What ails the Flames?

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

All this roles talk is meaningless. The coaches aren't asking guys not to produce. Does anyone honestly believe that if they just slapped a 2nd line label onto the 3rd line that it changes anything at all? Like what exactly changes?

The 3rd line goes out and tries to produce offense whenever they're on the ice anyway. They're not asked to do anything special here. They're just incapable right now because they're simply not good enough. The 2nd line does produce and they defend very well against the opposition's top lines to boot, that's why they're the default 2nd line.

The honest truth is that if the Jankowski line was better and became more of a handful to deal with, then other teams would be forced to throw better defenders out there against them. Teams don't do that though because they're a non-threat right now. They don't spend a lot of time cycling or creating chances, they don't tire out defenders, they don't force the opposition to respect them. That's why they're not a 2nd line right now.

Let's make this simple. Gulutzan has been a head coach for coming up on four seasons and he has not won a playoff game yet, and is on pace to miss the playoffs giving him a 1 in 4 success rate at making the post season.

What has he shown that has you so certain he is part of the solution and not part of the problem?

If players don't produce it's on them, but if Gulutzan doesn't produce across multiple organizations with multiple players (3 if you include the Canucks) it's the fault of all those different players and not him?

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I definitely agree with you that we're not going to contend with this currently flawed roster. The holes are glaring and with Smith's injury history, a better contingency plan then Lack or 2 rookie goaltenders should've been addressed.

Amateur skating has actually done a pretty good job for the most part considering the few picks they've had to play with. But speed and skill needs to be become the primary objective here. There's too many grinders on this team and not enough finishers. That's why we're one of the top teams in shots taken and shots on goal, yet one of the lowest in goals scored per game.

We are 21st in goals per game, a whopping 5 goals from being 15th. That's a razor thin edge, and basically has the Flames in the thick of league goal scoring. With the defense that was assembled it's not insane to think their plan was to be average in goal scoring and above average in goals allowed.

All this BS you spew about being all grinders is just that. This team has been drafting (or trying to) draft skill and speed ever since the brutal draft that Burke ran (Hunter Smith anyone). You can say they don't have enough skill, but it's not because they focused on Grinders like the Sutter era, it's because picks like Bennett, Poirier and Klimchuk didn't pan out as expected.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

This right here is what bugs me so much about Gulutzan. Players come here out of the gates hot, but once they're exposed for a longer period start to develop weird habits, go on scoring droughts and lose confidence.
Bennett. Jankowski. Hathaway. Brouwer. Brodie. Even Ryan Lomberg somehow lost his motor after a few practices under guly.
Has a player ever become "better" under Gulutzan? Scoring across the NHL is up quite a bit, so I don't think this year from Johnny money and Ferland counts, and last year under gulutzan they had bad seasons.

Ah yes. The cases where a player has improved "don't count" because of some arbitrary reasons.
Ferland has taken a clear step forward this season. What about Dougie?
You can't just pick and choose.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Agree regarding lack of scoring. Smith injury may be final nail though, because those 3 points (And I'd argue at least 1 more) put Flames into playoff spot (or tie) right now.

Nope. Those 3 or 4 points were lost in mid-January when this team was beaten at home by the Sabres, Kings (then playing badly) and Oilers.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Goaltending definitely cost them the NYR game and probably the Dallas and Pitssburgh game. Too many weak goals that shouldn't go in on a legitimate starter.

The Florida, Vegas, and Colorado games as well imo.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Let's make this simple. Gulutzan has been a head coach for coming up on four seasons and he has not won a playoff game yet, and is on pace to miss the playoffs giving him a 1 in 4 success rate at making the post season.

What has he shown that has you so certain he is part of the solution and not part of the problem?

If players don't produce it's on them, but if Gulutzan doesn't produce across multiple organizations with multiple players (3 if you include the Canucks) it's the fault of all those different players and not him?

I don't put much stock in his two years in Dallas. That was a crappy team, from top to bottom.

