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

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

A matter of the full 20 guys buying in? If there are players not buying in that's a huge problem.

Yup, thought that was odd too

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Process process process..

Getting old, boys.

What do you want them to say?
I don't know why people read these articles if it is going to upset them, regardless of what is said.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

A matter of the full 20 guys buying in? If there are players not buying in that's a huge problem.

How much of the expression "buying in" is generic hockey-player speak for attitude or commitment v. progression? I wouldn't read too much into it—it seems most likely to be a platitude.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

What do you want them to say?
I don't know why people read these articles if it is going to upset them, regardless of what is said.

How about "We have no more excuses. We need to show urgency and it needs to come against Minnesota."

That would honestly suffice for me. Especially from Monahan, who's been a shadow of himself for 16 games now, minus little spurts here and there. Can't keep putting out subpar efforts and attributing it to some "process" like that's still a valid excuse.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

How about "We have no more excuses. We need to show urgency and it needs to come against Minnesota."

That would honestly suffice for me. Especially from Monahan, who's been a shadow of himself for 16 games now, minus little spurts here and there. Can't keep putting out subpar efforts and attributing it to some "process" like that's still a valid excuse.

Why is it no longer a valid excuse?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

How about "We have no more excuses. We need to show urgency and it needs to come against Minnesota."

How is that any less than a cliche than the answer provided. I suspect if that's what he said, people would rip on that too.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why is it no longer a valid excuse?

Why should there be any excuses?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Why should there be any excuses?

Touché. I suppose I should refrain, "why is it not a valid explanation?"

[MisterJoji]

I think the whole adjustment time needed is BS. If you're a quality coach preseason should be plenty of time to teach and implement a system. Look at some of the leagues best coaches and their first 16 games.

Joel Queneville
9-3-5
Took over a transitioning team that barely missed the playoffs the year before. You can argue they have a more skilled team but he also didn't get any preseason to implement his system.

Ken Hitchcock
12-2-3
Took over a playoff team that started the season terribly. Again, no preseason the teach/coach his system.

Claude Julien
8-6-2
Not great but still better than us. Could be argued that it was a considerable worse roster than ours is currently. Full preseason.

Jon Cooper
5-8-3
Took over for Guy Boucher, not a solid record but still better than us. Swept in the first round the next season.

Dave Tippett
10-6-0
Took a 13th place team and made the playoffs the next year. Definitely not a better roster than us. Did get a full preseason.

Lindy Ruff
8-6-2
Replaced our terrible head coach who couldn't get a quality team to the playoffs. Got a full preseason in.

Bruce Boudreau
8-5-1
Good roster that didn't make the postseason last year but off to a good start this year. Full preseason.

Darryl Sutter
9-3-5
Took a team trying to get over the hump and turned them into champs. Took over in December, no preseason.

Alain Vigneault
Another team trying to get over the hump and he gets him to the finals. Full preseason.
8-8-0

Mike Babcock
4-8-4
Taking over a scorched earth rebuild. Way worse roster but still more points than we have. Full preseason.

Barry Trotz
7-6-3
Took over for Adam Oates, a very talented team that severely underperformed the year before. Full preseason.

Any coach that can't implement his system by game 16 with a full preseason is a terrible coach, has a terrible system, or both.

[Alpine Fisher]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

I think the whole adjustment time needed is BS. If you're a quality coach preseason should be plenty of time to teach and implement a system. Look at some of the leagues best coaches and their first 16 games.

Joel Queneville
9-3-5
Took over a transitioning team that barely missed the playoffs the year before. You can argue they have a more skilled team but he also didn't get any preseason to implement his system.

Ken Hitchcock
12-2-3
Took over a playoff team that started the season terribly. Again, no preseason the teach/coach his system.

Claude Julien
8-6-2
Not great but still better than us. Could be argued that it was a considerable worse roster than ours is currently. Full preseason.

Jon Cooper
5-8-3
Took over for Guy Boucher, not a solid record but still better than us. Swept in the first round the next season.

Dave Tippett
10-6-0
Took a 13th place team and made the playoffs the next year. Definitely not a better roster than us. Did get a full preseason.

Lindy Ruff
8-6-2
Replaced our terrible head coach who couldn't get a quality team to the playoffs. Got a full preseason in.

Bruce Boudreau
8-5-1
Good roster that didn't make the postseason last year but off to a good start this year. Full preseason.

Darryl Sutter
9-3-5
Took a team trying to get over the hump and turned them into champs. Took over in December, no preseason.

Alain Vigneault
Another team trying to get over the hump and he gets him to the finals. Full preseason.
8-8-0

Mike Babcock
4-8-4
Taking over a scorched earth rebuild. Way worse roster but still more points than we have. Full preseason.

Barry Trotz
7-6-3
Took over for Adam Oates, a very talented team that severely underperformed the year before. Full preseason.

Any coach that can't implement his system by game 16 with a full preseason is a terrible coach, has a terrible system, or both.

Please copy and paste that into an email and send it to Treliving, Burke, King & if possible Murray Edwards.

Heck, just for the heck of it, send it to Eric Francis

[Draug]

Thanks Joji. In my mind, that conclusively indicates that's it's almost a certainty that GG will not succeed with this team. Fire him now, as in right now, and move on.

I feel bad for him. He is likeable. He uprooted his young family. All to get fired 25% into the season. But it's the only move that makes sense to me.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

What do you want them to say?
I don't know why people read these articles if it is going to upset them, regardless of what is said.

I don't know why people read these threads if it is going to upset them, regardless of what is said.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

How is that any less than a cliche than the answer provided. I suspect if that's what he said, people would rip on that too.

