Francis: Treliving filled with disappointment, anger after team's collapse

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

The fact the reporter was asking the players to grade the toss immeadiatey after shows the reporters weren’t taking it seriously either. It was a big joke to everyone at the rink.

Or it was one reporter who tried to take a different angle.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, I’m not talking about the stick toss. I’m talking about the mid season turnaround last year and what Friedman said this year (which had nothing to do with that).

You’ve talked about two years of evidence but you completely ignore the fact their second half of the regular season last year. Again, selective evidence citing.

I don’t think GG will be kept on, and I think that’s the correct move. However, I dislike criticism that simply imagines or projects what a poster thinks the players or GG think and then adapts the evidence to fit the conclusion. In this case, while GG did a lot of things that people can legit disagree with, talking about how players wouldn’t fight for him (or fight for Hartley) is just imaginary and also lets the player off the hook in a big way.

They had a 7 game winning streak this year and a 10 game winning streak last year. Outside of that this team has been hot garbage under GG. The whole "second half of the season" argument is B.S.. They went 5-7 down the stretch last year followed by 0-4 in the playoffs.

The following are facts, draw your own conclusions as you will:
1. This team does not win big games under GG.
2. GG coached teams have been horrible down the stretch in every single season he has been a head coach for any team in the NHL.
3. A GG coached team has never won any meaningful trophy at any elite level he has coached.


I also believe that the media love of coaches has nothing to do with the coaches ability and everything to do with him helping them do their jobs. Darryl was hated by the flames media but is a multi Stanley cup winner. GG provides deep thoughtful interview, gives the media lots of fodder, but his teams perform horribly.

[CliffFletcher]

Hartley helped the team over-achieve for one season, but that's about it. By the end of his tenure the players had tuned him out. There's a reason he hasn't had a sniff at another coaching job in the NHL.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Or it was one reporter who tried to take a different angle.

It actually really doesnt matter one way or the other. They went on a win streak.

And then followed it up with a losing streak. And now this travesty to sport we've been fortunate enough to witness over the last couple weeks.

It was GG's attempt at motivation and it kind of worked, but that kind of method always wears off and if theres one thing GG doesnt have its the ability to change or a backup plan.

Crediting his motivational abilities for saving a season that actually was never saved seems like intellectual dishonesty at best.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Surprised there aren’t hundreds of people thanking this post. This team still has a talent gap IMO. Mostly up front but the so called offensive defensemen after Gio and Hamilton don’t score at all.

A different coach might help for sure. But it runs deeper than that.

That’s why I roll my eyes at suggestion of trading Gaudreau. I can’t imagine a return that would improve the team unless it’s another tear down.

Because, like so many other posts, it is far too one-dimensional and dismissive.

Yes, the Flames need more talent.

But a very significant reason for their lack of goal scoring was their style of play. It killed creativity. It killed speed. It almost eliminated the D from the offence (Flames D should be top 10, if not top 5 in points, but were 22nd as of a week or two ago), players weren't utilized properly, Backlund and Frolik and many others had incredibly low shooting percentages.

The list goes on. They are not the most offensively talented team in the league, no question. But simply stating that they don't have enough talent, and that is the bottom line, really misses the mark and ignores some serious issues IMO.

Dismissing the systems/coaching issues because Johnny had a career year is oblivious to what is actually going on. The fact is that Gaudreau is still young and improving. And last year was a tough year for him with the new contract and no camp. So him having a career year is no surprise - in fact I would have bet on it. But that doesn't mean that his year was maximized. With a better PP and a better style of play, who is to say he couldn't have had 10 or 15 more points?

Same is true for Monahan and Hamilton. So to me, the 'career year' argument is completely off the mark. IMO, almost every player, to a man, had less production this year than they should have. That can even be said for Johnny.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Locke

It actually really doesnt matter one way or the other. They went on a win streak.

And then followed it up with a losing streak. And now this travesty to sport we've been fortunate enough to witness over the last couple weeks.

It was GG's attempt at motivation and it kind of worked, but that kind of method always wears off and if theres one thing GG doesnt have its the ability to change or a backup plan.

Crediting his motivational abilities for saving a season that actually was never saved seems like intellectual dishonesty at best.

Many here have also forgotten that in Hartleys second year he had both a 7 game win streak and a 7 game losing streak.

I have no issues with the opinion that GG has been hot garbage and Hartley wasn't much better in his fourth season. Where I strongly disagree is with those saying that GG has been an improvement, despite a worse record and a superior roster.

[Enoch Root]

I just don't get the ongoing Hartley discussion. His shelf-life expired and the team moved on.

The important, and relevant, issue here is that the team was rebuilding and showing a lot of promise at the time. A new coach was needed to take them to the next level.

Gulutzan HAS NOT taken them to the next level. In fact, despite a significantly better roster, they have regressed. And regressed significantly.

I don't care about Hartley. What I care about is that this coach didn't get the job done, and we need a new one.

[Bourque's Twin]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I just don't get the ongoing Hartley discussion. His shelf-life expired and the team moved on.

The important, and relevant, issue here is that the team was rebuilding and showing a lot of promise at the time. A new coach was needed to take them to the next level.

Gulutzan HAS NOT taken them to the next level. In fact, despite a significantly better roster, they have regressed. And regressed significantly.

I don't care about Hartley. What I care about is that this coach didn't get the job done, and we need a new one.

