The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

You really think GG taught these highly paid professionals the fundamentals of hockey? Come on, are you serious?

Fundamentals was going a bit to far to make my point. But did he need to re-teach the forwards that they had to come back and play d , instead of cheating and waiting for stretch pass? Yes he did. I do believe in GG 5 man approach , as many top coaches use this system . Hartley will never coach in this league again and it's not because he was hard on players

[4X4]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Fundamentals was going a bit to far to make my point. But did he need to re-teach the forwards that they had to come back and play d , instead of cheating and waiting for stretch pass? Yes he did. I do believe in GG 5 man approach , as many top coaches use this system . Hartley will never coach in this league again and it's not because he was hard on players

At least Gulutzan will have someone to commiserate with.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

If true that is a head scratcher, some teams don't waste time they just go out and get the best guy available.

Brad has a been a really good rookie GM, imo. He's outperformed many vets with years of experience, but this coach hire is where I genuinely feel he made a rookie mistake and I'm confident he will learn from it.

He over analyzed and over-interviewed, imo. He made the hire and the team's identity and playing style one of his famous "processes".

You can tell that somewhere along the line while interviewing Glen he had bought into what Glen was selling and was likely already thinking about this new way the Flames were going to be playing and how well it was going to work and shut other candidates out of his mind and began ignoring lack of previous success.

Glen sold him that he was his a new innovative young guy that was going to do it his way and win, and I'm very confident Brad goes for a your standard, experienced "best candidate available" coach next time around.

[Erick Estrada]

I never liked the hire from day one as it's apparent over two seasons with the Stars and two in Calgary he's nothing more than a middle of the road .500 head coach. That said he's really grown on me as a person and every time this team had a winning streak I hoped that it was the turning point for him and he could get a team playing consistent hockey once the streak is over but unfortunately that is not the case. Basically three winning streaks over two years are the only thing that really kept his team in the playoff races and before someone says "well if you subtract the winning streaks from any team......" no that's not true. A lot of good teams go through their 10 game segments consistently winning 6+ games. This team has been well below .500 since the last winning streak ended much like last season when the 10 game winning streak ended they finished below .500 to end the season which was followed by a sweep in the playoffs. Simply too many losses in regulation and extra time under this coach and two years in theres absolutely no indication things will change next season as he's got less out of a better roster in year two without any major injuries outside of Smith missing the last couple of weeks which some teams would gladly trade losing their starter for only two weeks if it meant the rest of their top players were injury free.

Must be frustrating for Treliving because he probably felt he did a lot to improve this roster over the summer solidifying the defense, goaltending and providing a better roster for Gulutzan than year one. Unfortunately the results haven't been there and knowing that he and Gulutzan have a long time relationship it can't be a good feeling to have to fire an old friend.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Brad has a been a really good rookie GM, imo. He's outperformed many vets with years of experience, but this coach hire is where I genuinely feel he made a rookie mistake and I'm confident he will learn from it.

I think this claim of being a "really good GM" warrants more analysis. In my opinion, Treliving has made more bad moves than good and the moves fans point to to back up the "good GM" claim are a wash at best.

Where I think Treliving is really weak as a GM is his ability to read his team and make adjustments before it is too late. Last offseason he had to acquire a starting goalie, and going with the known commodity paid off. But when the need wasn't staring him in the face, he goes out and acquires "a better Engelland" in Hamonic, instead of seeking out more offensive threats upfront and let the Flames logjam of defenceman prospects sort things out on the bottom pairing.

Then there's coaching. He fires one coach after setting him up for failure by not acquiring a goalie after Ramo went down with injury and Hiller fell apart, reportedly because vets on this team complained that Hartley was "too tough" or whatever. He then replaces him with a "player's coach" who has an average to below-average track record at the NHL-level and watches the team slowly and methodically lose all confidence playing a style that doesn't suit the personnel at all. The team makes the playoffs at the hands of two streaky performances by Johnson and Elliott and then are swept. Now a "good GM" would have identified a problem here already. A "good GM" would have started lining up a new coach if things didn't drastically change 20 games into the next season, but instead our "good GM" just continues to be inactive in any capacity that might actually help the team. Apparently the coach isn't the only stubborn one here.

[CliffFletcher]

Mid-season adjustments are really hard to make in today's NHL, and I think Treliving works harder at it than most.

The fundamental weakness with this team is a long history of poor drafting and development. GMs can try to patch holes with trades and signings, but in today's NHL if you don't draft and develop well, you're sunk.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Mid-season adjustments are really hard to make in today's NHL, and I think Treliving works harder at it than most.

