The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[4X4]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The "starting the game" thing is such hogwash. First, the Flames have started plenty of games at home well, in both their wins and losses. Second, the Flames typically start games on the road very well. In those examples, was GG not coaching?

The Flames have generally played badly against Edmonton, but at least two of their losses were really close games that went to extra time (one in each year), and I'm not even counting the near comeback in the 7-5 game. I think this game might have been a change in that regard, simply because of the way it happened.

It was a joke. GG was yelling it at the players at practice.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by 4X4

It was a joke. GG was yelling it at the players at practice.

My comment was about the narrative in general, not aimed at you. Sorry that wasn't clear.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

I'm happy we won, but I just don't like the way the Flames played against the Oilers in the third. We had a 1-0 lead and we completely stopped forecheckeing that dumpster fire of a defence. We invited McDavid to play half the third period and just rush up the ice as much as he wants.

McDavid looks all world against the Flames because GG refuses to adjust to the Oilers. There is a reason they are bottom 5 in the league but seem to have our number.

That's just not true. Half way through the 3rd the ice was completely tilted in Calgary's favour. I think the Oilers only managed 1 or 2 shots in the first 10 minutes. Calgary then started to flub every pass they could. It wasn't sitting back on purpose, it was handling the puck like a grenade. But during this time the Oilers still managed nothing. Calgary checked them tight, they just couldn't make a break out if their life depended on it. (See Brodie attempted pass/icing call. They had all day to make that play, it wasn't Gulutzan telling him to pass it 2 inches too far.) It wasn't until the last 2 minutes did the Oilers get any sustained pressure in the third.

As for McDavid, they did adjust and did a great job of keeping him outside. That's his move. Wait at the blue line on the right side for the puck and then try to beat the defender outside while driving to the net. If he gets a step on the D, he takes it to the net. If not, he goes deep and either throw it at the net from behind the goal line hoping for a bounce or tries to find the open guy in the slot. McDavid tried this move a dozen or so times. The Calgary D more often then not didn't let him get to the net and they did a great job of covering the trailer in front of the net when he passed it out.

That 2 on 1 that led to the high sticking penalty was an interesting play. Calgary had complete control of the puck for a sustained period of time in the Oilers zone before that play. McDavid wasn't on the ice. At some point during sustained Calgary pressure an Oiler snuck off and made a line change. McDavid didn't enter the play but instead hung out at the red line waiting for the puck to clear the zone. I don't know if it was a "set play" so to speak but they essentially let Calgary have a PP trying to spring McDavid on an odd man rush. At least that's how I saw it live, would love to see a clip of the line change to confirm my theory.

When the entire Oilers game plan is to give it to McDavid and let him skate you're not going to prevent him from "rushing" up the ice. But from all his rushes how many turned into legit scoring chances? The Nugent-Hopkins 2 on 1 save was a close call and a huge save. Then there was a few other in close calls when Smith had an answer. Most of them resulted in McDavid turning the puck over.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by kevman

That's just not true. Half way through the 3rd the ice was completely tilted in Calgary's favour. I think the Oilers only managed 1 or 2 shots in the first 10 minutes. Calgary then started to flub every pass they could. It wasn't sitting back on purpose, it was handling the puck like a grenade. But during this time the Oilers still managed nothing. Calgary checked them tight, they just couldn't make a break out if their life depended on it. (See Brodie attempted pass/icing call. They had all day to make that play, it wasn't Gulutzan telling him to pass it 2 inches too far.) It wasn't until the last 2 minutes did the Oilers get any sustained pressure in the third.

As for McDavid, they did adjust and did a great job of keeping him outside. That's his move. Wait at the blue line on the right side for the puck and then try to beat the defender outside while driving to the net. If he gets a step on the D, he takes it to the net. If not, he goes deep and either throw it at the net from behind the goal line hoping for a bounce or tries to find the open guy in the slot. McDavid tried this move a dozen or so times. The Calgary D more often then not didn't let him get to the net and they did a great job of covering the trailer in front of the net when he passed it out.

That 2 on 1 that led to the high sticking penalty was an interesting play. Calgary had complete control of the puck for a sustained period of time in the Oilers zone before that play. McDavid wasn't on the ice. At some point during sustained Calgary pressure an Oiler snuck off and made a line change. McDavid didn't enter the play but instead hung out at the red line waiting for the puck to clear the zone. I don't know if it was a "set play" so to speak but they essentially let Calgary have a PP trying to spring McDavid on an odd man rush. At least that's how I saw it live, would love to see a clip of the line change to confirm my theory.