The Hartley discussion is ongoing because, from the outside looking in, his termination seemed premature. Especially after watching GG the past two years. Hartley wins the Jack Adams then his goalies perform terribly the next season. Gulutzen was brought in and the team, despite being much better on paper, looks way worse in many categories that coaches should control. For example, work ethic, passion, tenacity, and handling adversity. Furthermore, Hartley produced a much more entertaining product and a handful of players were way better under his watch.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

The Hartley discussion is ongoing because, from the outside looking in, his termination seemed premature. He wins the Jack Adams then his goalies perform terribly the next season. Gulutzen was brought in and the team, despite being much better on paper, looks way worse in many categories that coaches should control. For example, work ethic, passion, tenacity, and handling adversity. Furthermore, Hartley produced a much more entertaining product and a handful of players were way better under his watch.

Hartley performed better with less. No doubt about that.

But Hartley, like Feaster, was brought in as a caretaker to see the team through a rebuilding phase.

And he did his job and did it well.

The issue that we're running into right now is exactly as Enoch Root described it.

The guy that was picked as the successor had achieved worse results despite having more talent.

And thats why he has to be fired.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I just don't get the ongoing Hartley discussion. His shelf-life expired and the team moved on.

The important, and relevant, issue here is that the team was rebuilding and showing a lot of promise at the time. A new coach was needed to take them to the next level.

Gulutzan HAS NOT taken them to the next level. In fact, despite a significantly better roster, they have regressed. And regressed significantly.

I don't care about Hartley. What I care about is that this coach didn't get the job done, and we need a new one.

I'm just waiting for the statute of limitations on Brent's years here to expire. Then we can talk about how good a coach he was, too

[Locke]

Originally Posted by the2bears

I'm just waiting for the statute of limitations on Brent's years here to expire. Then we can talk about how good a coach he was, too

5. Defencemen. Powerplay.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

But yes, bottom end skill needs to be upgraded. It always does it is a never ending quest.

Interesting analysis in the Athletic about the star power needed to compete for the cup. Based on this analysis Calgary is right up with top teams in terms of star power:



Where they miss is depth:

Hockey is a strong-link game and success is generally driven by a team’s best players, but it’s also a team sport where the best players only play a third of each game. That means that depth is critical to success too as is building a strong core to complement the best players. That’s the difference between a team like Boston, the current Eastern Conference favourite (unless everyone changed their minds again after their loss to Tampa Bay last night), and Calgary, a team that was eliminated weeks ago

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Locke

5. Defencemen. Powerplay.

I liked that move. Sent a message to the forwards Say what you want, the Sutter's aren't to be triffled with. I don't get that same feeling with GG. In a league where the players hold alot of power, it was a way that the coach could actually met out some form of punishment.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Hartley helped the team over-achieve for one season, but that's about it. By the end of his tenure the players had tuned him out. There's a reason he hasn't had a sniff at another coaching job in the NHL.

This argument is overrated. People used to say the same about Darryl Sutter before he came back with Kings to n two Cups. Hartley himself had been in Europe before hired by Flames, winning a round and Jack Adams


Hartley is also 57. He may not have enough intensity for his coaching style to be effective (see Keenan's tenure with the Flames when he was semi-retired and useless). It doesn't mean Hartley did a bad job with the Flames.

[OldDutch]

They absolutely lack depth. Their bottom 6 is unversially agreed to be the (or one of the) worst in the league.

That is where we may see a key piece go. To fill bottom six. I just get scared becuase the last bottom 6 guy we signed was Brouwer. Quality filler is one area Treliving doesn’t do well.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Pointman

This argument is overrated. People used to say the same about Darryl Sutter before he came back with Kings to n two Cups. Hartley himself had been in Europe before hired by Flames, winning a round and Jack Adams


Hartley is also 57. He may not have enough intensity for his coaching style to be effective (see Keenan's tenure with the Flames when he was semi-retired and useless). It doesn't mean Hartley did a bad job with the Flames.

Hartley was brought in from Europe as a desperate measure by the former GM who was the godfather of his child, as a last ditch effort to save his own hide, with a vet team.

His hardass style was fairly one dimensional, his NHL success was with HoF stacked teams in a non cap league, and were over a decade prior to coming here.

Water under the bridge but if he didn’t make that playoff series, who knows where this team would be now. He was only brought back the next year under new GM BT because he won that series, as BT fully expected to replace him otherwise.

BT likely does not hire GG, so who knows how things go.

Hartley did get the most of thet team but using the whip gratuitously, but, it was far too much of a crutch than an effective tool, which is why it really lasted just a year for a for a rebuilding team.

Treliving just swung too far the other way with a coach that is too cerebral and over thinks and doesn’t have enough believable fire to get his players charged up when required.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Interesting analysis in the Athletic about the star power needed to compete for the cup. Based on this analysis Calgary is right up with top teams in terms of star power:



Where they miss is depth:

How do the Oilers only have a 1 and a 4. Draisaitl is a 4? Patrick Kane is a 4? Also Eichel is a 3? Tavares isn't a 1? I dunno this list seems to be subjective.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by browna

Hartley was brought in from Europe as a desperate measure by the former GM who was the godfather of his child, as a last ditch effort to save his own hide, with a vet team.

This is quite similar to how Lombardi hired Sutter, isn't it?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I just don't get the ongoing Hartley discussion.

Because there is no argument about GG anymore.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

How do the Oilers only have a 1 and a 4. Draisaitl is a 4? Patrick Kane is a 4? Also Eichel is a 3? Tavares isn't a 1? I dunno this list seems to be subjective.

I'm still trying to figure out how Columbus has 3 tier 1 stars.

Bobrovsky
Panarin? (It's a stretch)
Seth Jones??? If Jones is tier 1, why isn't Dougie?