The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[fotiou22]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

There is zero evidence to suggest improvement.

Huh?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

There is zero evidence to suggest improvement.

Look above

[Erick Estrada]

I don't have any biases towards coaches and players. I don't dislike Gulutzan nor do I want him to fail at the expense of my team. I only care about the team winning so if Gulutzan is part of the solution I'm going to support him. I'm not happy with a .500 mark 12 games into the season but they are still in the thick of things. That said I need to see better results by the end of this calendar year as the team needs to start playing better than .500 hockey sooner than later. Sooner or later this team has to get past the inconsistency or he's going to have to receive a pink slip prior to the expiry of his contract and I hope it doesn't come to that.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I see a team playing better but squeezing their sticks. Don't think that's much of a reach either.

A low shooting percentage is likely the result of simply random variances that "squeezing their sticks", especially in a 6 game sample size.

I think the other teams goalie has been bailing out the opponents recently.

I agree, Calgary is playing fine, good things will begin to happen if they keep playing like they have.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

There is zero evidence to suggest improvement.

By no means am I a big supporter of Gulutzan, but c'mon, you're being ridiculous here (intentionally, I assume, but I'll bite).

After the putrid start to last season in games 1-16, things got undeniably better. The team went 40-23-3 for the remainder of the season, a 103 point pace, which would have them around 10th overall in the league.

You can remove their 10-game winning streak in an effort to discredit that record, like I've seen others do, but then I think it's only fair that you remove their worst 10-game period as well (3-6-1, Jan 7th to 24th). They were 27-17-2 in the remaining sample, a 96 point pace.

Nobody gets to remove winning streaks or strong team play from a record, in order to justify why a team/coach is no good. It's like when Oiler fans used to say "If you take away Iginla & Kiprusoff, the Flames would suck!".

"If you take away their wins, their record sucks!"

There is evidence to suggest things will improve, that's undeniable.

[GullFoss]

The washington game was played very well. It was probably the best game of the season.

But, caveat - the flames beat a 0.500 team on the second night of their back-to-back
And, caveat - washington was icing their backup goalie
And caveat - the PP was not good
And caveat - the win required a 0.970 save percentage by Smith
And caveat - all the scoring was generated by the first line
And caveat - the fourth line still averaged 10 minutes of ice time

So, yeah...green shoots. But lol if you're getting excited.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

By no means am I a big supporter of Gulutzan, but c'mon, you're being ridiculous here (intentionally, I assume, but I'll bite).

After the putrid start to last season in games 1-16, things got undeniably better. The team went 40-23-3 for the remainder of the season, a 103 point pace, which would have them around 10th overall in the league.

You can remove their 10-game winning streak in an effort to discredit that record, like I've seen others do, but then I think it's only fair that you remove their worst 10-game period as well (3-6-1, Jan 7th to 24th). They were 27-17-2 in the remaining sample, a 96 point pace.

Nobody gets to remove winning streaks or strong team play from a record, in order to justify why a team/coach is no good. It's like when Oiler fans used to say "If you take away Iginla & Kiprusoff, the Flames would suck!".

"If you take away their wins, their record sucks!"

There is evidence to suggest things will improve, that's undeniable.

Winning a game in the Honda center is the only improvement I've seen this season to date. The issue with last season is that like the Hartley season of all the 3rd period comebacks, banking on 10 game winning streaks is not sustainable. The team simply can't find itself in a situation where they are .500 or below at the mid point of a season because it's simply not practical to expect a winning streak will come along to get the team back into the thick of the playoffs. The point of the argument is that the 16 straight games they won last season represents 20% of the season so you are left with a team that played below .500 hockey for 80% of the season. Chances are if the team's play doesn't markedly improve from that they will not get the team record winning streak and the team finishes out of the playoffs. There's no other way to spin it other than the team simply hasn't been good enough long enough under Gulutzan. I'm not advocating his firing today but the .500 play can't last for the majority of the season again.

[bax]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

The washington game was played very well. It was probably the best game of the season.



But, caveat - the flames beat a 0.500 team on the second night of their back-to-back

And, caveat - washington was icing their backup goalie

And caveat - the PP was not good

And caveat - the win required a 0.970 save percentage by Smith

And caveat - all the scoring was generated by the first line

And caveat - the fourth line still averaged 10 minutes of ice time



So, yeah...green shoots. But lol if you're getting excited.

Grubauer played a great game, not to mention the Flames hit 3 posts.

