I spent some time with Dr. Peter Jensen who is a well known sports psychologist and worked with a lot of the Canadian Olympic hockey teams over the last several decades. He described how the Canadian women went through hundreds of scenarios prior to going to Sochi. Every player had a specific non playing role to the team in very specific situations. Eg. Team goes down by a goal late in gold medal game. Tendency of team is to get deflated and go quiet. They play bad when they’re quiet on the bench. Too tight, worried they’ll make another mistake and let down their teammates. Immediately, everyone starting with the coach to the trainer to the 4th line player who won’t be playing another shift to the 1st line goal scorer starts to engage pre determined roles to ensure they reset quickly in a positive direction instead of going quiet and becoming deflated. Lots of specific chatter. One person yells out how much time is left, one person barks out key game plan notes (shoot low blocker on this goalie), etc... Coach plays a big role in reinforcing belief in players vocally and with pats on the back to generate positive energy. The list of what the team would need to do in the 20 seconds after a goal in a specific situation was unbelieveable.
I had this in the back of my head all season when the team would let in a goal, go quiet and look deflated (I get that you don’t see everything that’s happening on the bench while watching on tv)... which on many occasions saw them give up another goal in quick succession.
Initially I didn’t really care too much about the iPad thing, but over time, it struck me that as much as GG probably considers it a prudent coaching maneuver to gain insight into the play, he’s staring at the trees and missing the forest.
Anyone know if the Flames have a sports psychologist on staff?
I'm still floored at how Gully managed to impress Treliving to hire him, given his NHL track record to date.
Seriously, I want Treliving to write a book when he's retired and explain this. I cannot think of any other reason other than he wanted a pillow for a coach to baby the players, as opposed to the tough love from Bob Hartley. Also would like some insight on how the Dave Cameron hiring came to be - nothing from Cameron indicated he would be a good fit or build a coaching strategy that could improve the PP.
It aggravates me just thinking about these hires.
But he crushed Grouse Mountian with Conroy!
The Following User Says Thank You to Incogneto For This Useful Post:
It is kind of funny and ironic that when Treliving hired GG, he said GG was the guy who would take this team to the next level and implied that Hartley wasn't.
Yet it is Hartley who has taken his teams and won at every single level he's coached at (QMJHL, AHL, NHL, Swiss) and GG has never done that. The fact is that Hartley has taken his teams to the top of every level.
Not that I disagreed with firing Hartley at the time, as I wasn't a fan of his rope-a-dope strategy, but in hindsight, maybe he knew better.
__________________
Calgary Flames, PLEASE GO TO THE NET! AND SHOOT THE PUCK! GENERATING OFFENSE IS NOT DIFFICULT! SKATE HARD, SHOOT HARD, CRASH THE NET HARD!
Last edited by 868904; 04-06-2018 at 10:03 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 868904 For This Useful Post:
It is kind of funny and ironic that when Treliving hired GG, he said GG was the guy who would take this team to the next level and implied that Hartley wasn't.
Yet it is Hartley who has taken his teams and won at every single level he's coached at (QMJHL, AHL, NHL, Swiss) and GG has never done that. The fact is that Hartley has taken his teams to the top of every level.
Not that I disagreed with firing Hartley at the time, as I wasn't a fan of his rope-a-dope strategy, but in hindsight, maybe he knew better.
Aside from Sutter, our two most successful coaches since 1989 have been a couple of way-past-their-prime washouts - Hartley and Keenan. Ironically, both were fired for "failing to reach next level" only to be followed by guys who did even worse.
Aside from Sutter, our two most successful coaches since 1989 have been a couple of way-past-their-prime washouts - Hartley and Keenan. Ironically, both were fired for "failing to reach next level" only to be followed by guys who did even worse.
Bob Hartley 2012–16: 0.492
Glen Gulutzan 2016–18: 0.540
Gulutzan's Flames have not performed very well, but it is a huge exaggeration to say they have been worse than Hartley's.
Criticism of Gulutzan is abundantly fair, but the amount of hyperbole it continues to generate is ridiculous.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Bob Hartley 2012–16: 0.492
Glen Gulutzan 2016–18: 0.540
Gulutzan's Flames have not performed very well, but it is a huge exaggeration to say they have been worse than Hartley's.
Criticism of Gulutzan is abundantly fair, but the amount of hyperbole it continues to generate is ridiculous.
Please. Are you seriously making the argument that GG is a better coach than BH, based on record purely, and ignoring the rosters and team evolution cycle? I think all the coaches (and Presidents, and GM's) we have had since the 80's have been mostly terrible, so it's really splitting hairs, but GG is horrible. And I don't make huge exaggerations because I don't actually care that much anymore.
Textcritic - I respect you a lot as a poster, despite us often having differing opinions, but it is definitely a reach to use the two "deconstruction of the Flames" years in the evaluation:
BH: 14-16: 80-70-14: 0.544
That is with a much younger team. Suggesting that the team (in terms of point production) has improved is a long stretch. Did they improve in the areas they wanted to:
Shot Production: Improved
Possession: Improved
Point Production: Flatlined or got worse
PP: Same old garbage
PK: Improved
Entertainment Value: In the eye of the beholder
Mental Toughness: Substantial regression
I welcome anyone else with a bit of spare time to evaluate: GF,GA, Discipline, Hits etc.
__________________
Go Flames Go
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tkflames For This Useful Post:
Even if the Flames needed to move away from Hartley, there is no question he is a better coach than Gulutzan. Hartley won the Jack Adams and a playoff series here when he had no business doing so, and also had tremendous success earlier in his career with the Avalanche, including a Stanley Cup. Heck even that Swiss team he coached in Europe won a championship. His resume run's circles around Gulutzan's.
I don't know why its so hard for people to admit that maybe the Flames made a mistake and hired a coach that wasn't an upgrade.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
I'd take Hartley on his worst day over Gulutzan. Hartley took a team that was suppose to be a lottery team and got them to the second round and then was a victim of ECHL quality goaltending the next season. Gulutzan took a team that was better and had them limp into the playoffs only to get swept and then have a complete meltdown the final stretch and miss completely the next season.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Inferno For This Useful Post:
Hartley came into a country club atmosphere team that got blown up into rebuild mode midway into his coaching tenure.
Gulutzan came to a more talented team expected to take the next step and be in a top 3 division spot.
Those two, and the respective rosters they were given, should not ever be compared in terms of winning%. It's the most absurd case of apples and oranges I've ever seen.
__________________
Until the Flames make the Western Finals again, this signature shall remain frozen.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Gaskal For This Useful Post:
And I don't make huge exaggerations because I don't actually care that much anymore.
As was the case in many years past I think it's important to extend a thank you to you for not caring / not watching yet coming here to make sure we all know how much you don't care and are disinterested.
Seems to be a growing number of people doing this. Kudos.