I think when a team is as bad as the Flames have been over the past 1.2 seasons that clichéd talk or not fans are going to be pretty cranky. Results on the ice is all that matters right now for this team. Time is off the essence here as there's still a very small chance the season can be salvaged but it has to happen very soon and another non-competitive loss will probably start turning up the heat on the organization to do something as I'm sure ownership has been horrified by the product the team is putting on the ice for their paying customers.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

I think the whole adjustment time needed is BS. If you're a quality coach preseason should be plenty of time to teach and implement a system. Look at some of the leagues best coaches and their first 16 games.

Lindy Ruff
8-6-2
Replaced our terrible head coach who couldn't get a quality team to the playoffs. Got a full preseason in.

Superb post....Ruff is the best comp. Put this in your signature please. And just repost every time we hear that its the players that need to play better...which just by coincidence is SEVERAL players all faltering at once.

Just drop a mic and leave already.

[bubbsy]

Nice post.

Notice how every coach there us very experienced?? The only guy who wasn't also seems to have the worst record other than Babcock but he had a roster built to draft 1st overall.

I wanted Boudreau and to a lesser extent, even Carlyle would have been an interesting hire if he were available.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Nice post.

Notice how every coach there us very experienced?? The only guy who wasn't also seems to have the worst record other than Babcock but he had a roster built to draft 1st overall.

I wanted Boudreau and to a lesser extent, even Carlyle would have been an interesting hire if he were available.

You were in the minority around here on Boudreau. A lot of posters were distraught that he seemed to be the shoo-in.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

I think the whole adjustment time needed is BS. If you're a quality coach preseason should be plenty of time to teach and implement a system. Look at some of the leagues best coaches and their first 16 games.
...

I would be much more interested to see how each of these coaches performed in their inaugural seasons in the NHL, and balanced against the rosters they were coaching. I.e. in his first 16 games at the NHL level Mike Babcock won 5 with a young Anaheim Ducks roster; Hitchcock won only 6 games of his first 24 in the NHL as a mid-season replacement; Dave Tippett won 6 of his first 16; Lindy Ruff won 5 of his first 16, and so forth.

While Gulutzen is on his second go-around, he is still a really young coach comparatively speaking, and with a very young roster. I suspect that as a rule younger coaches with younger players struggle more than older, established coaches.

Gulutzen may turn out to be nothing more than a good NHL assistant when it is all said and done, but I do not believe that your list proves anything to that end.

[Draug]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

...
Gulutzen may turn out to be nothing more than a good NHL assistant when it is all said and done, but I do not believe that your list proves anything to that end.

It proves a lot, even without researching what other great coaches did in the first 20 games of thier careers. I might be wrong, but Cooper was a rookie when hired by TB, right? Even his record makes GG look awful, and I'd consider Cooper one of the lesser coaches in Master Joji's list.

It proves that the Flames should not have a young inexperienced coach at this point of a rebuild. The need to hire a veteran coach. Now.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Draug

It proves a lot, even without researching what other great coaches did in the first 20 games of thier careers. I might be wrong, but Cooper was a rookie when hired by TB, right? Even his record makes GG look awful, and I'd consider Cooper one of the lesser coaches in Master Joji's list.

What is your point? That one rookie head coach managed an impressive start and never looked back? Did you completely ignore the handful of names that I highlighted in my post? Look again:

Mike Babcock: 5 wins in 16 games (39 years old)
Ken Hitchcock: 6 wins in 24 games (44 years old)
Dave Tippett: 6 wins in 16 games (41 years old)
Lindy Ruff: 5 wins in 16 games (37 years old)

I didn't go through even a third of Joji's list, but the fact that most of the coaches I looked at struggled through their first 20 NHL games suggests to me that Gulutzen's record belongs in the same context, especially in the light of how young so many of the core players on his roster are.

My point here is that it is far too early to be drawing conclusions about how good or poor a NHL coach he might be. The problem here is that not every NHL coach follows the same path to success, and it seems that with some consistency they tend to struggle in the early-going of a season.

It proves that the Flames should not have a young inexperienced coach at this point of a rebuild. The need to hire a veteran coach. Now.

After 16 games, no, it absolutely does not. I suppose your argument holds in the event that there is an urgency for this Flames roster to win and play in the playoffs this season, but I don't believe that to be the case in actual fact.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What is your point? That one rookie head coach managed an impressive start and never looked back? Did you completely ignore the handful of names that I highlighted in my post? Look again:

Mike Babcock: 5 wins in 16 games (39 years old)
Ken Hitchcock: 6 wins in 24 games (44 years old)
Dave Tippett: 6 wins in 16 games (41 years old)
Lindy Ruff: 5 wins in 16 games (37 years old)

I didn't go through even a third of Joji's list, but the fact that most of the coaches I looked at struggled through their first 20 NHL games suggests to me that Gulutzen's record belongs in the same context, especially in the light of how young so many of the core players on his roster are.

My point here is that it is far too early to be drawing conclusions about how good or poor a NHL coach he might be. The problem here is that not every NHL coach follows the same path to success, and it seems that with some consistency they tend to struggle in the early-going of a season.


After 16 games, no, it absolutely does not. I suppose your argument holds in the event that there is an urgency for this Flames roster to win and play in the playoffs this season, but I don't believe that to be the case in actual fact.

What difference does it make to us if GG becomes a good coach when he is 50? You will have wasted and entire generation of young core while he learns to be a coach. The point remains that calgary should go (have gone) with an older more experienced coach and the results would have spoken for themselves by now.