FWIW, it took Barry Trotz 11 years to win a round. It took Paul Maurice 6 (he then went to the finals but didn't win another round for another 4 seasons. Daryl Sutter won four rounds in 9 years (2 rounds in a single season in his first 5 years). Maybe GG is the same. Or maybe he's Brent Sutter (no wins his entire career).

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I agree with the idea of Tkachuk—Janko-Bennett. That makes the line better and a handful to deal with.

Backlund and Frolik can play with any winger and make them better, and against tough opposition. Why not Brouwer?
Neither Jankowski nor Bennett seem to be ready to put a line on their back but looked good with the few games of healthy Jagr. Give them a good winger that is always a factor and see what happens.

Johnny - Monahan - Ferland
Brouwer - Backlund - Frolik
Tkachuk - Jankowski - Bennett
4th line

I wish Gulutzan tried this the minute they knew Jagr was out of their plans.

Thank you. I've said 3 times that it's not simply reassigning a number to a line. Swapping Hathaway with Tkachuk, and allowing 3 man zone entry instead of 5 (allowing an accent on speed over passing), would cause chaos for the opposing team. Tkachuk and Bennett are excellent at producing from the corners. Janko isn't afraid of the front of the net. Let the defense trail.

Let the rest of the team play 5 man defensive, transition and offensive zones, and just let that one line play to the strengths that made them all blue chip prospects.

Conform to the players ability.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Ah yes. The cases where a player has improved "don't count" because of some arbitrary reasons.
Ferland has taken a clear step forward this season. What about Dougie?
You can't just pick and choose.

I'd say Kulak has improved. Lazar has improved from the start of the year to now, as has Hamonic. So, without the excuses of special circumstances, you have those guys, Dougie, Gaudreau, Tkachuk, and Monahan. These happen to be the younger players who are less set in their ways (I think this was a struggle for Brodie) and don't have declining skills (Brouwer, Frolik to an extent, Stajan, and Stone to an extent.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Let's make this simple. Gulutzan has been a head coach for coming up on four seasons and he has not won a playoff game yet, and is on pace to miss the playoffs giving him a 1 in 4 success rate at making the post season.

What has he shown that has you so certain he is part of the solution and not part of the problem?

If players don't produce it's on them, but if Gulutzan doesn't produce across multiple organizations with multiple players (3 if you include the Canucks) it's the fault of all those different players and not him?

It's not that simple though. The way you're interpreting success doesn't make sense to me, as if every team is made equal or something, but it's not. If you really want to measure the success of a coach in a more respectable manner? Look at the teams before he previously coached them.

Dallas Stars before Gulutzan: They missed the playoffs and palced bottom in the Pacific for 2 straight years (Coaches: Dave Tippett, Marc Crawford). Gulutzan picked up a team in the middle of a re-tool, not sure why you would expect a re-tooling team lead by Loui Eriksson and Kari Lehtonen to be playoff bound.

Calgary Flames before Gulutzan: A rebuilding team as of 2013. Upstart team that made the playoffs in 2015 and then missed the playoffs and finished 5th last in the league in 2016 with only 77 points (Coaches: Bob Hartley)
Gulutzan is hired and his team finds a way back into the playoffs and was in the mix for the playoffs all season long until recently.

It's not like Gulutzan has shown in his history that he's been a problem at all. It's not like he became a coach and his teams cratered or something. Heck, he took over for a Stanley Cup winning coach in Marc Crawford and as a rookie coach he still won the same amount of games with 42.

I'm not saying Gulutzan is perfect, but what I'm saying is he's not the team's biggest problem. Gaudreau, Monahan, Ferland, Tkachuk, Hamilton, Giordano, Backlund, Frolik and whoever else has seen their games flourish. It's not like he's stunting the growth of the most important players on the team or something. Even Jankowski and Bennett had phenomenal months in December and then have since disappeared.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

It's not that simple though. The way you're interpreting success doesn't make sense to me, as if every team is made equal or something, but it's not. If you really want to measure the success of a coach in a more respectable manner? Look at the teams before he previously coached them.

