[POLL] Calgary Flames coaching change mega-thread—with poll

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

My question is not who the head coach will be but who the assistants will be handling the pp and the defence.

If Sutter returns does he have a good assistant in mind to coach the defence? I ask because when we had playfair running the defence we did quite well (not at all suggesting Jim comes back).

As for the powerplay who was the brains back then Cookson or Preston?

I see thier still coaching in Ottawa and Anaheim.

Anyway. I hope we aren't just hiring a coach without knowing who this guys assts might end up being.

Strictly a guess on my part, but i think whoever ends up with the job will have full autonomy to hire his own assistants. To me it also makes the most sense to do it that way, at least for the guys joining him on the bench.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

My question is not who the head coach will be but who the assistants will be handling the pp and the defence.

If Sutter returns does he have a good assistant in mind to coach the defence? I ask because when we had playfair running the defence we did quite well (not at all suggesting Jim comes back).

I'd like to see Huska moved up to the Flames to work with the d-men (regardless of who the head coach is).

[nik-]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

People who are writing off Peters strictly because of his record should just look back and see that there are more to that team than just results.

Look at other coaches first couple seasons on bad teams.

Vigneault: .498 points percentage in his first stop in Montreal

Gallant: .480 points percentage in his first stop in Columbus / First Season in Florida

Peters: .498 points percentage in his 4 seasons in Carolina.

Also that Carolina roster is pretty sparse, they have made the playoffs once in 12 years since winning the cup, and didn't make the playoffs in the 5 years before Peters either. So more structural problem in that org. than just the coaching.

So not my preferred choice either but it also wouldn't be some guaranteed disaster, and IMO would still be a better hire than the choice of Gulutzan when they made that hire.

But when you've just made a two year failed gamble, why make another one?

It's not just the coach in a vacuum, it's the coach with the results we've had thus far under Treliving's tenure and the high possibility that this is the last coach he'll hire. Why bet that a coach is actually good in spite of his results?

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Shazam

There are very experienced coaches available right now, and there will be more very experienced coaches available in a few weeks' time.

No need for a rash decision. Or even a rationalized decision.

The decision has already been made.

[Timbo]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

The decision has already been made.

Says who?

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Timbo

Says who?

Those with prominent roles in media have already begun the sell job.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

The decision has already been made.

Proof please

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by nik-

But when you've just made a two year failed gamble, why make another one?

It's not just the coach in a vacuum, it's the coach with the results we've had thus far under Treliving's tenure and the high possibility that this is the last coach he'll hire. Why bet that a coach is actually good in spite of his results?

Every hire is a gamble.

I mean AV and Quennevile just missed the playoffs, but most would jump at either one of them.

Go back a couple years, if Paul Maurice had been available, would anyone have been clamoring for him to join the Flames?

Now that narrative has changed a whole bunch im guessing.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Those with prominent roles in media have already begun the sell job.

On a guy no one talked about being a possibility here until that first rumour came up like three days ago. Suddenly he's "the man".

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by nik-

But when you've just made a two year failed gamble, why make another one?

It's not just the coach in a vacuum, it's the coach with the results we've had thus far under Treliving's tenure and the high possibility that this is the last coach he'll hire. Why bet that a coach is actually good in spite of his results?

Hey I don't disagree - my point is it's not a guaranteed disaster just because of his results with a ####ty, cap floor organization. When you dig deeper into their style of play (quick, and aggressive), and his philosophies it actually doesn't seem that bad.

It is 100% a big risk from Treliving to do that but really the guy has a style he wants this team to play, and an idea of what he thinks the coach needs to be.

If he thinks Peters is that guy then it's his call.

Personally I wish they would have went all out after Boudreau two years ago and we probably aren't hiring another coach today.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Those with prominent roles in media have already begun the sell job.

Im confused.

Are you suggesting that BT has sent out a memo to the media to start selling Peters as the next coach..and they are doing so because...well i dont know why they would do that, but thats what you think is going on?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Every hire is a gamble.

I mean AV and Quennevile just missed the playoffs, but most would jump at either one of them.

Go back a couple years, if Paul Maurice had been available, would anyone have been clamoring for him to join the Flames?

Now that narrative has changed a whole bunch im guessing.

Yes, I've mentioned this already. Every hire is a gamble, but you look a whole lot less dumb if you lose a gamble on a stock that usually does well over a gamble on a stock that usually sucks. Especially when you're just coming off a bad loss.

[devo22]

if it's Peters (and to me it looks like it might be, based on all the talk by the journalists), I'll be very underwhelmed. It might very well work and I'll certainly give him a chance, but with the number of experienced coaches available and possibly becoming available, I'd be disappointed if they went down this road.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Every hire is a gamble.

I mean AV and Quennevile just missed the playoffs, but most would jump at either one of them.

Go back a couple years, if Paul Maurice had been available, would anyone have been clamoring for him to join the Flames?

Now that narrative has changed a whole bunch im guessing.

Well, to be honest, going with Peters right now would be "smartest man in the room" type thinking.

Sometimes that attitude gets you a Jankowski.

Sometimes it very nearly costs you a Monahan for nothing in return.

There is no doubt that going with Peters would be a mammoth risk from Treliving's perspective.

[Igottago]

Hiring Peters is kind of like trying to fill that RW position with a free agent who won the scoring race in Europe once. Sure, there might be some upside and it could work out great. But its not like signing a bonafide goal scorer with NHL success. That's what people want right now. It just doesn't seem to be the time for experimentation in the head coach position again.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by nik-

On a guy no one talked about being a possibility here until that first rumour came up like three days ago. Suddenly he's "the man".

A guy that has accomplished nothing in the NHL, is the man for the job.

It's comical how obvious it is. Two of the most successful coaches in the league over the last 8 years are available for hire right now, and our media members are selling us fluff pieces on Bill Peters, a guy who has never coached an NHL team to an overall league standing finish in the top half.

[Travis Munroe]

Peters = high risk for GG with potential of blowing up in his face.

AV = I see him good with an older experienced roster in drawing up X's and O's and a game plan but less of a teaching coach. I wouldn't complain but I don't see him as the right fit.

Trotz = I am not sold... the level of talent in Washington is what gets them where they go and when it comes to needing to make adjustments, I just don't see it from a head coaching perspective. I will say that 5-3 last night was amazing as the guy with the puck had 4 options unlike the flames set up where he gets 1 option and if it isn't there, we are screwed. (Trotz most likely doesn't draw that up though.

I go back to if Washington somehow comes back and perhaps embarrasses CBJ, could Tortorella become available? I see him as a 2-3 year coach max with any team before he is drowned out in the dressing room but it is a critical 2-3 year window for a lot of these guys who need to get that Hartley work ethic back and then in 2-3 years, we are in a better spot to choose one of the many great X and O coaches such as AV.

[SuperMatt18]

I could actually see Playfair ending back up in this organization as either an assistant or the AHL coach if Huska moves on to be an assistant.

Familiar with both the Flames ownership group, and with Treliving/Maloney from his time in Phoenix.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Trotz, Vigneault, Ruff, Tippett, Keefe, Peters, Eakins, then Sutter. That would be my preference. Always try and move forward. Going backwards is usually a mistake, so Sutter would probably be a mistake. Time for new blood in the organization. I've had opportunity to talk hockey with three of the top four and Trotz just really impressed me with his approach to the game. I'd be super stoked to have him as our coach.

[kukkudo]

The Peters wave is about to begin eh. If it is him, Treliving must be confident in him cause he has his job on the line next season.