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

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dammage79

And for the record, I'm not against Peters coming in. I just worry that the Corsi life is too heavy a factor in bringing him in.

I think we can all agree as long as this new staff can have a decent PP and better 5v5 scoring, all the better.

I agree 100%.

I wouldn't hire the guy unless I could come up with a reason why he has conflicting results.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by cross16

Not sure I see it the same way. I think there is a lot of risk no matter what.

AV was not successful in Montreal and last year he finished 6 points behind Peters and the Canes despite spending 13 more mill on payroll and have a borderline hall of fame goalie. Yes I know he was 100 pts the year prior but do you know exactly what AV you are getting? What did Montreal think when they were hiring Julien?

I'm always of the opinion if you look at the underlying stats of the Hurricanes and put it with what the Flames have they make the playoffs. How much further would the go is hard to say but I also think the Flames need more pieces to be considered a threat irregardless of who their coach is.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

For my money the biggest fixes are these: the powerplay and the bizarre discrepancy between home and road splits. If the coach can figure out why the Flames were so bad at the Saddledome this year then the team will be competitive.

[Strange Brew]

If you believe this team has a hard time playing with pressure then this endless debate about advanced stats is secondary IMO. Same goes with PP improvement.

Question is, how do you expect a coach to help with this? Is that even a resaonable expectation?

[Manhattanboy]

Haven't seen Dan Bylsma's name mentioned. Was he that bad in Buffalo? He had success in PITT but then I could have coached that team and done well...

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by getbak

Here's where they've ranked in terms of Goals Scored / Wins / Points...

• 14/15: 27th / 27th / 26th
• 15/16: 27th / 26th / 18th
• 16/17: 20th / 22nd / 20th
• 17/18: 23rd / 22nd / 21st

In the stats that actually matter, they didn't really improve at all.

I was just answering his question - didn't say that Carolina deserved better at all - just that there wasn't some big discrepancy between scoring chances and corsi.

And goals scored and wins did actually improve the second two seasons to the first two seasons - so there was some correlation there.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I completely agree with this.

[/I]
And I also agree completely with this. The question in the light of these observations is whether or not Bill Peters or Alain Vignault, or someone else is the right choice to make this correction. This is an impossible question for us to answer with the information we have in hand, so why are some so invested in their certainty about the capabilities of one coach over the others? It is counter-intuitive.

Ok, so here is a data point. Not a broad based analysis, but a point.

Peters’ team had good underlying stats but poor results. Is that luck? Is it simply roster based, that they don’t have the players that can finish?

Eric Staal’s production dip, sustained for 2 full seasons with Peters, and his renaissance in Minnesota may suggest it could be something else.

Whether Peters got the most available out of the team you can seek to justify, however I think there is a clear answer as to whether he got the most out of Eric Staal

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Those are summaries that advanced stats gurus would hold as gospel. I'm not in that camp at all. But I do wonder why they happened, and I think they should be looked into in order to make sure you don't over look factors that could help make a good decision.

So look at them and get back to us. You keep saying in effect we need to look closer, look deeper, find out more. And? Nothing ever comes of it, nothing further is ever revealed.

Consider that maybe just maybe an in depth analysis is not going to explain why Gulutzan was actually a good coach, and in fact was not a good coach and his record accurately reflects this. This can also be applied to other NHL coaches. Which is why people are fed up with "the smartest guy in the room" coaching picks and want a guy with a winning record.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yes. But why? It's bizarre to me because Smith has been around the League for a long time.

[Dan403]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I see the resident Oilers fans and Flames haters are propping up their man Dallas Eakins.

I thought the exact same thing.

Nice of them to line up for the "Blocked" button like that.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes. But why? It's bizarre to me because Smith has been around the League for a long time.

Smith + altitude ?

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by zamler

So look at them and get back to us. You keep saying in effect we need to look closer, look deeper, find out more. And? Nothing ever comes of it, nothing further is ever revealed.