Dallas Stars before Gulutzan: They missed the playoffs and palced bottom in the Pacific for 2 straight years (Coaches: Dave Tippett, Marc Crawford). Gulutzan picked up a team in the middle of a re-tool, not sure why you would expect a re-tooling team lead by Loui Eriksson and Kari Lehtonen to be playoff bound.

Calgary Flames before Gulutzan: A rebuilding team as of 2013. Upstart team that made the playoffs in 2015 and then missed the playoffs and finished 5th last in the league in 2016 with only 77 points (Coaches: Bob Hartley)
Gulutzan is hired and his team finds a way back into the playoffs and was in the mix for the playoffs all season long until recently.

It's not like Gulutzan has shown in his history that he's been a problem at all. It's not like he became a coach and his teams cratered or something. Heck, he took over for a Stanley Cup winning coach in Marc Crawford and as a rookie coach he still won the same amount of games with 42.

I'm not saying Gulutzan is perfect, but what I'm saying is he's not the team's biggest problem. Gaudreau, Monahan, Ferland, Tkachuk, Hamilton, Giordano, Backlund, Frolik and whoever else has seen their games flourish. It's not like he's stunting the growth of the most important players on the team or something. Even Jankowski and Bennett had phenomenal months in December and then have since disappeared.

If the Flames miss the playoffs his year (likely) then Hartley will have had more success than Gulutzan. I feel there are very few people on this board who would not say the Flames have an improved roster under Gulutzan compared to Hartley.

Despite tangible complaints about Gulutzan's coaching your only defense of him is that the Flames roster sucks and nothing can be expected since they are all slow and unskilled.

It's funny how fast the Flames were under Hartley and how slow they are under Gulutzan.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I'm not saying Gulutzan is perfect, but what I'm saying is he's not the team's biggest problem. Gaudreau, Monahan, Ferland, Tkachuk, Hamilton, Giordano, Backlund, Frolik and whoever else has seen their games flourish. It's not like he's stunting the growth of the most important players on the team or something. Even Jankowski and Bennett had phenomenal months in December and then have since disappeared.

I am curious how you can arrive at the conclusion that these guys are flourishing.
Monahan and Gaudreau found their games under Hartley and are showing natural development as top line players entering their prime.
Ferland was promoted to the top line and has been the beneficiary of his line mates. He is streaky and needs to be demoted to the 4th from time to time
Gio was and is a stud.
Hamilton benefits from playing with Gio. And Hamilton is pretty much delivering what he delivered in Boston. Flat. Very good but not better or worse. Brodie sure has dipped though
Frolik is flat and consistent.
Backlund has a few more points and is a -10
Tkachuk is a guy that arrived pretty much fully baked and would likely do well under any coach.

So to me these guys are playing pretty much as expected. Not better or worse.

Most guys on the bottom 6 have been going through the blender and decidedly are not flourishing.

So the guys you mention are all playing well, but I don’t see impactful step changes under the coach, and the net of it is that the team as a whole is not where it was expected to be.

If you look at Hartley by comparison you can likely pick out more players who actually showed marked improvement attributable to a coach.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

We are 21st in goals per game, a whopping 5 goals from being 15th. That's a razor thin edge, and basically has the Flames in the thick of league goal scoring. With the defense that was assembled it's not insane to think their plan was to be average in goal scoring and above average in goals allowed.

All this BS you spew about being all grinders is just that. This team has been drafting (or trying to) draft skill and speed ever since the brutal draft that Burke ran (Hunter Smith anyone). You can say they don't have enough skill, but it's not because they focused on Grinders like the Sutter era, it's because picks like Bennett, Poirier and Klimchuk didn't pan out as expected.

Do you even realize how few teams who are in the bottom half of the league in goals per game are out of a playoff position? Just look at the list from 18 down, only 2 of those 14 teams are in a playoff spot and they're just barely hanging on by a thread. Goal scoring in this league is the primary objective to winning hockey games and it's the reason why GMs ante up so much for them. It's an arms race and everyone is trying to collect as much talent as they can to gain that extra edge.

