The impossible task, coaching and expectations

[MisterJoji]

Just curious who do people want as a replacement? Vigneault and Quenneville will be highly sought after if they are let go. However, there will be a lot of competition for their services or they could possibly just want to sit at home and collect a fat paycheck without the stresses of being a head coach. Do you go with a guy with a successful past but was passed over completely all season. Ruff, Tippett, Sutter, Roy, Bylsma come to mind. Or go with an up and comer head coach from a successful AHL/NCAA/CHL team or NHL assistant from a successful NHL team. Huska, Lambert, Montgomery, Keefe, Quinn, etc. This hire will likely make or break Treliving’s long term security.

[Itse]

Someone on this board mentioned the Flamesnation three part story on why Gulutzan should be fired, and it was indeed excellent. There's a lot of stats for those who like them.

Parts two and three are highly recommended reading.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Thanks Itse. Drove a nail right through the hearts of Gulutzan apologists and fancy stats fans with one fair swoop.

[cannon7]

The way I look at it, if you want the players to show up for games consistently, you need a coach that will make their lives hell if they don't. And it doesn't hurt to have a GM back up the coach so that when players complain it signals they don't like having to consistently show up. Rather than, you know, coming away thinking your coach is too mean to your precious snowflakes.

A coaching change won't solve all this team's ills, but the right coach will get to the root of them in a hurry. Assuming Treliving isn't shown the door as well, hopefully he's learned a thing or two and won't be so easily suckered in his next hiring process.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by cannon7

The way I look at it, if you want the players to show up for games consistently, you need a coach that will make their lives hell if they don't. And it doesn't hurt to have a GM back up the coach so that when players complain it signals they don't like having to consistently show up. Rather than, you know, coming away thinking your coach is too mean to your precious snowflakes.

A coaching change won't solve all this team's ills, but the right coach will get to the root of them in a hurry. Assuming Treliving isn't shown the door as well, hopefully he's learned a thing or two and won't be so easily suckered in his next hiring process.

They had that and drafted 4th and 6th overall as recent as 2 years ago

[EVERLAST]

I'll start by saying every coach has a shelf life.

His systems, expectations, relationship with the team have to be kept on a pretty even keel......Darryl Sutter put it best IMO with his don't get too high dont get too low mantra.

Is it all impossible? No.

Do in think players tune coaches out faster now than they did 10 years ago? I'm going to say yes.

In fairness to each team with young players i often wonder when these guys graduate from junior, the AHL, Echl, etc if they were coached successfully by their coaches.

I've heard time and time again about players development stalling under certain people and i have an example.

Eetu Tuulola was with Everest last year where Kevin Constantine is and several posters here predicted quite accurately this was NOT then place for him to be and that his development would stall.....and it did.

I get his season wasn't without its trials as he had some injury and missed time but I think certain posters on here knew exactly what they were talking about. He's now not even in North America and finished up his season and could be eligible to play in Stockton now.

In this scenario i wonder how long it takes for a player to break bad habits , learn a new system before we See an impact made?

I get that players like Sam Bennett , Matthew Tkachuk arenstill growing , bulking up etc but how long do these guys get to develop in an organization before they are deemed a write-off , reclamation project etc.

This all has to factor into how good a coach is. My thoughts are ex players have an edge but I'm sure statistics will prove this wrong.

Certain coaches never played and have had success. What do these guys posses that gives them an an edge?

I think it's a mystery sometimes. .....great discussion.

[Enoch Root]

Regarding Vegas, I am curious if there is anyone here who believes that Vegas would have a similar record this year if Gulutzan was their coach. I don't want to hear 'it's impossible to know', yeah we know, it's hypothetical.

The question is a simple one to those who think coaching doesn't matter much, or that Gulutzan is a good coach or whatever: are you prepared to say that you believe that the Knights would have a similar record this year if Gulutzan was their coach?

Anyone?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by belsarius

If anything you could rationalize that GG uses players in wrong situations, but timing wise, at least using the Preds and the Jets, he is using his guns more and not relying on the bottom lines to carry the load.

GG uses the 4th line 1% less. That's 36 seconds of ice time per game.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Regarding Vegas, I am curious if there is anyone here who believes that Vegas would have a similar record this year if Gulutzan was their coach. I don't want to hear 'it's impossible to know', yeah we know, it's hypothetical.

