The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

Here is why I defend him
- I largely view a lot of the criticism to be based on anecdotal evidence, hearsay and narratives that are poorly supported but people have just chosen to believe.
- As an extension of this, I view this to be a witch hunt and scape goatism. I’m not a fan of that. It reminds a lot of what happened to Playfair who I viewed as a good coach not given a fair shake
- I think that coaches get too much blame overall. I’m of the view that it is on the players to execute. Coaches are the easy one to blame so they take it
- I value stability within key roles and think that teams that are changing coaches and GMs constantly suffer because of it. The Flames included.
- I think there are some fair criticisms of GG, namely player usage and inability to figure out, with his ACs special teams, which are vital to success in the NHL now. I’m not disagreeing on those points
- I really get frustrated when people slam a coach over things like facial expressions, looking down on the bench, etc. I think all of that is unfair.
- Overall in my view I see a team that generally has outplayed other teams most nights, and the underlying metrics support this. Their inability to finish though is both a combination of bad luck, and lack of skill within the forwards. Neither I can blame GG for. The team SHOULD be better than its record based on the metrics and eye test
- That being said, I also don’t think the team is distinctly more talented than most other teams. The Smith injury has set them back, but in general they are tracking to finish close to where I thought they would

Those are all my opinions, and what I struggle with is how the other side gets so upset or can’t even grasp that someone may not share the view that GG is the primary cause of the performance. Both sides have fair points to make.
In my view if they miss the playoffs you have to evaluate the coach, but you also need to evaluate the make up of the team and the roster. Dumping the coach while not addressing the clear gaps in the line up would be foolish.

That's pretty much me.

I cringed under Hartley because the system relied so much on getting dominated that you almost felt "dirty" after every win, and those wins largely came in one season.

I like puck possession teams, and I like a team that generally outplays the opposition and we've been seeing that in the last 14 months.

However the special teams have been a mess, and he's ultimately the guy that can put a stop to that if a Dave Cameron isn't getting it done. Bad luck happens but not swapping sides for shooters or including Hamilton was insane.

I don't like his fourth line usage ... terrible times of the game. The third pairing used to be the same, but they improved the third pairing so it's less of an issue.

I really don't understand dressing Glass last night.

The big thing now though is culture, leadership and fragility.

The only way to fix those things is to move out your core, or add a leader. The leader can't be a fourth line player so it may have to come from a coaching change, and I get that.

But I'm with you; loser organizations hire and fire GMs and coaches too frequently.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

With all due respect to whichever posts you are referring to, there has not been excellent analysis on CP with supporting evidence as to GG sucks.

GG willingly iced a 4th line of Glass-Stajan-Stewart while the team is in a dogfight to make the playoffs.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

@ tkflames. I can't quote your post either.

With all due respect to whichever posts you are referring to, there has not been excellent analysis on CP with supporting evidence as to GG sucks.

Beyond the fact that it is highly unlikely we have good enough hockey minds to outcoach an NHL coach (regardless of how bad you think he might be), CP as a medium limits how good of an analysis can be done. I think at most I've seen some people post screenshots of plays and regardless of how good the analysis is, that's just not sufficient to provide quality analysis that proves that GG sucks as a coach.

That's not to say that there isn't good analysis on CP but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Some good internet hockey chat is a long way from claiming we have better NHL coaches on CP than the actual NHL coaches.

The point I was making is that it is predictable and easily analyzed. Items raised by several members here that were finally implemented were highly successful (removing Brouwer from the power play, using Gio & Hamilton instead of Brodie). It is understood that there is a substantial difference between professional coaches and scouts versus the CP braintrust, but to suggest that fans cannot pick up on unsuccessful tendencies of our team (e.g. zone entries for the PP) and mis-use of players is also misleading.

WildGM (I have typed Jiri about 10 times in my last 2 posts) made the argument that CPs arguments are based on anecdotal evidence, hearsay and narratives. My counter point is that this is not true and some posters have taken the time to put together thoughtful and data based responses.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That's pretty much me.

I cringed under Hartley because the system relied so much on getting dominated that you almost felt "dirty" after every win, and those wins largely came in one season.

I like puck possession teams, and I like a team that generally outplays the opposition and we've been seeing that in the last 14 months.

However the special teams have been a mess, and he's ultimately the guy that can put a stop to that if a Dave Cameron isn't getting it done. Bad luck happens but not swapping sides for shooters or including Hamilton was insane.