When the entire Oilers game plan is to give it to McDavid and let him skate you're not going to prevent him from "rushing" up the ice. But from all his rushes how many turned into legit scoring chances? The Nugent-Hopkins 2 on 1 save was a close call and a huge save. Then there was a few other in close calls when Smith had an answer. Most of them resulted in McDavid turning the puck over.

It's possible the last 10 minutes of going into a defensive shell could have blinded me to a good first half of the period, but there is no way that McDavid only had one good scoring chamce. That's just Ludacris. He took the puck to the net multiple times.

As soon as the Flames stopped playing in the Oilers end, not forechecking at all, there was a green light for McDavid to wind up in his own end and carry the puck through the neutral zone at will.

I mean, the guy is a great player, but at least try to not let him play to his strengths.

[Resolute 14]

Yep, statistically the Flames were the better team in the first half of the period. Oilers, in desperation mode, better for the second half.

[theg69]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

It's possible the last 10 minutes of going into a defensive shell could have blinded me to a good first half of the period, but there is no way that McDavid only had one good scoring chamce. That's just Ludacris. He took the puck to the net multiple times.

As soon as the Flames stopped playing in the Oilers end, not forechecking at all, there was a green light for McDavid to wind up in his own end and carry the puck through the neutral zone at will.

I mean, the guy is a great player, but at least try to not let him play to his strengths.

Time to tell GG to "Move b****, get out of the way" for a better coach? Sorry, I have nothing else to add.

[Philly06Cup]

So sick of people saying the flames are boring. They are in the top 3rd in shots, top 3rd in scoring chances. They have the most exciting player in hockey outside of McDavid. They have the best pest in the game outside of Marchand. If you like fights, they are 2nd in the league in fighting majors.

I remember the 2004 year when the flames were consistently winning games 2-1. Those games were GD boring. But they were winning, so fans here lauded their boring defensive style and goaltending.

The fact is the current Calgary Flames are very mediocre. It's easy to cheer for a good winning team. Now people are making excuses for why they don't want to cheer for a mediocre team.

You can blame the NHL for having a boring product that doesn't emphasize skill and goal scoring.
You can blame the Saddledome for having a boring atmosphere.
I do not accept that these Calgary Flames are boring. Just mediocre.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

So sick of people saying the flames are boring. They are in the top 3rd in shots, top 3rd in scoring chances. They have the most exciting player in hockey outside of McDavid. They have the best pest in the game outside of Marchand. If you like fights, they are 2nd in the league in fighting majors.

I remember the 2004 year when the flames were consistently winning games 2-1. Those games were GD boring. But they were winning, so fans here lauded their boring defensive style and goaltending.

The fact is the current Calgary Flames are very mediocre. It's easy to cheer for a good winning team. Now people are making excuses for why they don't want to cheer for a mediocre team.

You can blame the NHL for having a boring product that doesn't emphasize skill and goal scoring.
You can blame the Saddledome for having a boring atmosphere.
I do not accept that these Calgary Flames are boring. Just mediocre.

You don't have to accept it, but make no mistake, this team is boring to a huge percentage of it's fans.

[Toonage]

This team has the horses to be a much more exciting dynamic group on the ice. We're teased game by game as to how good they really could be.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

So sick of people saying the flames are boring. They are in the top 3rd in shots, top 3rd in scoring chances. They have the most exciting player in hockey outside of McDavid. They have the best pest in the game outside of Marchand. If you like fights, they are 2nd in the league in fighting majors.

I remember the 2004 year when the flames were consistently winning games 2-1. Those games were GD boring. But they were winning, so fans here lauded their boring defensive style and goaltending.

The fact is the current Calgary Flames are very mediocre. It's easy to cheer for a good winning team. Now people are making excuses for why they don't want to cheer for a mediocre team.

You can blame the NHL for having a boring product that doesn't emphasize skill and goal scoring.
You can blame the Saddledome for having a boring atmosphere.
I do not accept that these Calgary Flames are boring. Just mediocre.

Yes, Gaudreau and Tkachuk are great players.

But the team currently plays a boring style of hockey. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

It's possible the last 10 minutes of going into a defensive shell could have blinded me to a good first half of the period, but there is no way that McDavid only had one good scoring chamce. That's just Ludacris. He took the puck to the net multiple times.

As soon as the Flames stopped playing in the Oilers end, not forechecking at all, there was a green light for McDavid to wind up in his own end and carry the puck through the neutral zone at will.

I mean, the guy is a great player, but at least try to not let him play to his strengths.

