The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by Azhouse

A buddy of mine was coached by Gulutzan's dad in minor hockey. They were playing a rival town and the game didn't go well. He bought the whole team lunch and they ate it on the bus. As they were heading home from this little town he made them throw all of their garbage from lunch out the window of the bus into the street.

That is a funny yet strange story made me laugh

[Azhouse]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

That is a funny yet strange story made me laugh

Me too. I thought it might give insight into Glen. It sure sounds like his dad hated to lose.

[Resolute 14]

Gulutzan's inability to get this team prepared to start a season and stubborn insistence to playing guys out of position last year cost us a first round match-up with the pushover Sharks.

I fear to guess what these same flaws, which have again manifested to start this season, might cost us. At least we have a goalie bailing him out somewhat this year.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Azhouse

Me too. I thought it might give insight into Glen. It sure sounds like his dad hated to lose.

or he was a litterbug who did not care about the enviroment

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Gulutzan's inability to get this team prepared to start a season and stubborn insistence to playing guys out of position last year cost us a first round match-up with the pushover Sharks.

I fear to guess what these same flaws, which have again manifested to start this season, might cost us. At least we have a goalie bailing him out somewhat this year.

I think his system is okay and the players seem to like him but there's really been no indication of improvement over last season's terrible start. Once again it seems like the team is going to need a couple prolonged winning streaks if they are going to make the playoffs again as on a night in night out basis this team plays undisciplined, sloppy defensive hockey. I actually quite like him but I just don't know if a nice guy coach works in this day and age where a lot of these highly paid players need tough love. Guys like Babcock, Hitchcock, and Quenneville can be really hard on their players and I feel Gulutzan doesn't command that type of respect. Not saying I want him fired or anything but I just don't know if this is working at a time where the team really needs to take that next step before this three year window (Brodie, Hamonic, Stone, Frolik all UFA's) closes.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Guys like Babcock, Hitchcock, and Quenneville can be really hard on their players and I feel Gulutzan doesn't command that type of respect.

Which is strange because those 3 guys along with Torts are all close friends of GG and have all been mentors to him. GG bases his system and coaching off Babcock. Obviously he is not the same calibre as Babcock but he is young and still learning and given time he could be. The rotating door of coaches is tiresome, we have a brilliant young coach that is still learning and will make mistakes but if the organization stays patient it will pay off in spades big time.

[Robbob]

The way that I see it is:

-We are playing a system that over the course of an 82 game schedule has a higher probability to get you wins.

-An NHL team will probably lose 35-40% of their games in a season so take it in stride

-There are multiple stages in a season (pretty much the quarter marks) where teams shift gears (those that can get better, those who can't fall from the pack).

-The 5-5 start is tied for one of the best starts this team has had going back 7 seasons (you have to go back to 2010-11 (6-4) for the last time this team was above .500 after the 10 game mark).

-There is that old Peter Mahr adage that the team's second set of 20 games is likely a better reflection of the real team.

-It is a marathon, not a sprint.

Bottom line the coach has admitted things need to be cleaned up. Just need more hospital fans (fans with patience)

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Which is strange because those 3 guys along with Torts are all close friends of GG and have all been mentors to him. GG bases his system and coaching off Babcock. Obviously he is not the same calibre as Babcock but he is young and still learning and given time he could be. The rotating door of coaches is tiresome, we have a brilliant young coach that is still learning and will make mistakes but if the organization stays patient it will pay off in spades big time.

How has GG proven he is a brilliant coach? This is his 4th year as an NHL head coach, with 3 years as an assistant to coach. How long do we have to wait for this "brilliant" coach to show some results. To date he has not improved on the results of the coach prior to him, despite what many people believe to be a superior team.

He didn't have his team ready to start the season again, and was forced to over play his #1 goalie to bail the team out. The result was Lack coming in last night with no real pre-season experience and a 9 game stretch off. How Lack wasn't played in Vancouver or against Carolina is nuts. Another example of bad coaching.

People want to gloss over all of our coaches brutal decisions in the hope he is the next Babcock. News flash, he's not.

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Which is strange because those 3 guys along with Torts are all close friends of GG and have all been mentors to him. GG bases his system and coaching off Babcock. Obviously he is not the same calibre as Babcock but he is young and still learning and given time he could be. The rotating door of coaches is tiresome, we have a brilliant young coach that is still learning and will make mistakes but if the organization stays patient it will pay off in spades big time.

Ok, where is any evidence of GG's brilliance?

[stone hands]

how about the longest winning streak in team history where they looked extremely dominant vs every single team they faced and won in spite of their goaltender, which had absolutely everything to do with the team actually playing the system

nevermind they were top 5 in pk and pp last year after about the halfway mark

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by stone hands

how about the longest winning streak in team history where they looked extremely dominant vs every single team they faced and won in spite of their goaltender, which had absolutely everything to do with the team actually playing the system

nevermind they were top 5 in pk and pp last year after about the halfway mark

If you think the Flames win streak was in spite of their goaltending we must have watched different games. Elliot was stellar over that streak and didn't tail off until the end.

