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

[Vinny01]

The Flames traded Iginla 5 years ago yet we are on year 7 of the rebuild?

[JohnnyB]

I'm prepared to be disappointed. If the Flames don't have a good coach over the next few years and the team repeatedly misses the playoffs, we're starting to look a long way off from being a potential contender again. To my mind, Tre messed up the last Hartley season with the goaltending disaster and went from there into the team being both incredibly boring to watch and unsuccessful, so I'm not expecting genius in this coaching pick.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Go_Flames4ever

I find it kind of funny seeing the glowing endorsement of Peters being picked by Hockey Canada to being on their coaching staff 3 out of the last 4 years for the World Hockey Championships.

Is it really an accomplishment in that sense? Isn't this the tournament of all the non-playoff teams and players from early playoff exit teams?

Of course it is. It may not mean a lot to you, but these tournaments mean something to Hockey Canada and the IIHF. They take the best people available, and yeah, it happens to be most out of non-playoff teams, but does that mean these people are bad, or just in bad situations? It’s not always cut and dry.

Peter Deboer, Ken Hitchcock, Lindy Ruff. All three are guys that have coached the IIHF tournament repeatedly, and all three are successful (or have a high pedigree).

Deboer is another guy who started off his career rocky with 3 non-playoff seasons. Since then, however, he’s been to the finals twice.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

To me a low shooting percentage as a team would indicate a lack of skill and I don’t think it has much to do with luck.



Individually I think luck can play a part (ie a high scorer has an off year) but when the total team SH% is low it’s usually because the team doesn’t have enough players that can put the puck in the net.

Or because the system in place is conducive to loading up on low quality shots.

[Torch]

I get the concern over Peters. I personally feel that the coaches like AV, Sutter, Trotz are unavailable . Sutter was fired from calgary, why would he come back? AV would stay out east, and would Calgary pay a coach 6 million? Trotz is still in the thick of it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I'm prepared to be disappointed. If the Flames don't have a good coach over the next few years and the team repeatedly misses the playoffs, we're starting to look a long way off from being a potential contender again. To my mind, Tre messed up the last Hartley season with the goaltending disaster and went from there into the team being both incredibly boring to watch and unsuccessful, so I'm not expecting genius in this coaching pick.

Can you name how many games 3 goalies were in the rotation?

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Torch

I get the concern over Peters. I personally feel that the coaches like AV, Sutter, Trotz are unavailable . Sutter was fired from calgary, why would he come back? AV would stay out east, and would Calgary pay a coach 6 million? Trotz is still in the thick of it.

There are 31 head coaching jobs and every coach gets fired or let go at some point. Why wouldn't he come back?

[Erick Estrada]

So the rumours are that the Flames and Peters are finalizing an agreement according to the rumour the 960 guys are discussing. Is anyone in the media picked this up?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So the rumours are that the Flames and Peters are finalizing an agreement according to the rumour the 960 guys are discussing. Is anyone in the media picked this up?

Bob McKenzie tweeted it last night, I believe, or something very close to that

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So the rumours are that the Flames and Peters are finalizing an agreement according to the rumour the 960 guys are discussing. Is anyone in the media picked this up?

#### I hope not. Gulutzan all over again.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So the rumours are that the Flames and Peters are finalizing an agreement according to the rumour the 960 guys are discussing. Is anyone in the media picked this up?

Yes that was what McKenzie reported yesterday. He thinks they are working on finalizing a deal but isn't reporting it as done.

[AltaGuy]

Where is the “process”?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Bob McKenzie tweeted it last night, I believe, or something very close to that

Hmmm. Why not at least interview AV, Sutter, and some other candidates first? I could understand if they hired an accomplished guy like AV or Sutter without looking at other coaches because you know what you are getting but I don't know how you can target a guy like Peters and assume he's your man without talking to other candidates as there's some pretty established guys available.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Hmmm. Why not at least interview AV, Sutter, and some other candidates first? I could understand if they hired an accomplished guy like AV or Sutter without looking at other coaches because you know what you are getting but I don't know how you can target a guy like Peters and assume he's your man without talking to other candidates as there's some pretty established guys available.

PROBABLY NOT, but: I suppose in theory they could hire Peters in a role (because his window is narrow) and still proceed to interview the other guys, and sort of the positions later. Would Peters come here for an associate role? He might.