I'm also not wrong about the construction of this team. Burke is still in charge of the operations and has hired the scouts and have given them the mandate on what he's looking for. This mandate is the reason why guys like Troy Brouwer was targeted. His edge and truculence was what appealed to the team and now 95% of the fan base hates him.

Watch other top teams and they're loaded with skilled players who can skate, shoot, create their own shots, create plays, dangle and etc whereas we can't even find a single player on this team with a half decent one timer to play on the powerplay. We lack skill up and down our line up and if you can't see that, then I'll leave you with your delusions because I'm not wrong. We're a top 5 team in shots taken and yet we're 21st in goals per game, that should've given you a clue right there.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

If the Flames miss the playoffs his year (likely) then Hartley will have had more success than Gulutzan. I feel there are very few people on this board who would not say the Flames have an improved roster under Gulutzan compared to Hartley.

Despite tangible complaints about Gulutzan's coaching your only defense of him is that the Flames roster sucks and nothing can be expected since they are all slow and unskilled.

It's funny how fast the Flames were under Hartley and how slow they are under Gulutzan.

What makes you think Hartley was even more successful? Under your logic, Hartley made the playoffs 1 of 4 attempts, so then he’s worse than Gulutzan. It’s not like Hartley was any more successful against the Ducks either and we didn’t get the same 1st round draw. Record wise, the points% is .498 for Hartley and Gulutzan is at .563 throughout their tenures here, so realistically, your point is invalid. I didn’t even dislike Hartley, but there’s a reason why no NHL team has him on their radar.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I'm also not wrong about the construction of this team. Burke is still in charge of the operations and has hired the scouts and have given them the mandate on what he's looking for. This mandate is the reason why guys like Troy Brouwer was targeted. His edge and truculence was what appealed to the team and now 95% of the fan base hates him.

I could have sworn there was more to it than that. Maybe something along the lines of being a proper RW, RH shot, history of being able to play anywhere in the top 9 and us having a major hole on the right side.
But sure, let's just pick out the truculent part and ignore everything else because Brian Burke is in the organization and the mastermind behind everything.

Since Treliving took over at the end of April 2014

- Traded for Dougie Hamilton (Truculent!)
- Signed Michael Frolik
- Re-signed Paul Byron (extra truculent)
- Re-sign Michael Ferland (Burke's finger prints all over this)
- Draft Matthew Tkachuk (something something lack of skill)


Other notable drafts

- Rasmus Andersson
- Oliver Kylington
- Andrew Mangiapane
- Dillon Dube
- Adam Fox
- Linus Lindstrom
- Matthew Phillips

compared to our vast future grinders

- Stepen Falkovsky?
- Mitchell Mattson?


Probably wouldn't count the likes of Eetu Tuulola, Adam Ruzicka who have more skill to offer. Didn't include the picks of Hunter Smith, Adam Ollas-Mattsson or Austin Carroll since Treliving only just joined the organization.

Bottom line, let's just stop with this nonsense that Burke is the real general manger and Treliving is a figurehead brought on to repeat the word "process".

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Do you even realize how few teams who are in the bottom half of the league in goals per game are out of a playoff position? Just look at the list from 18 down, only 2 of those 14 teams are in a playoff spot and they're just barely hanging on by a thread. Goal scoring in this league is the primary objective to winning hockey games and it's the reason why GMs ante up so much for them. It's an arms race and everyone is trying to collect as much talent as they can to gain that extra edge.

I'm also not wrong about the construction of this team. Burke is still in charge of the operations and has hired the scouts and have given them the mandate on what he's looking for. This mandate is the reason why guys like Troy Brouwer was targeted. His edge and truculence was what appealed to the team and now 95% of the fan base hates him.

