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

[Kybb79]

Read that article about AV @ www.defendingbigd.com It's about why Dallas shouldn't hire him.

[cross16]

Originally Posted by tkflames

For those comparing Peters and Gallant, there seems to be a substantial difference in both NHL and CHL success.

Gallant:
CHL .801 lost in finals
CHL .875 won
CHL. 757 won

NHL .555
NHL .628 Lost in round 1
NHL .523
NHL .665

Peters:
CHL .403
CHL .556 lost in round 1
CHL .743 won

AHL .538 lost in round 1
AHL .588 lost in round 1
AHL .531

NHL .433
NHL .524
NHL .530
NHL .506

That's not to say that he may or may not be successful with this team, but he certainly wouldn't be on my short list with AV, Sutter and Ruff out there.

However if the Flames brass feel that Gulutzans with some edge is what the team needs, then this is their guy.

Not disputing the numbers but you did forget Gallant's first Columbus stint

.400 in 45 games
.451
.367 fired after 15 games.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You think the NHL considers the World Cup a "novelty tournament"? That's nonsense. I think Peters' place on the Team Canada bench actually says quite a lot about how highly he is regarded in NHL coaching and management circles.

How he is regarded is one thing. What he has actually done is another.

Either way, coaching a stacked roster with elite players top to bottom, in a short tournament, has a very big difference from the reality of coaching a NHL roster, through a NHL season, and subject to opposing teams having a large body of work on which to base their scouting.

Also, moving from team results to individuals, look at Eric Staal before, during and after Peters. I am sure there is an explanation, but again, I don’t understand how this looks good on him.

[Royle9]

If anything, these numbers all prove that the players have to buy into the coach's system, if they don't its pretty obvious there's little to no improvement.

We just need a system that fits the players we have, an offense driven system OR on the flip side we make some trades in the off-season that better suit what the new coach is driving home.

[Sec218]

Voted for AV. Pretty impressive coaching record since 2005.

2005-06 Manitoba Moose 80 44 24 0 12 0.625

2006-07 Vancouver Canucks 82 49 26 0 7 0.640

2007-08 Vancouver Canucks 82 39 33 0 10 0.537

2008-09 Vancouver Canucks 82 45 27 0 10 0.610

2009-10 Vancouver Canucks 82 49 28 0 5 0.628

2010-11 Vancouver Canucks 82 54 19 0 9 0.713

2011-12 Vancouver Canucks 82 51 22 0 9 0.677

2012-13 Vancouver Canucks 48 26 15 0 7 0.615

2013-14 New York Rangers 82 45 31 0 6 0.585

2014-15 New York Rangers 82 53 22 0 7 0.689

2015-16 New York Rangers 82 46 27 0 9 0.616

2016-17 New York Rangers 82 48 28 0 6 0.622

2017-18 New York Rangers 82 34 39 0 9 0.470

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I remember back when the Flames were in their coaching search in 2016 seeing Nate Leeman's name thrown into the mix. Based on Treliving's comments about experience I am not sure he would get a look this time around, but that is a guy that would also intrigue me.

He's under contract with Providence through the 2020-21 season. He might have an out-clause for an NHL gig (and having Jankowski and Gillies in Calgary might appeal to him), but he seems to be happy in college.

[cross16]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Also, moving from team results to individuals, look at Eric Staal before, during and after Peters. I am sure there is an explanation, but again, I don’t understand how this looks good on him.

Maybe not, but how does it make AV look then?

He deployed Staal as a 3rd line center and he put up 6 points in 20 games. Actually was worse under AV then he was Peters. Smaller sample size but should prompt similar questions no?

[troutman]

I would think the Habs would love to hire AV.

[CroFlames]

Treliving himself said you are what your record says you are at his presser.

AV's record is really good.

Peters' is really bad.

AV = really good.

[868904]

I don't really get the narrative that AV isn't good with young players. Go look at the age of the Canucks core when AV started there, they were right at that age where Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Brodie, Hamilton, Backlund are right now.

AV grew with that core group which was in the early 20's. The reason why he didn't play young players at the end of his tenure with the Canucks is because they didn't have any.

As for the Rangers, don't really understand the complaints either, I see lots of young players on those rosters putting up pretty decent points. Some fans just want to see all young players and no veterans.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's simple because your "maybe lose my job" is not a reality. Tell me, what's the downside of doing everything you said except not firing GG until you've found the replacement or keeping him instead of "scraping the bottom of the barrel"? The latter is, IMO a complete abdication of Treliving's job. "I couldn't find anyone as good as GG but I'm firing him and getting a worse coach just because".

