bennett, but they're not exactly roadrunners in the sense that the others above were.
We're actually a slower team than last year. I'm not looking forward to facing the Rangers this weekend... who have both Hagelin AND Grabner to throw at us.
Hagelin still plays for Pittsburgh, no? Kreider is pretty fast though too, and from the one game I watched (vs Oilers) they seemed pretty hard on the forecheck.
Do you think they're dictating actual patterns that players should follow as in predefined routes? That would be sad if true and at this point I'm not saying it isn't a possibility.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Ok. So all teams in the NHL have defensive structures and scout their opponents.
I hope you don't think that our beloved Flames don't require a strategy, and need to anticipate and read the opposing team's defenses.
In fact, one of the things that worked so well for Babcock in Detroit is that the players expected where their teammates should be, and this reduces the pressure of on ice uncertainty and guesswork, and contributes to the speed with which they can make decisions.
Unless I am misreading something, you have just suggested that coaching a team to help them be successful is sad.
Burke shouldn't go on air when the reason he was there was to promote the superskills competition and how its a huge charity event for the Flames Foundation as well as a great tool for minor hockey teams as a fundraiser?
How it's a great and affordable way to get kids up close and personal with their hockey heroes as they are the future fanbase and season ticket holders?
You are suggesting he shouldn't do that without having to answer difficult questions about the hockey team? (which he absolutely did BTW just not about the coaching staff which is entirely understandable 14 freaking games into their tenure)
This place sucks sometimes.
At the same time, if all they wanted to do was promote the Superskills, they could have sent Candace Goudie, who often does the radio promos when the Flames Foundation is involved. They sent Burke because they knew there were going to be questions about the performance of the team. And given how awful that performance has been, that there should be tough questions.
At the same time, if all they wanted to do was promote the Superskills, they could have sent Candace Goudie, who often does the radio promos when the Flames Foundation is involved. They sent Burke because they knew there were going to be questions about the performance of the team. And given how awful that performance has been, that there should be tough questions.
I don't think Burke is really the guy to answer the pointed, tough questions regarding coaching, systems, etc. We certainly didn't like it when King was president and getting overly involved in hockey operations and I don't think it's Burke's place to comment on coaching when Gulutzan is Treliving's guy. I have no issue with Treliving being asked the tough questions but anything Burke may have said may come out as undermining his GM. He certainly didn't hide the fact that he was not happy with the way the team is playing so I'm sure everything is being evaluated behind closed doors.
You're not winning any Cups without playing a solid system. If that means you burn a season learning the system then so be it. But if you're going to then burn it to the ground and get another high pick.
Otherwise, many of the complainers should take a look in the mirror. This is what happens when your expectations meet reality. This year's team is essentially last year's bad team with a better goalie and an expensive role-playing winger as the only changes. Way too much stock was put into the Flames' young players making another significant step this season. That didn't happen, and frankly it was a long shot to expect it to happen anyway.
My point is that, in retrospect, this team was likely not going places anyway this year. If that is the case then may as well make it a development year in forcing the players to learn to play as an NHL team in 2015 in the cap era instead of the 2000-01 Avalanche.
