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

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

...I think to be perfectly fair then, you can't compare Gulutzan to first time coaches. They all gained valuable experience from their first go-round as a head coach. Maybe compare their second opportunities and see how they did as compared to Gulutzan, and where Gulutzan falls in that respective range.

That's true, but again this all needs to be balanced against the rosters that each coach oversaw in his second go-around.

The whole point of my posts #697 and 699 was to draw attention to precisely the absence of fairness in many posters' extremely premature and dismissive evaluations of Gulutzen in this thread. I am not arguing that Gulutzen is a good coach—he may not be. But the fact of the matter is it is simply too early to know one way or the other.

I do, however, agree with TKFlames in that it is rather irrelevant as he is the coach now, and the results need to start coming in for this organization. I don't think anyone wants 3+ years of him gaining enough experience to become a really good coach. He either is, or he isn't, and a team at the start of a rebuild where there is no pressure to win is perhaps the best situation for coaches to cut their teeth into the business, or become longer term associate coaches on winning teams. I for one would hope that IF Gulutzan really is a dud, that we aren't the team that is going to give up 'X' amount of seasons helping him learn his craft.

Of course, this is what we all should hope for, if for no other reason because Gulutzen is going to be coaching the Flames for the duration of the full season. As I have shown by examples of other young NHL coaches who became highly successful, there is still plenty of reason to expect that the same can yet occur for Gulutzen and the Flames even in spite of the ugly start to the season. It is not something that I would expect to require 3+ years of on-the-job experience to get there, but it sure as hell will require more than 16 games in the space of five weeks. It doesn't behoove a single one of us to exercise a little more patience.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If Gulutzen is a good NHL coach, then we will know it by the end of the season. Your opinion as to what is best for this team is only that: an opinion, and not an especially relevant one at that. The Flames GM hired a coach that fit his criteria for what this team needs at this juncture. Given his own experience and credentials you will never convince me after 16 games that you have a better handle on what this team needs than he does.

My point stands: young coaches often struggle in the early-going, and it is far too soon to make conclusive judgments about Gulutzen here in mid-November.

Keep the opinion banter to a minimum....everything on here is an opinion and in this case we are lined up on opposite sides.

My argument is that this team will be a training ground for someone that may some day be a good coach will come at the cost of losing development years from this core. Your argument that he may one day be a good coach also stands. These are not mutually exclusive statements, but for the many reasons I have listed in this thread previously, I believe this is the wrong coach and we should cut our losses. BT wanted to hire a teacher...that's what he did. Unfortunately for us he didn't hire a coach.

Let's reflect in a year's time as to what should have been the correct path forward as no matter the fan resistance, we are stuck with GG until at minimum a better option comes available and likely for at least the year. The worst thing that can happen is a faux run at the end of the season giving management the false idea that we should waste next year with him also if he is in fact the dud that I suspect he is.

[Mister Yamoto]

With Eakins it was obvious one month in that he was in way over his head. He didn't "lose the room" because he never had it in the first place. So what did the Oilers do? They let him embarrass himself for another 100 games because patience, young coaches need time, best players have to be the best players etc.

He is not the right guy. The players aren't responding to him. Get rid of him yesterday.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Keep the opinion banter to a minimum....everything on here is an opinion and in this case we are lined up on opposite sides.

Exactly. But unlike our mutually uninformed opinions Treliving's matters a lot. He possesses a level of experience that suggests to me that he knows what he is doing. In my position of relative ignorance, I will choose to be patient and anticipate that he is probably right.

... for the many reasons I have listed in this thread previously, I believe this is the wrong coach and we should cut our losses...

In my opinion, "cutting their losses" after a party 16 game sample is an utterly disastrous idea.

...BT wanted to hire a teacher...that's what he did. Unfortunately for us he didn't hire a coach.

This is a premature conclusion.

Let's reflect in a year's time as to what should have been the correct path forward as no matter the fan resistance, we are stuck with GG until at minimum a better option comes available and likely for at least the year. The worst thing that can happen is a faux run at the end of the season giving management the false idea that we should waste next year with him also if he is in fact the dud that I suspect he is.

I don't believe you are capable of being reflective over the course of a full season. You have already determined that Gulutzen is a terrible coach, so forgive me for not extending to you the same benefit of doubt.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't believe you are capable of being reflective over the course of a full season. You have already determined that Gulutzen is a terrible coach, so forgive me for not extending to you the same benefit of doubt.