No, this is Ludacris:

[Enoch Root]

^ there is supposed to be a pic of Ludacris there

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

^ there is supposed to be a pic of Ludacris there

[colbym72]

I don't think Gulutzan (or any coach) cares if his style of play is "exciting" or not to the fans, just if it wins. Sometimes those go together, sometimes they don't.

[tripin_billie]

Originally Posted by colbym72

I don't think Gulutzan (or any coach) cares if his style of play is "exciting" or not to the fans, just if it wins. Sometimes those go together, sometimes they don't.

And there's the rub... Professional sports are an entertainment business. If the product stops being entertaining, then what the hell is the point? It's not like we're in some dystopian world where we have our gladiators fight other cities' gladiators so we get more food rations or something like that.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, Gaudreau and Tkachuk are great players.

But the team currently plays a boring style of hockey. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Personally I don't find this team that "boring" but can see others concerns with this team.

I think in some ways a big part of that is we have a boring roster, especially at forward. So playing a more structured style just magnifies that.

We have some really good puck moving d-men (Hamilton, Gio, Brodie) but nobody who is purely an electric offensive d-man that is going to wow you with end to end rush after end to end rush (ie. Karlsson, Klingberg, Burns, Gostisbehere).

We have some good forwards but overall they are pretty boring, and also not the most fleet of foot.

Gaudreau & Tkachuk (+Bennett when he's "Good Bennett") are entertaining but really that's it.

Ferland & Monahan play more of a simple but effective game and neither play that quick and "top 6 Ferland" doesn't play as physical.

Backlund & Frolik are skilled but play more of a 200ft cycle game than an electric game.

Jankowski shows flashes but for the most part plays a pretty boring game.

Then outside of that it's a whole bunch of "meh" - Stajan, Brouwer, Hathaway, Lazar, and the rest of the mish mash that makes up our bottom 6 aren't exciting.

They aren't young top prospects that you are excited to see each night, they mostly are veterans that play "no event" games where they don't score or get scored on.

Overall at forward we don't have a ton of speed, don't have a ton of grit, and have a bunch of guys who play more of a "simple but effective game" (Gaudreau, Tkachuk, "Good Bennett" being the exceptions).

At defense is where the gap is because I feel like that group could play a more exciting game than they do now but considering they tend to bleed chances when they play that way I get why they have reigned them in a bit.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

^ there is supposed to be a pic of Ludacris there

I'd like to call that spelling an autocorrect error, but it was a legit brain cramp when I typed it out.

That said, my point stands that McDavid definitely had more than one scoring chance.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Finally some good material for my Avatar.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Personally I don't find this team that "boring" but can see others concerns with this team.

I think in some ways a big part of that is we have a boring roster, especially at forward. So playing a more structured style just magnifies that.

We have some really good puck moving d-men (Hamilton, Gio, Brodie) but nobody who is purely an electric offensive d-man that is going to wow you with end to end rush after end to end rush (ie. Karlsson, Klingberg, Burns, Gostisbehere).

We have some good forwards but overall they are pretty boring, and also not the most fleet of foot.

Gaudreau & Tkachuk (+Bennett when he's "Good Bennett") are entertaining but really that's it.

Ferland & Monahan play more of a simple but effective game and neither play that quick and "top 6 Ferland" doesn't play as physical.

Backlund & Frolik are skilled but play more of a 200ft cycle game than an electric game.

Jankowski shows flashes but for the most part plays a pretty boring game.

Then outside of that it's a whole bunch of "meh" - Stajan, Brouwer, Hathaway, Lazar, and the rest of the mish mash that makes up our bottom 6 aren't exciting.

They aren't young top prospects that you are excited to see each night, they mostly are veterans that play "no event" games where they don't score or get scored on.

Overall at forward we don't have a ton of speed, don't have a ton of grit, and have a bunch of guys who play more of a "simple but effective game" (Gaudreau, Tkachuk, "Good Bennett" being the exceptions).

At defense is where the gap is because I feel like that group could play a more exciting game than they do now but considering they tend to bleed chances when they play that way I get why they have reigned them in a bit.

I think people compare to the exciting games played under Hartley, with a team that definitely didn't have more skill than this one.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

I think people compare to the exciting games played under Hartley, with a team that definitely didn't have more skill than this one.

The last Hartley year wasn't great, but 2013-2014 and 2014-15 were some of the most entertaining hockey this team has played probably since the eighties. Even 2013-2014, when the results were bad, the team was just really likable. I remember even fans of other teams commenting that the Flames are surprisingly fun considering how bad they are.

Of course Hartley hockey probably looked better because it was compared to Brent Sutters era, which was another really sad chapter in Flames history.