Consider that maybe just maybe an in depth analysis is not going to explain why Gulutzan was actually a good coach, and in fact was not a good coach and his record accurately reflects this. This can also be applied to other NHL coaches. Which is why people are fed up with "the smartest guy in the room" coaching picks and want a guy with a winning record.

The K.I.S.S method of hiring a coach. Or reference the draft. BPA is BPA.

Who is the BPA out of this coaching group thats available? Don't think it's Peters. In fact I think he's the Olli Juolevi of this years coaching stable.

I mean there's many factors as well. The other coaches do not want to come here, think there's better opportunities with other teams etc etc.

But if the top coaches are into coming here, don't think just bring em in.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes. But why? It's bizarre to me because Smith has been around the League for a long time.

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Smith + altitude ?

Smith plus 4 kids under 6 years old at home. The road must seem soooooo peaceful.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

So look at them and get back to us. You keep saying in effect we need to look closer, look deeper, find out more. And? Nothing ever comes of it, nothing further is ever revealed.

Consider that maybe just maybe an in depth analysis is not going to explain why Gulutzan was actually a good coach, and in fact was not a good coach and his record accurately reflects this. This can also be applied to other NHL coaches. Which is why people are fed up with "the smartest guy in the room" coaching picks and want a guy with a winning record.

First off all I don't have to watch 50 hockey games hitting pause every 15 seconds to suggest the work should be done. They pay a team of three guys to do that, and they should.

So don't look for a reveal from me, it's not coming.

Don't look for a reveal from the team either as they'd want to keep their analysis private.

But that doesn't men it shouldn't be done.

Secondly, I've always considered that the analysis won't reveal an answer but it wouldn't be a stone I wouldn't turnover before making a pretty important firing and hiring decision.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Ok, so here is a data point. Not a broad based analysis, but a point.

Peters’ team had good underlying stats but poor results. Is that luck? Is it simply roster based, that they don’t have the players that can finish?

Eric Staal’s production dip, sustained for 2 full seasons with Peters, and his renaissance in Minnesota may suggest it could be something else.

Whether Peters got the most available out of the team you can seek to justify, however I think there is a clear answer as to whether he got the most out of Eric Staal

Staal is ONE player. Peters seems to have done just fine with others like Aho, Teravainen, Skinner, and Justin Williams had a great year playing for him. I think you are setting far too much importance into the improvement or decline of a single player under a coach.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

If that wasnt, then immediately pulling him after his mistake certainly was.

Hartley ran with Hiller and then yanked him pretty quick against Vancouver. Was he admitting defeat in that game?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes. But why? It's bizarre to me because Smith has been around the League for a long time.

Absolutely.

My gut says two things.

1) Goalie was starving to play in front of big crowds and teams that give a rip and pressed

2) Team took too many chances on home ice and his high danger chances were up.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by zamler

So look at them and get back to us. You keep saying in effect we need to look closer, look deeper, find out more. And? Nothing ever comes of it, nothing further is ever revealed.

Consider that maybe just maybe an in depth analysis is not going to explain why Gulutzan was actually a good coach, and in fact was not a good coach and his record accurately reflects this. This can also be applied to other NHL coaches. Which is why people are fed up with "the smartest guy in the room" coaching picks and want a guy with a winning record.

Can we please stop using this term as a debate tactic? It is completely meaningless in this context.

[Drunk Uncle]

Originally Posted by Itse

These are exactly the same thing.

Either you let an actual NHL coach decide what system is the best for your team, or you make that call and then hire a coach to execute it.

Thinking that management looks at how a coach coaches (systems, philosophy) to assess a fit with your team prior to hiring a coach is not the same thing as telling the coach how to coach once you've hired him. Not sure how you are seeing those as the same.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Absolutely.

My gut says two things.

1) Goalie was starving to play in front of big crowds and teams that give a rip and pressed

2) Team took too many chances on home ice and his high danger chances were up.

Did the Flames surrender more high-danger chances on home ice? I tend to agree with your first point, as there were a number of absolutely baffling goals he allowed at the Saddledome this season.

What do you think about this?

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Smith + altitude ?