I don't like his fourth line usage ... terrible times of the game. The third pairing used to be the same, but they improved the third pairing so it's less of an issue.

I really don't understand dressing Glass last night.

The big thing now though is culture, leadership and fragility.

The only way to fix those things is to move out your core, or add a leader. The leader can't be a fourth line player so it may have to come from a coaching change, and I get that.

But I'm with you; loser organizations hire and fire GMs and coaches too frequently.

I agree with this post is 100% where I am at when in a level headed mindset without the fan emotion of a loss.

[kukkudo]

When Hartley got dismissed it came out of nowhere. Jack Adams winning coach fired the next year, so anything can happen.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

When Hartley got dismissed it came out of nowhere. Jack Adams winning coach fired the next year, so anything can happen.

Gulutzan signed to 10 year contract.

[Toonage]

Captain Obvious statement on my part, but loser organizations don't fire coaches & GMs frequently because they make the right call when hiring those positions. The Flames, I believe, made the right call with Treliving. He did not make the right call with Gulutzan. His next one, given what he knows now and what he has shown as a GM, is likely to be that right decision. I truly believe that.

[Monahammer]

If the hockey gods do exist, not that they have ever once favoured our flames but, Quenneville will be let go in the offseason and we will immediately jettison our entire coaching staff and allow him to hire whoever he would like.

[Dajazz]

GG's record here speaks for itself, I don't need "metrics" to look at the standings and win/loss columns. It's not bad luck, not random chance, that the guy has an mediocre record.

Sure, the team is not deep enough to cover for injuries and off nights and that is partly to blame. It's an average team with a mediocre coach. We need to our D prospects to arrive so we can either trade them or a defender for top 9 scoring. But we're not going anywhere with GG and I pray to god that BT knows it. This team is based on moving the puck from the back end and finishing tic-tac-toe, not corsi-stacking cycle wolf pack bs.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That's pretty much me.

I cringed under Hartley because the system relied so much on getting dominated that you almost felt "dirty" after every win, and those wins largely came in one season.

I like puck possession teams, and I like a team that generally outplays the opposition and we've been seeing that in the last 14 months.

However the special teams have been a mess, and he's ultimately the guy that can put a stop to that if a Dave Cameron isn't getting it done. Bad luck happens but not swapping sides for shooters or including Hamilton was insane.

I don't like his fourth line usage ... terrible times of the game. The third pairing used to be the same, but they improved the third pairing so it's less of an issue.

I really don't understand dressing Glass last night.

The big thing now though is culture, leadership and fragility.

The only way to fix those things is to move out your core, or add a leader. The leader can't be a fourth line player so it may have to come from a coaching change, and I get that.

But I'm with you; loser organizations hire and fire GMs and coaches too frequently.

Not to cross post, but do we offer GG's job to D Sutter?

If he saves the season great, but focus would be on elevating this team next year and a year after that.

Are Flames and pre-Sutter Kins comparable? I see a few similarities on the then/now rosters.

[Eric Vail]

I have a tough time understanding how the Flames added Smith - a starting goalie who has played at an all star level to replace Elliott who had a terrible year. They added Hamonic. a top defender to replace well past his prime Wideman. They added Stone for the entire year to assemble what many were saying was the league's best defense in the off-season. Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, Ferland are all having excellent years.

And yet the team is no better in the win-loss column as last year.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Captain Obvious statement on my part, but loser organizations don't fire coaches & GMs frequently because they make the right call when hiring those positions. The Flames, I believe, made the right call with Treliving. He did not make the right call with Gulutzan. His next one, given what he knows now and what he has shown as a GM, is likely to be that right decision. I truly believe that.

Except that he’s going to choose another coach that’s virtually identical to Gulutzan. Does anyone remember how long the process took to finally hire GG? Treliving took his sweet time making sure that whichever coach he selected checked off all his boxes.

If a new coach is hired, our GM is going to select the same type of coach because he will be checking off all the same boxes. The fundamental root of this team’s problems is the philosophy.

What’s the objective of hockey? To outscore your opponent. Well I didn’t like odds of that happening when Tre said in the summer that goal scoring was going to be the team’s biggest problem.

One thing that hasn’t been a problem though, we certainly play with a lot of edge and truculence since we’re the most penalized team for the second year in a row. But why worry because our mediocre PK will just bleed goals while our forward group that’s 80% muckers and grinders will save this team with all the skill and talent they possess.