The power play had lots of good looks for their limited opportunities. Unlucky to not get one.

Single game save percentage? You can’t be serious with this stuff?

Johnny did Johnny things but Bennett, Brouwer, and the 3M line all had god chances. Every team relies on their best player to create offense.

10 minutes for the 4th line? Since when is this an issue? This is commonplace in the NHL especially considering players on our 4th line are also penalty killers.

Grasping at straws here. What I don’t understand is why so many posters want to roll the dice on a new coach and having the team learn a new system in the middle of the season. That alone would probably sink our season. Our odds are much better to ride it out with GG and see if we can get back to being a dominant team. Last night was a step towards that.

If you can’t stand how Gulutzan coaches that’s fine, but even then replacing him in the off season is a much better idea than doing it now.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Winning a game in the Honda center is the only improvement I've seen this season to date. The issue with last season is that like the Hartley season of all the 3rd period comebacks, banking on 10 game winning streaks is not sustainable. The team simply can't find itself in a situation where they are .500 or below at the mid point of a season because it's simply not practical to expect a winning streak will come along to get the team back into the thick of the playoffs. The point of the argument is that the 16 straight games they won last season represents 20% of the season so you are left with a team that played below .500 hockey for 80% of the season. Chances are if the team's play doesn't markedly improve from that they will not get the team record winning streak and the team finishes out of the playoffs. There's no other way to spin it other than the team simply hasn't been good enough long enough under Gulutzan. I'm not advocating his firing today but the .500 play can't last for the majority of the season again.

I don't see the difference between relying on a winning streak versus those wins coming at a more even pace, with losses interspersed. Are you saying you feel differently if the Flames went win-loss with an extra win thrown in every fifth game or so?

[Inglewood Jack]

I don't understand why long winning streaks are getting dismissed out of hand as freak things that can't be relied on and won't happen again. I can guarantee that even if somehow the Flames aren't much improved from last year, at least a couple of times their sticks will get hot, the goalies will turn into force fields and they'll go 8-1-1 over a 10 game stretch.

if that's how they end up making the playoffs and are totally unremarkable without the streaks, oh well. it's just like how people say if you take away a team's best player(s) then they're not as good. wow, crazy insight.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

The washington game was played very well. It was probably the best game of the season.

But, caveat - the flames beat a 0.500 team on the second night of their back-to-back
And, caveat - washington was icing their backup goalie
And caveat - the PP was not good
And caveat - the win required a 0.970 save percentage by Smith
And caveat - all the scoring was generated by the first line
And caveat - the fourth line still averaged 10 minutes of ice time

So, yeah...green shoots. But lol if you're getting excited.

I take exception to this. Washington is a solid team regardless of their current record (Just don't understand why people keep taking small sample sizes so early in the season and expressing them as defacto proof that is the team). I guess by the same measure the Blackhawks are no good and not playoff bound.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don't see the difference between relying on a winning streak versus those wins coming at a more even pace, with losses interspersed. Are you saying you feel differently if the Flames went win-loss with an extra win thrown in every fifth game or so?

The difference is consistency which is something that has eluded this club since Gulutzan took over. You ideally want a more even pace of winning because it's more repeatable and sustainable in the long run. As we saw last season the team once again slumped once the 10 game winning streak ended which led to an eventual first round sweep.

[18YrOldSamBennett]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I wouldn't give them the same benefit of the doubt, since they don't have similarily good underlying numbers.

5v5 xGF% (Score-Adjusted)
Oilers - 59.15 (1st in NHL, 1st in West)
Flames - 48.92 (18th in NHL, 9th in West)

5v5 CF% (Score-Adjusted)
Oilers - 55.35 (1st in NHL, 1st in West)
Flames - 49.95 (14th in NHL, 6th in West)

5v5 GF% (Score-Adjusted)
Oilers - 46.39 (21st in NHL, 9th in West)
Flames - 51.18 (14th in NHL, 7th in West)

I don't want to read too much into the numbers, but it's safe to say that the Flames are about where they deserve to be, while the Oilers have a legitimate argument for being unlucky.

Don't forget about Score Effects. Typically the trailing teams CF/CA improves as the other team is more focused holding the lead. But I completely understand where you're coming from.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I take exception to this. Washington is a solid team regardless of their current record (Just don't understand why people keep taking small sample sizes so early in the season and expressing them as defacto proof that is the team). I guess by the same measure the Blackhawks are no good and not playoff bound.

