There are a lot of good points being raised here, but I have to say that the Flames on their 7-game streak were absolutely playing aggressively.
The games in Tbay, Florida, Carolina saw the team attacking, generating offense and scoring in bunches.
They looked great.
I agree with the assessment of the way they have been playing lately, but to suggest that is by design like some are saying (including Button) doesn't ring true to me.
I don't know what the answer is, but I believe there is an execution issue for sure.
It's frustrating when the staff doesn't put the players on the ice which give you the best chance to win. Then they keep putting them out there all game.
__________________
I hate just about everyone and just about everything.
There are a lot of good points being raised here, but I have to say that the Flames on their 7-game streak were absolutely playing aggressively.
The games in Tbay, Florida, Carolina saw the team attacking, generating offense and scoring in bunches.
They looked great.
I agree with the assessment of the way they have been playing lately, but to suggest that is by design like some are saying (including Button) doesn't ring true to me.
I don't know what the answer is, but I believe there is an execution issue for sure.
The tough part is it's easy to give them too much credit for a hot streak. When a team is just feeling it, they can pretty much do no wrong - they're gonna be attacking, moving the puck quickly, and finding open plays left and right. But 90% of the league has stretches like that.
I think the biggest difference is the mentality when things aren't flowing well, and I think Vegas provides a pretty stark contrast to the way we play.
Our mentality seems to be "take your time and make the right play." Our players hesitate all the time with the puck, they circle back, they get set behind the net. And that's all great for maintaining possession and limiting turnovers, but it also lets the defence get set up as well.
Vegas's mentality seems to be "make a play quickly, even if it's not the best play." They fire the puck up the ice quickly, they make a lot of quick passes in transition, and every time they get a chance the puck is on net. They commit a lot more turnovers and make more mistakes, but they also generate a lot more speed.
I think that core distinction manifests itself in a lot of areas of our game. As soon as Vegas gets the puck, their forwards get moving in a hurry, because they know the puck is moving right away. Even if the pass is off the mark, they're generally moving faster than the other team so they recover the puck a lot. It also creates a lot of dangerous rush plays, because everyone's looking to pass the puck fast, and everyone's getting open to receive a pass fast. And it makes it really hard to get your D set when you're under attack 2 seconds after you lose the puck.
Contrast that with us: our puck carriers hang onto the puck longer, so the other skaters getting open need to slow down to time their routes better, or they end up having to stop at the blueline and wait. Because we end up moving slower, the guys making the passes have tighter windows to make those passes, so on an off-day we mis-fire and ice the puck a lot. And when we double back and reverse the puck a bunch of times in our zone, the forwards can't generate speed because they're not sure what breakout we're trying to start, so we end up with stationary wingers at the half boards chipping the puck out.
Watch the second Gaudreau goal in this clip (t=39s) from a few years ago:
That speed of puck movement is what we're missing. You need that mutual trust between the players that they're going to attack quickly to pull that off. Gaudreau trusted that Brodie would look up the ice quickly, so he cut aggressively to the blueline. And Brodie trusted that his forwards would get open quickly, so he looked up the ice immediately. It only works when everyone understands the need to play fast.
I'm not suggesting we bring back the stretch pass as our primary breakout, because that brings with it a whole host of drawbacks. But our current style of play just doesn't generate dangerous chances enough. In this era of speed, the right play done slowly becomes the wrong play in a split second, and I think we err on the side of caution far too often.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Kovaz For This Useful Post:
Why would a sane GM just make a change unless he thought the next guy who takes over will be a definitive upgrade. You people act like we’re some bottom feeding team who’s missed the playoffs for the last 5 years.
Ask Treliving. He's the one who fired the reigning Adams winner after he couldn't duplicate a 2nd round playoff series.
I also don't understand the sentiment of ownership being cheap on coaches. The Flames paid for both Hartley and Gulutzan at one point. They paid a guy to not coach.
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank MetaMusil For This Useful Post:
Ask Treliving. He's the one who fired the reigning Adams winner after he couldn't duplicate a 2nd round playoff series.