Face it people, this team has fundamental flaws that flow all the way up to top of the organization. If anyone looked at the best teams in the league and how they’ve been built, it’s definitely not the same as ours.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

loser organizations hire and fire GMs and coaches too frequently.

I think more commonly the cause and effect goes the other way.

Good GM's and coaches create good, succesful organizations and teams, which causes them to not be fired.

(...also, since GM's fire coaches, I don't think it works very well to lump GM's and coaches together. A bad GM will hire and fire the wrong people, a good GM will do the opposite.)

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

@ tkflames. I can't quote your post either.

With all due respect to whichever posts you are referring to, there has not been excellent analysis on CP with supporting evidence as to GG sucks.

Beyond the fact that it is highly unlikely we have good enough hockey minds to outcoach an NHL coach (regardless of how bad you think he might be), CP as a medium limits how good of an analysis can be done. I think at most I've seen some people post screenshots of plays and regardless of how good the analysis is, that's just not sufficient to provide quality analysis that proves that GG sucks as a coach.

That's not to say that there isn't good analysis on CP but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Some good internet hockey chat is a long way from claiming we have better NHL coaches on CP than the actual NHL coaches.

You don't have to be smarter than NHL coach to find flaws in NHL's coach system. For example, being as humble as possible about my coaching skills, I can say with sufficient confidence, that GG's slow break outs allow opponents more time to get set. I don't have to be Bowman to figure it out, do I? Now I don't have skills to design a better breakout - well, at best I can only suggest a stretch pass, that surely comes with its own flaws.


It can be probably compared to driver's understanding of how to design a car. Any experienced driver can point out pros and cons of most design and system concepts with his or anyone's car. Designing his own car, and doing it better, than pros, is a different story.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Except that he’s going to choose another coach that’s virtually identical to Gulutzan. Does anyone remember how long the process took to finally hire GG? Treliving took his sweet time making sure that whichever coach he selected checked off all his boxes.

If a new coach is hired, our GM is going to select the same type of coach because he will be checking off all the same boxes. The fundamental root of this team’s problems is the philosophy.

We don't know that and have to hope that, as part of his own learning process, Treliving recognizes and corrects the mistakes he made in the first hire. He strikes me as someone who will do this.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Gulutzan signed to 10 year contract.

What is the point of this comment, or was it a typo?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But I'm with you; loser organizations hire and fire GMs and coaches too frequently.

I agree with this too, but the hire has to be the right hire. With the Flames, I think in recent history they have been patient with their coaches. So I think the issue is more with who we're hiring coaching-wise, more-so than our loyalty to them.

Brent Sutter signed a 3 year contract - he coached all 3 years. Missed the playoffs all 3 years.

Bob Hartley signed a 3 year contract - he coached all 3 years, got an extension - and was then fired 1 year into his extension. The giving Hartley an extension was objectively a bad idea, but how do you walk away from the guy who just won a playoff round and coach of the year? Regardless, that's 4 straight years.

Greg Gulutzan signed a 3 year contract - and is about to conclude year 2. Year 1 was a very inconsistent season, marred by poor goaltending poor organizational depth. Year 2, defensive depth and goaltening were addressed and the team clearly over-relied on internal development to address the forwards - but that's still a significant improvement roster-wise, yet the results have by in large been the same, if not slightly worse. There have also been a number of just bizarre coaching decisions made this year. I think the biggest "sin" the team made over the course of last summer was viewing themselves inside of a bubble while setting the expectations. Teams like LA made changes, and have greatly improved - which makes the battle for a spot harder. Also...who saw Vegas coming?

I don't think the Flames are overly impatient with coaches. I do think the Flames were impatient with coaches prior to Brent Sutter, but not anymore. We give them runway to establish their systems and succeed, the last few just haven't.

Right now, I think the Flames have a leadership issue - and I can always think back to what the Flames players have said about the team under Darryl Sutter as the head coach. Iggy may have been captain, but Darryl set the tone and was the leader. I believe we see this with other teams and other coaches as well - I think Quennville is a huge game-changer and leader as a coach.

So the question then comes...if not Gully, then who? I think the market for coaches is going to be very interesting this summer. AV on the outs in NYR, Quennville possibly leaving Chicago? I'm not saying we're going to land Quennville, because I think ultimately if he moves on from Chicago he's going to take up the mantle in New York as they move forward with their rebuild...but would AV be possible? Maybe.

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I agree with this too, but the hire has to be the right hire. With the Flames, I think in recent history they have been patient with their coaches. So I think the issue is more with who we're hiring coaching-wise, more-so than our loyalty to them.