It's actually fairly straightforward:

PP top 16 for the last 50-60 games
PK top 16 for the last 50-60 games
PT% top 16 for the last 50- 60 games
GA avg top 16 for the last 50-60 games
Development of young players is a bit of an intangible from a measurement standpoint.

These are the parameters of improvement that BT set out at the end of last season. For a salary cap team, the above parameters would likely put us in the 18-25th overall position based on how the next few games go (I. E. No progression from last year despite an extra year of experience). I believe we can both agree that anything less would be a complete failure.

For the sake of argument between you and I, 22-30 games is well beyond anything that should ever be necessary to learn a new system/coach based on those parameters previously presented.

[VladtheImpaler]

I must commend you gents on having a civilized interesting discussion without trying to stab each other in the eye. That's rather rare these days and a pleasure to read.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I must commend you gents on having a civilized interesting discussion without trying to stab each other in the eye. That's rather rare these days and a pleasure to read.

They must be drunk. Or the same person is behind both accounts. Whatever the case, something isn't adding up here.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by tkflames

It's actually fairly straightforward:

PP top 16 for the last 50-60 games
PK top 16 for the last 50-60 games
PT% top 16 for the last 50- 60 games
GA avg top 16 for the last 50-60 games
Development of young players is a bit of an intangible from a measurement standpoint.

These are the parameters of improvement that BT set out at the end of last season. For a salary cap team, the above parameters would likely put us in the 18-25th overall position based on how the next few games go (I. E. No progression from last year despite an extra year of experience). I believe we can both agree that anything less would be a complete failure.

For the sake of argument between you and I, 22-30 games is well beyond anything that should ever be necessary to learn a new system/coach based on those parameters previously presented.

I think your parameters are generally fair and likely represent the actual metrics that have been set out for the team by team management. As to what "should ever be necessary to learn a new system/coach" I will not comment except to say I do not know. Having never played professional hockey and all, it is difficult for me to say what should or should not happen in the event of a pretty dramatic coaching change.

[IamNotKenKing]

After listening to the Fan this morning, I decided to test their math, as it didn't quite seem right.

To get to 95 points, the Flames need to go .636 points percentage for over the remaining 66 games to get the required 84 points. (84/132 = .636)

So, I was curious what that looks like after 15 games - i.e. what team has been playing at that points percentage so far this year.
The answer surprised me.

The Ottawa Senators. (.633 as of this post - I hope the rounding is OK)

What's my point? I have not watched the Senators, except when we beat them 5-2. Does anyone think the Senators have been playing at a clip the Flames cannot match? I don't.

Back to my point: While we are playing quite poorly right now, and it seems we shall never win again, all we need to do is play the rest of the season at the same pace the Senators have played so far. That fills me with optimism, as it does not seem that difficult.

Please return to your regularly scheduled panic, but I needed that sense of knowing it ain't necessarily over yet... (Yes, in spite of my last posting being the Vince Carter "It's Over" vine...).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

What's my point? I have not watched the Senators, except when we beat them 5-2. Does anyone think the Senators have been playing at a clip the Flames cannot match? I don't.

.633 in 15 games is far easier than .633 in 66 games. To get to .633, we need to go 42-24. That is a very tall order.

There is a small help though in that 95 points was well above the cut line last year -- Minnesota made it in with 87 points last year. And at present, the last playoff spot this season is .500 even.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

.633 in 15 games is far easier than .633 in 66 games. To get to .633, we need to go 42-24. That is a very tall order.

There is a small help though in that 95 points was well above the cut line last year -- Minnesota made it in with 87 points last year. And at present, the last playoff spot this season is .500 even.

I was about to make this point, thanks. A three or four game winning streak and the Flames are right back in the race. From that point it is just a matter of keeping pace.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

.633 in 15 games is far easier than .633 in 66 games. To get to .633, we need to go 42-24. That is a very tall order.

There is a small help though in that 95 points was well above the cut line last year -- Minnesota made it in with 87 points last year. And at present, the last playoff spot this season is .500 even.

I don't disagree with the bolded at all, it just makes me feel better to know that, especially as the Senators do not seem to have been playing lights out.