I also don't understand the sentiment of ownership being cheap on coaches. The Flames paid for both Hartley and Gulutzan at one point. They paid a guy to not coach.
I think Harley and Gulutzan are cheap coaches compared to the big names out there.
I think Harley and Gulutzan are cheap coaches compared to the big names out there.
Then they should be perfectly happy with Gulutzan as you get what you pay for. I don't think the Flames ownership is as shortsighted to pay up to the salary cap only to cheap out on the head coach. Theses guys didn't get rich by missing critical details like this. There biggest concern is likely the length of the contract handed out.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 02-01-2018 at 06:57 AM.
The Flames are probably paying those coaches league minimum to coach and in the case of Hartley, not to coach.
I see no evidence outside of paying Darryl Sutter to coach & be the GM, of the Flames paying a premium for their coaches.
I had a personal theory that Flames ownership is willing to open their wallets for players but not coaches and I got an earful from people but I still subscribe to this.
That doesn't mean you can't find a good coach (little experience, rookie, reclamation etc) for a good price but I do get the impression that there is a prevailing thought that coaching isn't as important to ownership as players are.
The Flames are probably paying those coaches league minimum to coach and in the case of Hartley, not to coach.
I see no evidence outside of paying Darryl Sutter to coach & be the GM, of the Flames paying a premium for their coaches.
I had a personal theory that Flames ownership is willing to open their wallets for players but not coaches and I got an earful from people but I still subscribe to this.
That doesn't mean you can't find a good coach (little experience, rookie, reclamation etc) for a good price but I do get the impression that there is a prevailing thought that coaching isn't as important to ownership as players are.
At the time there was also a huge push for "no retreads" in coaching. So no older coaches who'd had multiple previous engagements. Those happen to be the guys that are paid more.
The gap isn't that huge though. The lowest I can find is Detroit's Blashil guy who's getting $800K. I imagine GG is making something like Travis Green or Bob Boughner, who get $1M. Barry Trotz for some reason only makes $1.5. Laviolette gets $2m. Boudreau gets $2.65.
But in the "money doesn't buy happiness" dept., TMac gets $3M. Julien gets $5M.
Then they should be perfectly happy with Gulutzan as you get what you pay for. I don't think the Flames ownership is as shortsighted to pay up to the salary cap only to cheap out on the head coach. Theses guys didn't get rich by missing critical details like this. There biggest concern is likely the length of the contract handed out.
Success in one industry doesn't translate to success in another. I mean we saw how detail-oriented the Flames were with CalgaryNext.
When you look at past history, the Flames have pretty much always hired the cheap young coach (or GM for that matter), or retread looking for one last chance.
MacNeil
Johnson
Crisp
Risebrough
King
Page
Brian Sutter
Hay
Gilbert
Sutter
Playfair
Keenan
Darryl Sutter
Brent Sutter
Hartley
Gulutzan
Out of this list, the vast majority are first-time coaches. And out of this list, only 4 men went on to have a head coaching position with another team. Not really a great track record.
I would say only the two Sutters could be considered established quality NHL coaches when they were hired by the Flames. Keenan was way past his prime, and we pulled Hartley out of Switzerland after half a decade away from the NHL. MacNeil was hired 8 years after his his last tenure as head coach.
To me that certainly suggest a certain penchant for pinching pennies at the position. I would assume the same thing happened with GMs and scouting.
Last edited by Table 5; 02-01-2018 at 09:44 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
Keenan got good performance out of the team and was run out by ownership despite a very injury ravaged team that was put out in the first round. He was the mellower version of Keenan, and he ran his horses, but certain people thought Brent would improve the team by shoring up the D.
People have issues with all coaches, but outside of a year of Hartley, he was the last guy with an entertaining team that won and had a chance.
The Following User Says Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
Success in one industry doesn't translate to success in another. I mean we saw how detail-oriented the Flames were with CalgaryNext.
When you look at past history, the Flames have pretty much always hired the cheap young coach (or GM for that matter), or retread looking for one last chance.
