Should the Flames fire Gulutzan?

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Major Major

When we were making fun of Dallas Eakins teams, they'd already sewed up their top pick, by November. This is not that. Although not living up to expectations, the flames are not a tire fire this season.

When the flames are playing well, which they have been for the passed several weeks, their system is not passive at all. As for defending the red line? That's not really a thing.

Forcing teams to dump the puck as close to centre ice as possible, leading to either icing or giving our goalie/dmen time to recover the puck. Or even just slowing opposing forwards down? That's not a thing?

I mean, clearly this is not only a trap league anymore, but it's still a thing.

Ever wonder why McDavid eats the Flames alive? Maybe it's because we let him wind up and will in the neutral zone and skate into our end unimpeded.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Major Major

This post is terrible.

Uh huh. Wisdom is "the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment." You can't display wisdom when you are bogged down in analyzing details. Wisdom is recognizing when you have done enough analysis to make an informed decision. This is why there are analysts, and then there are decision makers. Analysts rarely make good decision makers because they get too bogged down in the data to recognize when a decision point has been reached.

This is the problem with the Gulutzan argument. Some are bogged down in the data that is telling them things aren't that bad. The reality is we have reached a decision point, and the data is only half the story. Results are the other half of the story, and the results should be dictating the outcome.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by New Era

Uh huh. Wisdom is "the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment." You can't display wisdom when you are bogged down in analyzing details. Wisdom is recognizing when you have done enough analysis to make an informed decision. This is why there are analysts, and then there are decision makers. Analysts rarely make good decision makers because they get too bogged down in the data to recognize when a decision point has been reached.

This is the problem with the Gulutzan argument. Some are bogged down in the data that is telling them things aren't that bad. The reality is we have reached a decision point, and the data is only half the story. Results are the other half of the story, and the results should be dictating the outcome.

So you are wise because you rely on only half the story to make the decision, but others are unwise because they rely on the other half and make a different decision?

That's like saying you know all the data says that climate change is happening but instead rely on the fact that it is cold out right now so therefore we need more global warming. The trend doesn't matter because of the results happening right now.

[zamler]

Over 68% say yes that's a healthy majority.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Those that think the goaltending is saving this team ... they are ranked 19th in team save percentage. The year before they were 21st.

You must mean that they finished last season 21st in team sv%, but not 21st at this point in the season?

On this day last year, our team sv% was .908, while this season it is at .920. Despite the improved goaltending, the records are nearly identical:

16/17 19-16-2 40PTS
17/18 18-15-2 40PTS

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by belsarius

So you are wise because you rely on only half the story to make the decision, but others are unwise because they rely on the other half and make a different decision?

That's like saying you know all the data says that climate change is happening but instead rely on the fact that it is cold out right now so therefore we need more global warming. The trend doesn't matter because of the results happening right now.

No, we've reviewed the data, listened to the arguments, have observed the results, and have come to a conclusion of the required action based on past experience and similar outcomes. The data is not being supported by the results, and has not for some time.

We're basically observing the same behaviors another team did when they thought their coach was better than he was. There is a move afoot searching for fancy stats to prove this team is better than the results, when the results remain pretty consistent regardless of the fancy stats. "Visually" this team is better than the results. Bottom line, this talent on this team is better than the results are showing, at least this is what the moves of management to assemble the team suggest. The talent is there, but something is preventing it from using its strengths. What could that possibly be?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by the fonz

you must mean that they finished last season 21st in team sv%, but not 21st at this point in the season?

On this day last year, our team sv% was .908, while this season it is at .920. Despite the improved goaltending, the records are nearly identical:

16/17 19-16-2 40pts
17/18 18-15-2 40pts

18-15-4, 40 pts

...also, Gaudreau had already missed his 10 games at this stage of the season, no? Can you imagine had we been missing Johnny for 10 games this season?

Roster is better, team is worse. Gully should be shown the door now - but my guess is it won't happen until the end of the season/closer to the trade deadline.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by New Era

No, we've reviewed the data, listened to the arguments, have observed the results, and have come to a conclusion of the required action based on past experience and similar outcomes. The data is not being supported by the results, and has not for some time.

We're basically observing the same behaviors another team did when they thought their coach was better than he was. There is a move afoot searching for fancy stats to prove this team is better than the results, when the results remain pretty consistent regardless of the fancy stats. "Visually" this team is better than the results. Bottom line, this talent on this team is better than the results are showing, at least this is what the moves of management to assemble the team suggest. The talent is there, but something is preventing it from using its strengths. What could that possibly be?

None of this I really disagree with. But using "fancy stats" I also have a hard time blaming the coach for the problems. Inconsistent effort on the part of the players, mental weakness if you will. I also think there has been a lack of finish in a lot of games, last night was a good example of the game plan working but a few missed opportunities cost the team the win.

I think there is a lot of work to do on the special teams, having anywhere near an average PP in the last month probably is worth 4-6 more points. I also think the team lacks an energy fourth line, but that is most likely beyond the range of the coach to deal with as it is up to the GM to move Brouwer and Stajan and Freddie/Lazar really aren't upgrades.

I think most of the "don't fire" people aren't relying 100% on the "fancy stats" but are using them in their decision making process to determine if it is the coach or if there are other intangibles that need to be considered. My issue is basically saying people are "unwise" for not ignoring the statistics.