But as I said, I doubt it. It could even have been as simple as Sutter or AV not wanting to interview I guess.

[JTech780]

What is the old adage? Show me a good coach and I will show you a good goaltender.

Alain Vigneault: Jose Theodore, Roberto Luongo, Henrik Lundqvist
Darryl Sutter: Ed Belfour, Evgeni Nabokov, Miikka Kiprusoff, Jonathan Quick
Bill Peters: Cam Ward, Eddie Lack, Scott Darling

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

From the perspective of Treliving's future in Calgary, it doesn't really matter who he picks if we fumble the next two years. He'll be gone anyway.

But, IMO, if Treliving pulls back to back 'smartest guy in the room' coaching hires and both fail, he's likely doing far greater damage to his future prospects of getting a second GM job in this league than if he goes with a more proven/'safer' choice.

So he should take the most popular or biggest name and not the guy that he thinks is a better fit for his team in order to make sure that when he gets fired in two years he can get another job?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Peters is only a bag of magic beans to fans. To people in the pro hockey community, they don’t just see the outside of the car and it’s race record and think “that’s the car i’ll buy,” they actually have the opportunity to look under the hood, and gather significantly more information to make their decisions. Sometimes it’s right, sometimes it’s wrong, but nothing these decisions are “magic beans.”

I don’t know why some fans find it so hard to accept that the maximum amount they can possibly know will always be less than the minimum amount a GM can know. Doesn’t mean the GM doesn’t make bad decisions, but when you only have access to a fraction of the information, you should expect not to understand some things.

I really find the constant appeal to authority as a defence of Peters rather curious. I don't see the people in this thread arguing Treliving knows better or has more information rushing into the E=NG thread and saying the same when we bash Chiarelli's decisions. Because every missing data point we have with respect to the Flames decision making is true of the other 30 teams. So relying on it here is really nothing more than an effort to shut down criticism without responding to it.

We can see the results of Treliving's decisions, and we can judge based on that. We can see the results of Peters' tenure as a coach, and we can judge based on that. They might have more data to work with behind the scenes, but anything that is relevant is laid bare on the ice. And we can judge based on that.

In Peters, it appears we get a good Corsi coach. Well, like it or not, there's not a high level of respect for that round here. And after the last two years especially, nobody should be surprised by that. Moreover, given that high Corsi has also translated to diddly squat in Carolina, that doubles the arguments in favour of skepticism.

It appears we get a good disciplinarian. Though we'll see how well that works with Tkachuk's style. Every indication is that he is a much better bench boss than Gulutzan - major point in his favour, as far as I am concerned.

Peters had no goaltending in Carolina. Well, like it or not, we've got nothing but an aging wildcard and a pair of netminders who have given no indication they can handle the kind of workload we *need* them to if Smith is going to be effective for the entire year.

Etc, etc, etc.

Do we have all the data Treliving does? Nope. But that does not mean that we can't question his decision making processes. Treliving has made enough major blunders that blind faith is not warranted.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Hmmm. Why not at least interview AV, Sutter, and some other candidates first? I could understand if they hired an accomplished guy like AV or Sutter without looking at other coaches because you know what you are getting but I don't know how you can target a guy like Peters and assume he's your man without talking to other candidates as there's some pretty established guys available.

I don't care what Tre says , I don't believe him when he says ownership has no money restrictions on coaching. No way they think about paying AV $6+ million. That is why no interview with him and probably no interview years ago with Boudreau.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Where is the “process”?

Does this mean Bill Peters was their guy for a long time? Was BT waiting for him to get fired during the season to make a move for him? Seems awfully quick to make a decision on Peters when you have AV/Sutter/Tippett/Trotz (If Wash loses first round?) all on the market.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

I find it disengeneous to assume that “fans” don’t know as much as “people in hockey” there’s only so much analysis you need to do to know a coaches system and many of us can see it enough to make relatively educated opinions.

All the game film is out there. You can’t tell me that a gm knows more because he knows who had the runs before the game and who didn’t. And that’s why someone played better than someone else.

So how much game film have the average fan watched on the three or four choices they are looking at?

What kind of staff do they employ to dig into the issues and come up with recommendations?