Watch other top teams and they're loaded with skilled players who can skate, shoot, create their own shots, create plays, dangle and etc whereas we can't even find a single player on this team with a half decent one timer to play on the powerplay. We lack skill up and down our line up and if you can't see that, then I'll leave you with your delusions because I'm not wrong. We're a top 5 team in shots taken and yet we're 21st in goals per game, that should've given you a clue right there.

So your defense is again that the team is no good, has no skill and is made up entirely of Tory Brouwers. Have you even looked at the players we've been drafting? Man, that Phillips sure is an imposing physical beast. And man, that Fox on the back end just terrifies players coming down his wing. You have a narrative and search out things to support that narrative.

Who cares if you are in the bottom 15 I'm goals for when you are 5 goals away from top 15. You think that's stsistically significant?

And maybe our shooting percentage is so low because we are force fed a slow as heck "possession" system where we skate into the zone and wait for the entire team to set up before we attack the net. And who knows what Hamilton's one timer would look like on the pp because our brain trust of a coach refuses to allow him to play his off side where someone could dish him passes for a clapper.

What you describe as a lack of skill sure seems like the exact symptoms I would expect when a coach designs a system on a whiteboard and puts more emphasis on holding onto the puck and generating shot attempts than the quality of this attempts.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I am curious how you can arrive at the conclusion that these guys are flourishing.
Monahan and Gaudreau found their games under Hartley and are showing natural development as top line players entering their prime.
Ferland was promoted to the top line and has been the beneficiary of his line mates. He is streaky and needs to be demoted to the 4th from time to time
Gio was and is a stud.
Hamilton benefits from playing with Gio. And Hamilton is pretty much delivering what he delivered in Boston. Flat. Very good but not better or worse. Brodie sure has dipped though
Frolik is flat and consistent.
Backlund has a few more points and is a -10
Tkachuk is a guy that arrived pretty much fully baked and would likely do well under any coach.

So to me these guys are playing pretty much as expected. Not better or worse.

Most guys on the bottom 6 have been going through the blender and decidedly are not flourishing.

So the guys you mention are all playing well, but I don’t see impactful step changes under the coach, and the net of it is that the team as a whole is not where it was expected to be.

If you look at Hartley by comparison you can likely pick out more players who actually showed marked improvement attributable to a coach.

So in other words, good = player, bad = coach? I basically named the entire roster from which the 2 coaches actually shared. Even some role players like Stajan saw an uptick from Hartley and same with Derek Engelland and etc.

Who can you even name to make your argument? Bennett and Brodie? The guy who played with Gio who now isn’t and Bennett who was being bumped up from Backlund? You might want to actually do the homework before you stake your claim.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Anduril

I could have sworn there was more to it than that. Maybe something along the lines of being a proper RW, RH shot, history of being able to play anywhere in the top 9 and us having a major hole on the right side.
But sure, let's just pick out the truculent part and ignore everything else because Brian Burke is in the organization and the mastermind behind everything.

Since Treliving took over at the end of April 2014

- Traded for Dougie Hamilton (Truculent!)
- Signed Michael Frolik
- Re-signed Paul Byron (extra truculent)
- Re-sign Michael Ferland (Burke's finger prints all over this)
- Draft Matthew Tkachuk (something something lack of skill)


Other notable drafts

- Rasmus Andersson
- Oliver Kylington
- Andrew Mangiapane
- Dillon Dube
- Adam Fox
- Linus Lindstrom
- Matthew Phillips

compared to our vast future grinders

- Stepen Falkovsky?
- Mitchell Mattson?


Probably wouldn't count the likes of Eetu Tuulola, Adam Ruzicka who have more skill to offer. Didn't include the picks of Hunter Smith, Adam Ollas-Mattsson or Austin Carroll since Treliving only just joined the organization.

Bottom line, let's just stop with this nonsense that Burke is the real general manger and Treliving is a figurehead brought on to repeat the word "process".

I’m not saying the prospect pipeline is devoid of skill or talent. Like I’ve said many times, the amateur scouts are doing good work.