MacNeil
Johnson
Crisp
Risebrough
King
Page
B. Sutter
Hay
Gilbert
Sutter
Playfair
Keenan
D. Sutter
Hartley
Gulutzan
Out of this list, the vast majority are first-time coaches. And out of this list, only 4 men went on to have a head coaching position with another team. Not really a great track record.
I would say only the two Sutters could be considered established quality NHL coaches when they were hired by the Flames. Keenan was way past his prime, and we pulled Hartley out of Switzerland after half a decade away from the NHL. MacNeil was hired 8 years after his his last tenure as head coach.
To me that certainly suggest a certain penchant for pinching pennies at the position. I would assume the same thing happened with GMs and scouting.
In fairness, Dave King was a very prominent coach at the time. Just not in the NHL. Badger Bob was a very well known coach for the same reasons as Herb Brooks and Dave King. Crisp, Risebrough, Playfair and Page were organizational promotions, which happen all the time.
Al MacNeil was an Atlanta hire, so different ownership group.
So that leaves Hay (who had been an NHL coach, but wasn't a good one), Hartley (who'd won a cup) and Keenan (who had actually had less time out of the NHL than Hartley).
The Flames may be going cheap, but I'm not sure there were better, but more expensive options. And I'm sure Darryl didn't bring Brent in on the cheap but it didn't turn out well.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Yet still first-time coaches or retreads. Even if some of those coaches had some pedigree, none of it was proven at the highest level. I'm not necessarily against hiring young up and coming guys, but the Flames pretty much never go out and hire the top dogs. To me that indicates a way of doing business. Now part of that may be due to geography/status, but I'm sure if you threw enough money at these guys, they'd come.
Today's squad in particular I think could really use a proven leader.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
Yet still first-time coaches or retreads. Even if some of those coaches had some pedigree, none of it was proven at the highest level. I'm not necessarily against hiring young up and coming guys, but the Flames pretty much never go out and hire the top dogs. To me that indicates a way of doing business. Now part of that may be due to geography/status, but I'm sure if you threw enough money at these guys, they'd come.
Today's squad in particular I think could really use a proven leader.
Like when Detroit hired Babcock, Pittsburgh hired Sullivan, Tampa hired Cooper, or Florida hired Gallant.
Who was the "proven leader" you wanted? Boudreau is the only one then available that comes to mind.
Yet still first-time coaches or retreads. Even if some of those coaches had some pedigree, none of it was proven at the highest level. I'm not necessarily against hiring young up and coming guys, but the Flames pretty much never go out and hire the top dogs. To me that indicates a way of doing business. Now part of that may be due to geography/status, but I'm sure if you threw enough money at these guys, they'd come.
Today's squad in particular I think could really use a proven leader.
Babcock took Anaheim to a cup final prior to Detroit.
Yeah, that's right. My bad. But who was he before Anaheim hired him two years earlier?
My point is that lots of the great coaches were not known much beforehand. And, at the time GG was hired, there was a big movement against some of the recycled guys in favour of new guys. Green's name kept coming up. Whenever Boudreau's name was mentioned there was a huge pushback.
Like when Detroit hired Babcock, Pittsburgh hired Sullivan, Tampa hired Cooper, or Florida hired Gallant.
How many first-time coaches flame out compared to the ones that have success? I mean I guess we can keep playing the cheapo coach lottery for another 3 decades, and hope we hit a winner. Or maybe, just this time, we can pay up. The one time we did that in the last couple of decades, we went to the Finals.
If Joel Quenneville becomes available this summer, you back up the money truck for him. Make him the highest paid coach in the league...whatever it takes. A guy like that can be just as important as a Gaudreau or Giordano.
This team is dying for some leadership...and it's clearly not in the room right now. It needs to be imported, and it needs to be done relatively soon before we waste this cycle.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
If Joel Quenneville becomes available this summer, you back up the money truck for him. Make him the highest paid coach in the league...whatever it takes. A guy like that can be just as important as a Gaudreau or Giordano.
This team is dying for some leadership...and it's clearly not in the room right now. It needs to be imported, and it needs to be done relatively soon before we waste this cycle.
I seem to remember hearing the Flanes owners dont like to pay for coaching.