Brent Sutter signed a 3 year contract - he coached all 3 years. Missed the playoffs all 3 years.

Bob Hartley signed a 3 year contract - he coached all 3 years, got an extension - and was then fired 1 year into his extension. The giving Hartley an extension was objectively a bad idea, but how do you walk away from the guy who just won a playoff round and coach of the year? Regardless, that's 4 straight years.

Greg Gulutzan signed a 3 year contract - and is about to conclude year 2. Year 1 was a very inconsistent season, marred by poor goaltending poor organizational depth. Year 2, defensive depth and goaltening were addressed and the team clearly over-relied on internal development to address the forwards - but that's still a significant improvement roster-wise, yet the results have by in large been the same, if not slightly worse. There have also been a number of just bizarre coaching decisions made this year. I think the biggest "sin" the team made over the course of last summer was viewing themselves inside of a bubble while setting the expectations. Teams like LA made changes, and have greatly improved - which makes the battle for a spot harder. Also...who saw Vegas coming?

I don't think the Flames are overly impatient with coaches. I do think the Flames were impatient with coaches prior to Brent Sutter, but not anymore. We give them runway to establish their systems and succeed, the last few just haven't.

Right now, I think the Flames have a leadership issue - and I can always think back to what the Flames players have said about the team under Darryl Sutter as the head coach. Iggy may have been captain, but Darryl set the tone and was the leader. I believe we see this with other teams and other coaches as well - I think Quennville is a huge game-changer and leader as a coach.

So the question then comes...if not Gully, then who? I think the market for coaches is going to be very interesting this summer. AV on the outs in NYR, Quennville possibly leaving Chicago? I'm not saying we're going to land Quennville, because I think ultimately if he moves on from Chicago he's going to take up the mantle in New York as they move forward with their rebuild...but would AV be possible? Maybe.

Have a feeling will be at least 5 coaches available with some surprises.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Pointman

You don't have to be smarter than NHL coach to find flaws in NHL's coach system. For example, being as humble as possible about my coaching skills, I can say with sufficient confidence, that GG's slow break outs allow opponents more time to get set. I don't have to be Bowman to figure it out, do I? Now I don't have skills to design a better breakout - well, yes, at best I can only suggest a stretch pass, that surely comes with its own flaws.


It can be probably compared to driving a car. Any experienced driver can point out pros and cons of most design and system concepts with his or anyone's car. Designing his own car, and doing it better, than pros, is a different story.

It isn't about being able to find flaws. We can all find flaws in the players, coaches, officials etc.

It is the idea that CP provides, as you said yourself, superior design to the pros.

If CP posters were better coaches than NHL coaches, then they'd be NHL coaches.

It doesn't invalidate any and all analysis on here (otherwise what the hell are we wasting our time for) but let's not pretend that CP has cracked the code and figured out every nuance about GG and his coaching staff, all the problems and how to fix them. Even the best posts on this forum only begin to scratch the surface. And that's ok, it's better than "ZOMG!! Glue Gun sux!!!".

Originally Posted by tkflames

The point I was making is that it is predictable and easily analyzed. Items raised by several members here that were finally implemented were highly successful (removing Brouwer from the power play, using Gio & Hamilton instead of Brodie). It is understood that there is a substantial difference between professional coaches and scouts versus the CP braintrust, but to suggest that fans cannot pick up on unsuccessful tendencies of our team (e.g. zone entries for the PP) and mis-use of players is also misleading.

WildGM (I have typed Jiri about 10 times in my last 2 posts) made the argument that CPs arguments are based on anecdotal evidence, hearsay and narratives. My counter point is that this is not true and some posters have taken the time to put together thoughtful and data based responses.

Now you're misrepresenting what I said.

No one said fans can't pick up on it. I'm not even sure why you'd use that as a counterpoint. Fans just aren't providing analysis of a high enough quality to help prove that our coach sucks. Even if a few of their ideas have been successful.

[Igottago]

If stability isn't getting you where you want to be I don't see any advantage to just hanging on for the sake of it. Pro sports isn't an enterprise where you just plant a seed and passively watch what materializes, you have to actively address weaknesses as they appear. 2 years is a decent sample size in professional sport. If the Flames don't get results this season, I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't be looking at what could be done behind the bench to improve things next year.

I believe the Flames have had a good level of patience with the rebuild, but they are entering a phase to be more aggressive about winning.