The fundamental weakness with this team is a long history of poor drafting and development. GMs can try to patch holes with trades and signings, but in today's NHL if you don't draft and develop well, you're sunk.

There's a concept in business that has grown in popularity, they call it "fail fast". If you're going to fail, better to do it quickly. Not sure why this concept hasn't spread to the NHL, instead we have GMs cling to bad decisions, often times wasting a full season in the process. Sure you can find examples of bad situations turning around, but these are the exception not the rule. In a game all about probabilities, you're far better off being probabilistically decisive than not.

As for drafting/developing well, the Flames GM has traded away how many first round picks now? 4? 5? That probably doesn't bode well for future success.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by cannon7

There's a concept in business that has grown in popularity, they call it "fail fast". If you're going to fail, better to do it quickly. Not sure why this concept hasn't spread to the NHL, instead we have GMs cling to bad decisions, often times wasting a full season in the process. Sure you can find examples of bad situations turning around, but these are the exception not the rule. In a game all about probabilities, you're far better off being probabilistically decisive than not.

As for drafting/developing well, the Flames GM has traded away how many first round picks now? 4? 5? That probably doesn't bode well for future success.

I'm going to give Treliving the benefit of the doubt here, as it's possible he may be waiting on a guy like Quennville or AV to become available in the summer. You take yourself out of those sweepstakes by hiring a replacement midseason.

But, if he goes out and hires another retread/"diamond in the rough" type with no track record of success, and much better options are available (not unlike the GG/Boudreau situation) I'll be fully on board the "fire Treliving" train.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Fundamentals was going a bit to far to make my point. But did he need to re-teach the forwards that they had to come back and play d , instead of cheating and waiting for stretch pass?

Our forwards played D under Hartley. The inherent positioning was different in certain situations - for instance centers didn't overload on the cycle and wingers did fly the zone when the opportunity presented itself - but they didn't "cheat" as you frame it. Very few of the goals we allowed were due to failed breakouts. Most were due to simply poor puck retrieval due to passive positioning , and when breakouts failed it was usually because the system asked for a high skill level from the backend which our bottom D lacked.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by cannon7

There's a concept in business that has grown in popularity, they call it "fail fast". If you're going to fail, better to do it quickly. Not sure why this concept hasn't spread to the NHL, instead we have GMs cling to bad decisions, often times wasting a full season in the process. Sure you can find examples of bad situations turning around, but these are the exception not the rule. In a game all about probabilities, you're far better off being probabilistically decisive than not.

As for drafting/developing well, the Flames GM has traded away how many first round picks now? 4? 5? That probably doesn't bode well for future success.

To your point heres my issue:

This organization has given Gulutzan a handful of games shy of 2 full seasons now and he hasnt delivered anything other than inconsistency. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but consistently inconsistent.

If thats what your Performance Review says I think we can all guess what comes next.

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

I'm going to give Treliving the benefit of the doubt here, as it's possible he may be waiting on a guy like Quennville or AV to become available in the summer.

But, if he goes out and hires another retread/"diamond in the rough" type with no track record of success, and much better options are available (not unlike the GG/Boudreau situation) I'll be fully on board the "fire Treliving" train.

The problem with this is that there are always options. Sometimes they're 'Outside the Box' or whatever cool buzzword the kids are using these days.

The fact of the matter remains that after Brian Elliott let that goal in last season in game 4 in Anaheim there should have been a pink slip on Gulutzan's desk.

You see, a team made a bad decision and fired their head coach leaving him stranded outside the arena in Carolina waiting for a cab.

His current team is winning our division.

Always options.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Our forwards played D under Hartley. The inherent positioning was different in certain situations - for instance centers didn't overload on the cycle and wingers did fly the zone when the opportunity presented itself - but they didn't "cheat" as you frame it. Very few of the goals we allowed were due to failed breakouts. Most were due to simply poor puck retrieval due to passive positioning , and when breakouts failed it was usually because the system asked for a high skill level from the backend which our bottom D lacked.

Another thing with Hartley - this is a guy that had Wideman and Russell as his top pairing for long stretches. He played a system that played to their strengths - quick stretch passes, quick counter attacks. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I don't remember this being the system when Hartley had a hall of fame roster in Colorado.

That was not a group that is going to win defensive cycle games into short breakouts fighting through the neutral zone, and Hartley identified that from the start. With the current (much more skilled) group, I would have expected Hartley to tailor a system to the strengths of this group.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Locke

To your point heres my issue:

This organization has given Gulutzan a handful of games shy of 2 full seasons now and he hasnt delivered anything other than inconsistency. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but consistently inconsistent.

If thats what your Performance Review says I think we can all guess what comes next.

