Fire Gulutzan/Give him Coach of the year All Purpose Thread

[Bingo]

just talked to CapFriendly ... looking to see if they can update it with actuals, but it's just a place holder.

Everyone can stand down.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Another potential reason to put down your pitchforks for another couple of weeks:

https://twitter.com/DarrenWHaynes/st...44802427977728


With our ridiculous schedule so far, there is a case to be made that the Flames haven't had enough on-ice practice with the new system yet (especially Monahan and Gaudreau).

In other words, I think it's still a little premature to judge how some of our young guys will do under this system. They've only known Hartley's structure-less breakaway or die system since entering the NHL so it takes a while to smack those bad habits out of them. The system has really helped our bottom-9 and even players like Engelland who just need to keep it simple.

The Flames had a pretty brutal schedule, even more so knowing that they have a new coach, their top 2 players didn't have a training camp, and a lot of the opposition has been very strong.

The Flames best games of the year were against St Louis and Chicago on that mini road trip. I could see the semblance of a system there that actually worked really well. The transition game in those two games were amazing.

We also can't say that Gulutzan has not tried to mix things up. Monahan was on the 3rd line. Wideman has sat multiple games. Gio and Brodie are back together. When your top 3 guys are woefully underperforming, what can you do?

Gaudreau needs to be sat down and go back to the basics of hockey and learn a system. Teams know exactly how to defend him, teams prepare a gameplan specifically to defend against him, and he needs to adapt.

There are some good signs, just please please never ever play Grossman again.

***Grossman on waivers!****

[polak]

I don't think Gaudreau has to sit, he just needs to spend tons of time with the video coach and watch how teams are defending him and work with the coaching staff to adapt a system towards it. Now this is what is particularly worrisome about the Gaudreau situation. Either:

A) They haven't done this yet which would mean we have the most inept and clueless staff in the league

-OR-

B) They have done this and it's just not working.

Now while we may have the most inept coaching staff in the league (stats back this up), I seriously doubt they haven't spent hours pouring over video trying to figure out a way to get that top line producing. Whatever they're doing just isn't working. What's troublesome though is the fact that this is hardly the first time teams have built a gameplan around stopping Johnny. I'm sure that was priority #1 early last year for every team playing the Flames.

I think his issue is just bad puck luck combined with frustration and over thinking things/trying to do too much. In a normal situation, all you would do is put a bit more responsibility on his line mates while he breaks out of his funk but unfortunately for the Flames, Monahan is the worst player on the team this season and looks lost out there.

I think they need to move him away from Sean and maybe get him playing a back to basics game with Backlund and Frolik or something. I don't know, but this is a huge problem this year. If these guys can't figure it out we will be the worst team in the league this year. Without a doubt. Backlund and Frolik cannot be the best players on an NHL team.

I have no idea where to begin with Monahan. He has no idea what he's doing out there. It's as if he forgot how to play hockey.

I really hope it's just a lack of practice time and things will get better after this stretch of days off.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Sometimes players just need to play through it.

You sit guys when they are not listening to the coach and doing their own thing, or when they are not putting in good efforts. I don't think anyone on the Flames have done that. Seems to be more of a confidence issue (at least 5v5 play), or even timing (though at this point in the season, that is a seriously tough argument to make). At any rate, sitting a player(s) who just seem to be having some confidence (or timing..) issues would just put more pressure on them, not less, and make things snowball.

Gulutzan has to just manage their ice time and line mates, and hopefully do better at line matching and finding a way to get more favorable matchups, and just find a way to help them get going again. Sitting them is just going to do more harm than good. Gulutzan trying to go 'power vs power' at the start of the season was the wrong move in light of Gaudreau's and Monahan's slow start and 'issues'. That probably made them lose a bit of confidence right there, though I may be wrong in that logic.

[TheoFleury]

27 pages of arguing about this coach but maybe, just maybe, this team just isn't very good.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

27 pages of arguing about this coach but maybe, just maybe, this team just isn't very good.

Perhaps. Doesn't change the fact that the coach is not very good either.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

27 pages of arguing about this coach but maybe, just maybe, this team just isn't very good.

On paper, does this team look like a bottom feeder? Compare this team to the 2013-14 team which had Galiardi, Butler, McGrattan, Westgarth, Shane O'Brien. and Reto Berra? Or the 2012-13 team that had Cervenka, Begin, Butler, Comeau, Jackman, Sarich?

You have Brodie with 2 points, Monahan with 6, Gaudreau with 8. All 3 are a combined -31 with 14 games played. Take those 3 out of the group and our combined +/- is a plus 12 (even including Grossman's -4). Engelland leads our team for +/- even though he was Brodie's partner for half the games.

Our problem is very apparent, and our top players are not currently our top players. The Ducks last year were putrid at the beginning of the season and Getzlaf had a 16 game goalless streak where the Ducks were dead last in the western conference.

The Flames have too much talent to be where they are. Will they turn it around with Gulutzan in time to salvage this season? Let's hope so.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Firebot

On paper, does this team look like a bottom feeder? Compare this team to the 2013-14 team which had Galiardi, Butler, McGrattan, Westgarth, Shane O'Brien. and Reto Berra? Or the 2012-13 team that had Cervenka, Begin, Butler, Comeau, Jackman, Sarich?