The situation is only "festering" in your mind. Show me something that says otherwise. AV hasn't been hired anywhere. If he is, show me that he would have come here if only GG had been fired before now.

Seems nearly impossible.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by troutman

I would think the Habs would love to hire AV.

Are they going to dump Julien though?


Vigneault is a former coach and player for the Hull (now Gatineau) Olympiques and apparently lives in Gatineau in the off-season. I wonder if that would make the Senators an appealing option for him (despite Melnyk)?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by cross16

Maybe not, but how does it make AV look then?

He deployed Staal as a 3rd line center and he put up 6 points in 20 games. Actually was worse under AV then he was Peters. Smaller sample size but should prompt similar questions no?

Fair point. Just my opinion, he was a trade deadline acquisition, not a suitably large sample size reflecting overall coaching and performance of a guy in a key/top role on the team.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This is your honest summary of our discussion?

I was suggesting getting to the bottom of a few things before making the final call, but that I'd let Gulutzan go because of the team's collapse rate.

You accused the GM of dragging his feet and having decision paralysis because it hadn't been done in 8 days.

Result comes in and you're patting yourself on the back for being right? I think you completely missed your own conversation.

I'm getting the impression that you didnt understand what we were discussing at all.

8 days? He should have been turfed after the Anaheim debacle last year. You know, that one where he played a goalie that couldnt stop a beach-ball and then instantly pulled him after he let in a goal from behind the red-line.

As opposed to doing his job and just starting his backup because his starter was struggling.

That he made it past Christmas isnt a miracle, its decision paralysis.

Originally Posted by Bingo

No he didn't.

He wanted the decision made since the season ended.

To reiterate, I wanted him fired after the Anaheim debacle.

Everything thats happened afterwards is just extra.

8 days after the season is still 6 months too late. I know you'll think that I didnt have enough information to make that decision but I understand that the world is an imperfect place and that decisions have to be made with imperfect information.

Be that statistics or advanced analytics or the eye-test, its just ways of trying to take individual responsibility out of the equation which is something to which I do not hold.

And again, I have massive respect for Glen Gulutzan, he seems like an amazing man, but he just wasnt the right fit here and that seemed pretty clear pretty quickly.

Maybe he goes on and has a great career winning 10 Cups with the soon-to-be Seattle Kraken or maybe he wins a bunch of stuff coaching Latvia. I dont know, but he wasnt winning anything with the Calgary Flames, and I could have told you that a year ago or during the summer or before Christmas.

8 days after the season, with respect for the Humboldt tragedy? I'm not at all upset at Treliving or the Organization for not firing him after that. He was an admirable ambassador. He genuinely seems like a great guy. Its just a shame how that all worked out.

[Monahammer]

1. Sutter
2. AV
3. Boudreau (is this even a legit rumor or is it mostly speculation?)
...
30. Peters
31. Dave Cameron rehire/promotion

I really hope it's not Peters. It would be pretty typical flames though, get us all excited just to have the house of cards come crashing down

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Drunk Uncle

2) I think Flames management thought long and hard about what type of 5 on 5 system they wanted in place before hiring Gulutzan and I believe an aggressive defensive zone shoot first offensive zone system designed for puck possession ala Babcock was where they landed.

I really hope the management doesn't pretend they are suited to make these kinds of judgements, being that they are not NHL coaches. But it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

I really hope they leave those decisions to actual professional NHL head coaches.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by cross16

Not disputing the numbers but you did forget Gallant's first Columbus stint

.400 in 45 games
.451
.367 fired after 15 games.

Thank you for adding this. It's a fair point, but I don't think it changes the analysis since it was 10 years ago. If anything it shows growth for Gallant.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Vigneault strength is evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of his lineup and deploying them to highlight the strengths and protect the weaknesses. Which in my view was something Gulutzan was frustratingly bad at.

Seems like a very good fit to me if you want to get the best out of a roster that on paper should be in one of the top 3 spots in the division.

He does have "coach's pet" syndrome like many coaches, though - seems to pick a guy who isn't actually any good, but can do no wrong in the coach's eyes, and give him minutes. Lots of coaches around like that, though - Babcock has that same reputation.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by 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.

Me too, especially considering Treliving's comment that money won't be an issue. If that's the case, then why wouldn't you spring for a high-end experienced coach?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by cross16

Not disputing the numbers but you did forget Gallant's first Columbus stint

.400 in 45 games
.451
.367 fired after 15 games.

Yeah his first stint was not very good at all. That said he learned from it and got better as a coach. Not ever coach can do that as we just experienced.