But our current roster, including all the failed players of the past, is lacking high end skill. Why is it that we don’t have a one timer on this team? Why do we miss the net so often? Do have enough players who can create their own shot and actually score from afar. Outside of Johnny Gaudreau, who creates and sets up plays for their linemates? It’s a lot of greasy, manufactured goals from everyone outside the 1st line.-

I’m not wrong when I say we’re lacking skill and talent compared to the top teams. Even Brad Treliving himself admitted in the offseason that goal scoring ability was going to be the weak link on this team. If the GM himself even thinks so, then I’m probably right in my assumption.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

So your defense is again that the team is no good, has no skill and is made up entirely of Tory Brouwers. Have you even looked at the players we've been drafting? Man, that Phillips sure is an imposing physical beast. And man, that Fox on the back end just terrifies players coming down his wing. You have a narrative and search out things to support that narrative.

Who cares if you are in the bottom 15 I'm goals for when you are 5 goals away from top 15. You think that's stsistically significant?

And maybe our shooting percentage is so low because we are force fed a slow as heck "possession" system where we skate into the zone and wait for the entire team to set up before we attack the net. And who knows what Hamilton's one timer would look like on the pp because our brain trust of a coach refuses to allow him to play his off side where someone could dish him passes for a clapper.

What you describe as a lack of skill sure seems like the exact symptoms I would expect when a coach designs a system on a whiteboard and puts more emphasis on holding onto the puck and generating shot attempts than the quality of this attempts.

There’s so much junk in here I’m not even going to comment. Not worth it. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on basically everything because we’re so clearly on different tangents.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

So in other words, good = player, bad = coach? I basically named the entire roster from which the 2 coaches actually shared. Even some role players like Stajan saw an uptick from Hartley and same with Derek Engelland and etc.

Who can you even name to make your argument? Bennett and Brodie? The guy who played with Gio who now isn’t and Bennett who was being bumped up from Backlund? You might want to actually do the homework before you stake your claim.

Simmer down.

My post speaks for itself. I consider flourishing to mean showing material improvement. The guys you mentioned are doing as expected under Gulutzan, and many are flat. Doing well but not better.

Yes, Brodie flourished under Hartley and has regressed under Gulutzan.
Bennett also flourished under Hartley and has regressed under Gulutzan.

Backlund who we are giving credit to broke out and took a meaningful step change under Hartley. You know who else did? Gio.

The deployment has not put them (Bennett and Brodie) in a position to succeed and these guys who were valuable assets and productive players are whipping boys now.

Think about it. Hamilton flat with a Brodie nosedive is a net negative. I don’t know why that is hard for you to understand.

Stajan and Engelland were both doing the jobs asked of them in 2014-15 and were key pieces in the playoff win. I didn’t see any pronounced uptick with Gully.

So yes, I do put overall underachievement on the coach.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I’m not saying the prospect pipeline is devoid of skill or talent. Like I’ve said many times, the amateur scouts are doing good work.

But our current roster, including all the failed players of the past, is lacking high end skill. Why is it that we don’t have a one timer on this team? Why do we miss the net so often? Do have enough players who can create their own shot and actually score from afar. Outside of Johnny Gaudreau, who creates and sets up plays for their linemates? It’s a lot of greasy, manufactured goals from everyone outside the 1st line.-

I’m not wrong when I say we’re lacking skill and talent compared to the top teams. Even Brad Treliving himself admitted in the offseason that goal scoring ability was going to be the weak link on this team. If the GM himself even thinks so, then I’m probably right in my assumption.

If the flames had one additional 15 goal player in their roster...over say a Matt Stajan hem we would be well in the top 15 in scoring. So you are saying right now we are devoid of skill, but if we could add one Paul Byron we wouldn't be?

The reason we don't have a one timer on the PP is that Gulutzan refuses to play dmen on their off side. The reason we're been shooting wide so much is that Gulutzan's ultra slow controlled possession game allows the other team to get into defensive position, so we can either shoot wide or into shin pads. These are equally plausible explanations yet you ignore them, and all the other dumb stuff Gulutzan does and lay the blame on an imagined love affair with grinders.