If the team carried their good play from that winning streak into this year I would agree with you, but that's not what happened. The team cooled off, went into the playoffs in a mediocre fashion and got swept. They then started this year as a .500 club. I don't understand why people pick those two great months as the real GG coaching style and ignore his larger body of work.

It seems to me his insistence on positional play is either boom or bust. Its either amazing or crap...which equals out to mediocre over the course of a season.

I also think he makes bad personnel decision frequently and plays favorites.

[Toonage]

(My opinion/stream of consciousness) Regardless of whether or not we think he is or isn't a good coach, this is likely his make or break year with the team. The Flames have gone all in, giving up picks and making moves (which I don't believe are done yet) to get this team deep into the playoffs. If they falter during the season for an extended period or come up short even if they do make the playoffs (bounced in round one, swept etc) then that's it. He's likely done.

My bigger concern, and I've discussed this before, is the Flames ownership seemingly unwilling to spend money on a proven or top tier coach. If Gulutzan doesn't succeed, there is no guarantee the next coach will be anyone with any long term experience or NHL success either. For that reason I'd much rather see Gulutzan succeed. We've seen spurts of success and cohesive play with him at the helm. I'd prefer they generate and maintain stability at the coaching position(s).

[nemanja2306]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

If you think the Flames win streak was in spite of their goaltending we must have watched different games. Elliot was stellar over that streak and didn't tail off until the end.

If the team carried their good play from that winning streak into this year I would agree with you, but that's not what happened. The team cooled off, went into the playoffs in a mediocre fashion and got swept. They then started this year as a .500 club. I don't understand why people pick those two great months as the real GG coaching style and ignore his larger body of work.

It seems to me his insistence on positional play is either boom or bust. Its either amazing or crap...which equals out to mediocre over the course of a season.

I also think he makes bad personnel decision frequently and plays favorites.

Why do people forget this? Or choose to ignore...

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by nemanja2306

Why do people forget this? Or choose to ignore...

Two words, Brian Elliott

[nemanja2306]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Two words, Brian Elliott

You're right. Elliott sucked.

Yet our young,brilliant coach kept putting him in until it was too late.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by nemanja2306

You're right. Elliott sucked.

Yet our young,brilliant coach kept putting him in until it was too late.

Like Chad Johnston was going to get it done. When you're in the POs, if your number one goalie doesn't play well, you lose.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Toonage

My bigger concern, and I've discussed this before, is the Flames ownership seemingly unwilling to spend money on a proven or top tier coach. If Gulutzan doesn't succeed, there is no guarantee the next coach will be anyone with any long term experience or NHL success either. For that reason I'd much rather see Gulutzan succeed. We've seen spurts of success and cohesive play with him at the helm. I'd prefer they generate and maintain stability at the coaching position(s).

I don't understand where this comes from. I'm pretty sure if Treliving actually had interest in Boudreau and wanted to hire him that the owners would have spent the money. Sure they probably wouldn't have gone nuts and paid Babcock $50 million but I don't think there's ever been any proof to indicate they won't pay for a top tier coach. Gulutzan was hired because he's the guy that he wanted, not because he commanded less money.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't understand where this comes from. I'm pretty sure if Treliving actually had interest in Boudreau and wanted to hire him that the owners would have spent the money. Sure they probably wouldn't have gone nuts and paid Babcock $50 million but I don't think there's ever been any proof to indicate they won't pay for a top tier coach. Gulutzan was hired because he's the guy that he wanted, not because he commanded less money.

It's definitely not about money, the Flames paid Hartley not to coach.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Every coach has their flaws and fans will always question some of their decisions when the team loses. I'm fairly certain he is the best coach we've had since D. Sutter.

If GG is truly stubborn (certain players still wearing an A, Players past their prime getting minutes late in games when trailing, keep forcing certain lines together that aren't working), it will be his downfall. Great coaches adapt and can admit when they have made mistakes.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't understand where this comes from. I'm pretty sure if Treliving actually had interest in Boudreau and wanted to hire him that the owners would have spent the money. Sure they probably wouldn't have gone nuts and paid Babcock $50 million but I don't think there's ever been any proof to indicate they won't pay for a top tier coach. Gulutzan was hired because he's the guy that he wanted, not because he commanded less money.

Its just how I see it I guess. No, I don't have any proof that they won't spend the money but over the past decade they've either hired coaching reclamation projects (Keenan, Hartley), or coaches with some but not a lot of NHL head coaching experience (Gulutzan, maybe B.Sutter). I get that its more likely they went with certain coaches because they fit the make up of the team at that time, but to my eye it seems to be a bit of a pattern. Spend on the team, not the coach. Again, all my opinion.