The question is a simple one to those who think coaching doesn't matter much, or that Gulutzan is a good coach or whatever: are you prepared to say that you believe that the Knights would have a similar record this year if Gulutzan was their coach?

Anyone?

I think it's possible. His systems are not the issue. I believe that getting emotion and players to play with a "chip" on their shoulder is potentially an issue of his.

That line up in Vegas was going to gel no matter what IMO. A bunch of cast offs that had something to prove after not being wanted by their old teams.

So really that would have helped overcome what may be a weakness of his and his team system play seems to be strong enough that they wouldn't have gotten in the teams way.

And really it's the way I look at GG. I'm not sure that he really influences the team in a huge direction either way. IMO he's not a detriment to the team, and he might not be a huge positive to the team either. He's kind of just a "wash".

He's not Greg Gilbert bad where there is no system and he's running guys out of town. But he's also not Mike Babcock good where the sum of the team's parts add up to more than what's there. He's just meh. So I think there are other problems this team has that are bigger than him (depth, unlucky) that aren't because of him, but he's also not a good enough coach to mask those problems.

It's also why I only want him fired if there is a true upgrade. A Babcock/Quenneville/D.Sutter/Laviolette (coach not GM) type that has a history of getting more out of his team. Because I don't think another re-tread, "meh" coach is going to get this team over the hump, and I don't want the team to lose the system structure that has us top 5 in possession and generating chances but just shooting poorly.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I think it's possible. His systems are not the issue. I believe that getting emotion and players to play with a "chip" on their shoulder is potentially an issue of his.

That line up in Vegas was going to gel no matter what IMO. A bunch of cast offs that had something to prove after not being wanted by their old teams.

So really that would have helped overcome what may be a weakness of his and his team system play seems to be strong enough that they wouldn't have gotten in the teams way.

And really it's the way I look at GG. I'm not sure that he really influences the team in a huge direction either way. IMO he's not a detriment to the team, and he might not be a huge positive to the team either. He's kind of just a "wash".

He's not Greg Gilbert bad where there is no system and he's running guys out of town. But he's also not Mike Babcock good where the sum of the team's parts add up to more than what's there. He's just meh. So I think there are other problems this team has that are bigger than him (depth, unlucky) that aren't because of him, but he's also not a good enough coach to mask those problems.

Playing with a chip on their shoulder is the exact opposite of Gulutzan's persona IMO. I have no idea how you think the would play the same way under him.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Playing with a chip on their shoulder is the exact opposite of Gulutzan's persona IMO. I have no idea how you think the would play the same way under him.

Because I don't think it's Gallant that brought that out of them. I said that in the post in the bold part you highlighted and then topped up in the following statement.

That team was going to have that attitude this year anyways. It was a bunch of guys that were pissed off that they were cut by their teams and weren't wanted. It would have covered up for Gulutzan's weakness.

I doubt Gallant had to come in and get that group fired up with a big "nobody believes in you" speech in pre-season. Those guys were going to come out with that attitude anyways.

It's not like Gallant's teams in Florida played with that "chip" on their shoulder. They made the playoffs 1 out of 3 years, didn't win a playoff series, and he was fired on the back of a bad shooting run.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by stone hands

They had that and drafted 4th and 6th overall as recent as 2 years ago

And won the only playoff series since 2004.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by cannon7

And won the only playoff series since 2004.

And in the time frame we have had iron Mike, Brent (and) daryl Sutter and Hartley, all of whom are not known for being fuzzy teddy bears and having about the same success minus daryl in 04

So I would say having a hard ass for a coach really doesn't mean anything

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Shazam

GG uses the 4th line 1% less. That's 36 seconds of ice time per game.

...than two teams with deep rosters. And, as Belsarius noted, the timing of the usage is also relevant.


As far as the argument that "Vegas would gel no matter what" goes, the fact that pretty much every other expansion team has sucked rather disproves the statement. Vegas did have advantages in that the league wasn't actively trying to screw the new team over, but even if every single player had a chip on their shoulders, you can never get them all pulling the sled in the same direction without good coaching and a system that fits the roster that was built.