Ok - the Capitals are a top team. But the Capital's arent playing like a top team right now (otherwise their record would reflect it). Arguably, thus far this season, the capital are playing like their record would indicate - 0.500 hockey. So the flames beat a top team thats not playing like a top team. Whats the difference?

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Ok - the Capitals are a top team. But the Capital's arent playing like a top team right now (otherwise their record would reflect it). Arguably, thus far this season, the capital are playing like their record would indicate - 0.500 hockey. So the flames beat a top team thats not playing like a top team. Whats the difference?

The difference is this is what I think a lot of people have been getting at early in this season. The Flames are also not playing like they are capable.

It is a marathon not a sprint. Don't get too high with wins, don't get to low with loses. I think great advise from D. Sutter when he was here. Advise that maybe some people should consider.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Ok - the Capitals are a top team. But the Capital's arent playing like a top team right now (otherwise their record would reflect it). Arguably, thus far this season, the capital are playing like their record would indicate - 0.500 hockey. So the flames beat a top team thats not playing like a top team. Whats the difference?

Or, the Flames didn't play their best and still can win.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by bax

Grubauer played a great game, not to mention the Flames hit 3 posts.

Every goalie looks good against a team that can't score.

Originally Posted by bax

Single game save percentage? You can’t be serious with this stuff?

If smith didn't play lights out, the flames wouldn't have won.

Originally Posted by bax

The power play had lots of good looks for their limited opportunities. Unlucky to not get one.

I thought the PP was bad. Sure they had a lot of zone time. But no one moved their feet. No one was creative. IT was pretty much, shoot from the point with lots of bodies in front of the net. In my opinion, it wasn't good.

Originally Posted by bax

the 3M line had good chances.

It was arguably one of their worst games this year.

Originally Posted by bax

10 minutes for the 4th line? Since when is this an issue? This is commonplace in the NHL especially considering players on our 4th line are also penalty killers.

Except they didn't really do that - Versteeg (11.5 minutes ice time; 0 minutes of PK time), Stajan (9 minutes ice time; 30 seconds of PK time), Brouwer (13.5 minutes ice time; 33 seconds of PK time). So its an issue that they're getting to much time in the case of Versteeg and Brouwer too much PP time.

But Im assuming you won't agree since you thought the PP was pretty good :P

Originally Posted by bax

If you can’t stand how Gulutzan coaches that’s fine, but even then replacing him in the off season is a much better idea than doing it now.

Like I said in my original post, i thought it was the flames best game of the season, and things look to be trending up. But if you thought the flames played a great game....I think you're fooling yourself.

I think you're missing the broader issue, however - I think the flames are a very good team...on paper. And the team is in its contending window that might only be 4 years (when you look at the salary cap of the team and age profiles of the players). I have significant misgivings that GG is the guy to take them to the promised land. Making the playoffs isn't good enough. Being a top 8 team in the conference isn't good enough. The stakes are high. You waste this year, there's only 3 left.

Why waste a year if you don't have to? If he's not the right coach, get the right one in place.

[Jason14h]

We played the exact same game as vs Dallas expect we didn't go 0/2 on the PK.

This is how the Flames/GG will/want to play. It is what it is!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

...If smith didn't play lights out, the flames wouldn't have won...

If Grubauer did not play "lights out," then the final score would not have been even close. These sorts of caveats are ridiculous.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

We played the exact same game as vs Dallas expect we didn't go 0/2 on the PK.

This is how the Flames/GG will/want to play. It is what it is!

There was a big difference between the past two games, and I am wondering if this is part of the reason why the Flames have struggled so far at home. When I watch them on home ice, it seems to me that the puck bounces ALOT, passes are missed, and Sam Bennett is always falling down. To me, this was a big difference between the Dallas and the Washington games. The play on Friday night was disjointed and it looked to me like it was preventing both teams from sustaining any sort of offensive pressure. The Flames lost that game because Dallas scored on the power play and they did not. It was a bad game to watch because at even strength neither team could get the puck to stop bouncing.

Last night was a good game. The Flames moved the puck ALOT better, they sustained pressure in the offensive zone for MUCH longer and more consistently, and there were far fewer missed passes and plays. There was still more play between the blue lines that I don't think the Flames were happy about, but I am thinking more and more that the poor ice quality at the Saddledome is affecting the games. Maybe this is part of the reason behind historically slow starts—maybe it takes the players time to adjust to ice issues in the Saddledome.