The problem with this is that there are always options. Sometimes they're 'Outside the Box' or whatever cool buzzword the kids are using these days.

The fact of the matter remains that after Brian Elliott let that goal in last season in game 4 in Anaheim there should have been a pink slip on Gulutzan's desk.

You see, a team made a bad decision and fired their head coach leaving him stranded outside the arena in Carolina waiting for a cab.

His current team is winning our division.

Always options.

Treliving has shown me nothing to suggest he's the man to choose the Flames next head coach. Feaster, with all his flaws, still had enough sense to pick a coach with a Stanley Cup ring. Instead Treliving goes and hires the assistant of the coach the Flames defeated in the playoffs the year before -- what kind of judgment is that?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Treliving has shown me nothing to suggest he's the man to choose the Flames next head coach. Feaster, with all his flaws, still had enough sense to pick a coach with a Stanley Cup ring. Instead Treliving goes and hires the assistant of the coach the Flames defeated in the playoffs the year before -- what kind of judgment is that?

That's a pretty thorough list of parameters you decided upon there.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Locke

You see, a team made a bad decision and fired their head coach leaving him stranded outside the arena in Carolina waiting for a cab.

His current team is winning our division.

Always options.

The case could be made that the Panthers were to quick to fire Gallant and so the "fail fast" method backfired for them. But "fail fast" doesn't mean you don't fail, it means you don't let failure persist without action. Clearly there were significant issues within the Panthers management group, so I doubt very much they were making clear minded decisions when they fired Gallant. In defense of Gallant and his replacement, the Panthers had significant injuries that season.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Treliving has shown me nothing to suggest he's the man to choose the Flames next head coach. Feaster, with all his flaws, still had enough sense to pick a coach with a Stanley Cup ring. Instead Treliving goes and hires the assistant of the coach the Flames defeated in the playoffs the year before -- what kind of judgment is that?

They defeated a heavily favoured, deeper, more experienced team at that.
The fascination this organization seems to have for Vancouver cast-offs is unsettling.
Burke, GG, Vey, Lack, Glass, Raymond, Cramarossa, and Shinkaruk.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That's a pretty thorough list of parameters you decided upon there.

Please enlighten me on all the virtues of Gulutzan. You could say, "yeah, you say this now in retrospect", but if you go back to when he was hired I was unconvinced he was the right choice. And last offseason I was one of the few outspoken posters wanting him to be replaced.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Please enlighten me on all the virtues of Gulutzan. You could say, "yeah, you say this now in retrospect", but if you go back to when he was hired I was unconvinced he was the right choice. And last offseason I was one of the few outspoken posters wanting him to be replaced.

Didn't you know, GG has amazing advanced stats.
oh, and a mural of mt. Everest.
and a bucket of beer on a train.
and he can throw a hockey stick really far.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Treliving has shown me nothing to suggest he's the man to choose the Flames next head coach. Feaster, with all his flaws, still had enough sense to pick a coach with a Stanley Cup ring. Instead Treliving goes and hires the assistant of the coach the Flames defeated in the playoffs the year before -- what kind of judgment is that?

Was it stupid of Pittsburgh to hire Mike Sullivan, a guy with no rings, from Vancouver's 2014 team that was even worse?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Please enlighten me on all the virtues of Gulutzan. You could say, "yeah, you say this now in retrospect", but if you go back to when he was hired I was unconvinced he was the right choice. And last offseason I was one of the few outspoken posters wanting him to be replaced.

The Flames were a tire fire of a possession team relying on blocked shots to stay in games.

That wasn't a recipe for success.

His process had him look for coaches that could convince him that they had the ability and structure to coach an NHL hockey team to reverse the possession crater that had become the Flames.

He hired Gulutzan after many interviews, an odd hike, and then a 5 hour lunch meeting where they grilled him on the structure.

They liked it. They hired him.

He delivered on the possession ... as the Flames are 4th in CF% at 52.7% and 4th in scoring chances at HDCF% 54.3%. Those are great numbers.

I think Gulutzan whiffed on his assistant coaches as they special teams have let them down but the team is losing almost exclusively on finish (they are ranked 8th last at a shooting percentage of 7.1%.

I've said recently that the team's inability to respond to adversity may and perhaps should be Gulutzan's downfall, but the organization as a whole set out on a path to improve their play, and for most metrics they did.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Didn't you know, GG has amazing advanced stats.
oh, and a mural of mt. Everest.
and a bucket of beer on a train.
and he can throw a hockey stick really far.

The funny thing (for me, anyway) is that I do machine learning professionally and you'd never hear me waxing poetic about advanced stats when it comes to hockey. Corsi is classic overfitting and will leave many a GM/coach in it's wake.