[Red]

Originally Posted by stone hands

They had that and drafted 4th and 6th overall as recent as 2 years ago

You are comparing a team that was trading their best players for draft picks to a team that traded their 3 top draft picks for established players.

Hardly seems fair.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Regarding Vegas, I am curious if there is anyone here who believes that Vegas would have a similar record this year if Gulutzan was their coach. I don't want to hear 'it's impossible to know', yeah we know, it's hypothetical.

The question is a simple one to those who think coaching doesn't matter much, or that Gulutzan is a good coach or whatever: are you prepared to say that you believe that the Knights would have a similar record this year if Gulutzan was their coach?

Anyone?

I think that everything had to go right for them and has. So no I don’t think I they’d have the same record with gg but I would further say the same thing about any other coach

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Itse

Someone on this board mentioned the Flamesnation three part story on why Gulutzan should be fired, and it was indeed excellent. There's a lot of stats for those who like them.

Parts two and three are highly recommended reading.

I wanted him fired before but now I’m ready to offer my services to the Flames as a chauffeur for the day to escort him out of town the moment the season is over. It appears the eye test is not wrong after all as this team has looked worse than Hartley’s and that has to be a tough pill to swallow for the GM who expected better defensive play not worse. They have looked like crap for most of two seasons and it appears the underlying stats reaffirm that. It’s such a shame two 1st round picks and five 2nd round picks were traded for this team under this coach. This organization is as always is going about building a team the wrong way and hiring the wrong people to coach.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Red

You are comparing a team that was trading their best players for draft picks to a team that traded their 3 top draft picks for established players.

Hardly seems fair.

You realize the time span here is a couple of years right? I am not sure what team that drafted 4th and 6th that turned into this one that you watched, but I had no aspirations of them overnight becoming a contender because of the harmonic trade. They constantly outplay teams night in and night out, but have a roster who is nearing historic levels of bad when it comes to finishing. On the right wing you have Michael ferland, Michael folik, Garnett Hathaway and troy brouwer every single night. A coach isn't suddenly going to turn a bunch of guys who should barely be in the league minus natural 3rd liner frolik into snipers. He gives them a system where they can generate the largest number of scoring chances you can - which they do.

The actual skill players are almost all having career years carrying the burden that has been the bottom six all year. Had Sam Bennett been a 25+ goal scorer right out of the gate I would be in the same boat as You, but I don't look at this roster and think they're being outcoached on a nightly basis. I see a bunch of dudes who can't hit the net to save their careers make ahl callups look like prime hasek night in and night out

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by stone hands

And in the time frame we have had iron Mike, Brent (and) daryl Sutter and Hartley, all of whom are not known for being fuzzy teddy bears and having about the same success minus daryl in 04

So I would say having a hard ass for a coach really doesn't mean anything

Why do people keep forgetting context?

Keenan’s team was 2nd and 3rd in the NW.

The year he was fired, they were decimated by injuries down the stretch and hobbled in to the playoffs. They played against Chicago without Regehr (knee), Phaneuf had broken ribs and Sarich a fractured foot. Warrener was also out at that point. I think Langkow had broken hand(s) as well.

They took Chicago to 6 games.

I know that all people point to is the end result but he had a pretty darn good set of reasons why they bowed out in the first round.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Why do people keep forgetting context?

Keenan’s team was 2nd and 3rd in the NW.

The year he was fired, they were decimated by injuries down the stretch and hobbled in to the playoffs. They played against Chicago without Regehr (knee), Phaneuf had broken ribs and Sarich a fractured foot. Warrener was also out at that point. I think Langkow had broken hand(s) as well.

They took Chicago to 6 games.

I know that all people point to is the end result but he had a pretty darn good set of reasons why they bowed out in the first round.

Context is irrelevant when you're talking about success, unfortunately

Close only counts in horseshoes - 2nd and 3rd in the 2nd and the same number of 2nd round appearances as gulutzan who had Elliott as his goalie

Either way the excuses for why these teams all failed to achieve playoff success is not the point, but rather that the type of coach hasn't mattered in Calgary for a long, long time. Fans who aren't in the room and have no idea what the locker room dynamics are like calling for a hard ass coach is laughable because we have zero idea whata really going on. When people draw parallels to how their shop foreman runs a family owned business compared to how Glen gulutzan manages the flames it just makes me shake my head