You have Brodie with 2 points, Monahan with 6, Gaudreau with 8. All 3 are a combined -31 with 14 games played. Take those 3 out of the group and our combined +/- is a plus 12 (even including Grossman's -4). Engelland leads our team for +/- even though he was Brodie's partner for half the games.

Our problem is very apparent, and our top players are not currently our top players. The Ducks last year were putrid at the beginning of the season and Getzlaf had a 16 game goalless streak where the Ducks were dead last in the western conference.

The Flames have too much talent to be where they are. Will they turn it around with Gulutzan in time to salvage this season? Let's hope so.

On paper this team looks like a group that needs everything to break their way to get 95 points. Pretty average when compared to most of the playoff teams from last season imo.

[DeluxeMoustache]

From the Flames TV clip yesterday, quoth Glue Gun:

"If you look at Pittsburgh last year when leading after 2 were 39-0. And then you look at the worst team in the league last year, when leading after 2 was winning at a .579 winning percentage. And that's been the case for the last 20 years in the league. You need to, uh, if you're the worst team in the league, and you still win at a .579 clip, leading after 2, you have a pretty good chance to make the playoffs. "

That is the least sensible thing I have heard from a Flames coach since Brent said "If you're gonna be an upper ethelen (sic) team, it's gonna be thrived on hard work"

[JiriHrdina]

Isn't all he saying that if you fall behind you aren't likely to win? What's the issue?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Isn't all he saying that if you fall behind you aren't likely to win? What's the issue?

Read it again.

If anything, I would draw a conclusion from the stats cited that good teams hold leads. And teams that blow almost half of them do not have a good chance to make the playoffs. That's what makes them the worst.

[JiriHrdina]

Hmmmm no that's not how I read it. Either way I don't see what is so terrible about what he's saying.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Hmmmm no that's not how I read it. Either way I don't see what is so terrible about what he's saying.

What is terrible is that what he says makes no sense.

Good teams hold their leads.
The worst team blew 42 percent of them.
If you blow 42 percent of your leads, you have a good chance to make the playoffs.

No. No you don't.

Or in other words, .579 over all games is about 94 points, what it takes to make the playoffs. If you are .579 when leading after 2, the only way you make the playoffs is to be leading entering the 3rd in all 82 games. Or by winning at a .579 clip when you are tied or trailing entering the third.

[IgiTang]

Wtf Brad? Wtf...?

[FlamesAddiction]

Wow, and he is supposed to be an analytics guy!?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

What is terrible is that what he says makes no sense.

Good teams hold their leads.
The worst team blew 42 percent of them.
If you blow 42 percent of your leads, you have a good chance to make the playoffs.

No. No you don't.

Or in other words, .579 over all games is about 94 points, what it takes to make the playoffs. If you are .579 when leading after 2, the only way you make the playoffs is to be leading entering the 3rd in all 82 games. Or by winning at a .579 clip when you are tied or trailing entering the third.

No, what he was saying is that if you're leading after 2 periods, you're going to win most of your games. Pitt won 100% of theirs, and even the worst team in the league won 58% of theirs.

So if you're leading after 2 periods every night, you're in the playoffs for sure.

Pretty straight-forward, unless of course you're looking for trouble.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, what he was saying is that if you're leading after 2 periods, you're going to win most of your games. Pitt won 100% of theirs, and even the worst team in the league won 58% of theirs.

So if you're leading after 2 periods every night, you're in the playoffs for sure.

Pretty straight-forward, unless of course you're looking for trouble.

Look. I quoted him directly. He said flat out that if you win at a .579 clip when leading after 2 you have a good chance to make the playoffs. That is so wrong, I don't know where to begin.

If you want to add in a presumption that they expect to be actually leading every game after 2, to make sense of his statement, you go ahead. That is putting the cart well before the horse.

[CsInMyBlood]

I don't like how he's always burping in his mouth while he talks.

He's one of those guys.

Maybe our top players don't speak burpese, so they don't understand what they're supposed to be doing.

[442scotty]

So many mistakes made this year by management ... New coach saddled with a bunch of PTO's who just took up spaces better used to give young guys learning time , switching up Brodie and Gio so that their heads are swimming .... Special teams coaching??? Argh.... It's all one big train wreck...

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, what he was saying is that if you're leading after 2 periods, you're going to win most of your games. Pitt won 100% of theirs, and even the worst team in the league won 58% of theirs.

So if you're leading after 2 periods every night, you're in the playoffs for sure.

Pretty straight-forward, unless of course you're looking for trouble.

I will acknowledge, I am sure that the thought he meant to communicate was not what his actual words said.

His job is to communicate, and in this case he did not articulate his thought correctly.

If you watched the rest of the interview, it was bizarre. Stream of consciousness with an unclear reference to the Flinstones, and I am looking forward to when he gets Sigmund Freud in the room. Maybe if they sort out their Oedipal issues they will be able to focus.