I am comfortable knowing that I could very well be wrong and this team never figures it out and that the results never match the statistics. It happens. I just think that the underlying play of the team, especially 5v5, has been good and can result in success going forward.

Just different ways to draw a conclusion looking at the same problem.

[IgiTang]

Bottom line is this team needs a shake up and rather than making a regrettable move roster wise, the coach should be the first to go to see if the issues on ice can be corrected with the players we have. If that fails, then a core shakeup could be in order.

I’m a fan of trading Brodie only if the right deal is there(top 6 RW with game break g potential)

I have also been on the “change the assistant coaches” side of thinking. So it’s not like I have an agenda.

What is the right move? No one knows until there is success from a change. So you have to take a calculated risk and the move with the least risk at this time of the season is to fire GG and perhaps spark this team with some confidence in the systems, especially special teams.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

Bottom line is this team needs a shake up and rather than making a regrettable move roster wise, the coach should be the first to go to see if the issues on ice can be corrected with the players we have. If that fails, then a core shakeup could be in order.

I’m a fan of trading Brodie only if the right deal is there(top 6 RW with game break g potential)

I have also been on the “change the assistant coaches” side of thinking. So it’s not like I have an agenda.

What is the right move? No one knows until there is success from a change. So you have to take a calculated risk and the move with the least risk at this time of the season is to fire GG and perhaps spark this team with some confidence in the systems, especially special teams.

I share this line of thinking. I still have hope that this team can be really good. On paper they have a good group and maybe the right coach can help them put it together. If a new coach doesn't work then maybe you do have to take a serious look at the players and shake things up.

I would also be open to trading Brodie for the right player. I'd even consider Hamilton. You can likely get more for him and maybe Brodie back with Gio gets him playing like his old self. I like Hamilton but at the same time I think we would still have a solid top 4 and we have some good prospects coming up to fill the bottom roles.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

The Winnipeg Jets beg to differ. They've done nothing different outside of losing Pavelec and bringing in Mason, and they're one of the best teams in the league this year with the same coach and largely the same roster that had them near the basement to get Laine, and also missing the playoffs last year. The growth came internally as their young players got better.

I'm not saying it's always the right strategy. I'm just pointing out there are examples of teams "staying the course" and looking better all of a sudden.

Big addition was old Panther Kulikov.... similar to Hamonic.

Cost the Jets an extra 700k/year over 3 years but not draft picks.

Both were coming off Career bad years... Kulikov playing top-2 on a bad team with a painful back injury.

Last I remember was he was surprisingly good in the Panthers playoff series.

Who would have you advised the Flames to get. Kulikov 5 x3 ... jets paid 4.5x3 or Hamomic for 3.86x3 and the 1st and 2 seconds.

Of course the Flames end up with Brodie playing on the wrong side with Kulikov being a Left shooter.

That could be the difference with where the Jets are this year and the Flames.

Kulikov seems to have the ability to play well with good players. (Ekblad and Myers)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Isn't it obvious? The team isn't good enough. Time to stop drinking our own bathwater.

Yes, I think it is obvious. But not for the same reason you do.

Flames lack speed (big time, especially on D).

The Flames have one of the fastest sets of defensemen in the league> Brodie is an elite skater. Giordano, Hamonic, Kulak and Hamilton all have good speed for defensemen.

Lack skill (Treliving himself admitted as much, but when Kris Versteeg going down has a huge impact on your PP you know that something's wrong).

They miss Versteeg not because they don't have enough talent but because the PP is being run like a clown show.

And lack depth. (The fourth line does not belong in the NHL, emergence of the 3rd line is nice but is only counteracting the decline in the 2nd line).

Yes, the 4th line is bad.

Finally, they lack hunger. Not enough guys out there with something to prove. Not enough natural roster turnover and guys nipping to bust into larger roles. This is the byproduct of no depth. Vegas is a great example of how having unreal depth pushes everyone to be greater than the sum of the parts.

They don't lack hunger. The problem is that they play a very passive game.

The problem - and it's pretty obvious IMO - is that the coach has them playing a very passive, plodding game that doesn't utilize the talent and speed on defense. Player utilization is terrible, and the passive style sucks the life out of the team.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

See, this is what I don't get, how does this line constantly get a free pass?

I'm not giving them a pass. They just don't really matter that much. The 4th line is the least significant part of the team, and their impact is way below that an actually good coach could make.

[monkeyman]

Re: team speed
Do you guys remember Hartley saying he liked to practice fast so the players would learn to play fast? And this year, when Toronto was in town, one comment that stuck out to me was how fast they practiced, much faster than the media were used to seeing the Flames practice.
This team was known as a fast team under Hartley, so what changed? The Flames seem slow because their plays are slow to develop and passes are not very hard or accurate.

[red sky]

This makeup of this team is overrated but I am done watching until there is a coaching change.

[Joborule]

This is the most frustrating season ever. I may have to consider ceasing watching Flames games while Gulutzan is behind the bench.

[Lanny_McDonald]

How are those fancy stats looking? The stats that matter seem to say that Gulutzan and his coaching staff are ####. Time to move on.

[zarrell]

New Year. New coaching staff. Gtfo Gully.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[Snuffleupagus]

Anyone know how much it would cost to hang a 100x200 ft flag on the Calgary tower for a week?

[zamler]

I can't believe there's so many people that think Gully should keep his job.