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

[colbym72]

Originally Posted by getbak

Or the guys on the radio have to fill a 4 hour programming block and are speculating about stuff they don't really know about. Also, it's better for ratings to take a position that is the most controversial. This is the strategy Eric Francis seems to follow in every thing he writes.

The morning guys are not really hot take shock talk guys. The Peters rumors are largely out there and they have to talk about it. They have had some inside info before

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by getbak

Or the guys on the radio have to fill a 4 hour programming block and are speculating about stuff they don't really know about. Also, it's better for ratings to take a position that is the most controversial. This is the strategy Eric Francis seems to follow in every thing he writes.

I mean, I cant discredit you for this point it could very well be true.
But one would think that a group of guys who are front and center about all things flames from a media perspective would know a bit more than the general assumptions of the public.

Eric Francis aside, those guys rarely throw out complete bull#### information just for listeners. It may not be 100% actual fact but I give merit to some of what they say as I know those guys are in the dressing rooms and in front of the flames brass much more than anybody else in the city. Again you go back and look at the coaching choices even the last 15 year's and you'll see clear cases of taking an "up and coming guy" or a "guy waiting to break into the NHL" over the proven veteran winning record NHL coaches.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Brad can say whatever he wants thought? Do you honestly think he would come out and say "The ownership group has given me a dollar figure, and we're going to go with the best guy that fits our budget"

It would never happen, just like GM's never blast coaches and most coaches never blast player's by name.

The proof is in the Flames coaching history going back the last 15+ years.

Originally Posted by Toonage

Maybe, and hear me out here, Brad lied.

Originally Posted by Toonage

Sure he has. Remember how sought after Drew Shore was? How many GMs would snap him up if they put him on waivers? Sure, tiny lie, but he's done it. Every GM lies.

He was put on the spot with a last second question and threw out a quick answer.

Treliving has never flat out lied including about Shore. He said other GMs would snap Shore up on waivers and that was likely true at the time. It became otherwise later on, after Shore wasn't as valued.

If Treliving had been more vague about his budget but tried to sound positive, then I might have suspicions. But not on a bald statement like that.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Red

Elliotte Friedman was asked this morning why Tre is looking at Peters. The only reason he could come up with is that he knows him and you hire people you know.
What other reasons are there to suggest he is a better choice than AV or Sutter?

His teams don't take penalties?

and that other part where he stated that Bill Peters is a good coach...but yeah, carry on.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Sure he has. Remember how sought after Drew Shore was? How many GMs would snap him up if they put him on waivers? Sure, tiny lie, but he's done it. Every GM lies.

He was put on the spot with a last second question and threw out a quick answer.

I don't think he was lying about Drew Shore.

The Flames picked him and had him still playing in the AHL months after the trade. I am sure a few GMs called wondering if he really was in the Flames plans and if they were willing to move him.

Teams weren't going to give up a lot for him, but they probably thought they could take a flyer on him if the Flames didn't want him.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Sure he has. Remember how sought after Drew Shore was? How many GMs would snap him up if they put him on waivers? Sure, tiny lie, but he's done it. Every GM lies.

He was put on the spot with a last second question and threw out a quick answer.

How do you know that was a lie. He said at the time other teams asked about Shore. How do you know that was a lie?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Red

Elliotte Friedman was asked this morning why Tre is looking at Peters. The only reason he could come up with is that he knows him and you hire people you know.
What other reasons are there to suggest he is a better choice than AV or Sutter?

His teams don't take penalties?

Talk about only hearing what you want to hear.

- he also said he's a very well respected coach in hockey circles
- and that hockey people suggest having $15M less in that division makes it very difficult to compete

[Toonage]

Fair points folks re: Shore.

I guess my point should have been that maybe he gave an answer that he didn't expect to be scrutinized. Money wasn't an object, but there were probably limits, extremes that he couldn't go to when spending.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Nelson

The Flames were about -1.2% CF% and +2.16% HDSC% compared to the Hurricanes. But this is a good point. Both teams have good underlying numbers.

It makes me think the real problem with the 17-18 Flames and 17-18 Hurricanes was an inability to score because of bad luck and a lack of shooting ability.

If you look at the HDSC% rankings it’s Penguins, Predators, Sharks, Leafs, Hurricanes, Canadiens, Bruins, Devils, Jets, Flames, Lightning, Stars, and Wild (the best). Obviously the stat is not perfect in terms of correlating with success.

What I think it means is that players are getting chances to score in close, a lot of that is playmaking but a lot is systems too. But the team still has to score. The coach cannot shoot the puck. What really separates the best from the worst is the ability to score.

I think Peters would be a fine choice because his players consistently get chances to score a lot. However, that will be completely irrelevant if the team doesn’t improve its forwards, particularly with respect to shooters.

Its been said here before but I don't think luck had as much to do with it as you'd think.

The slower pace of the flames attack means defense has more time to set up with 5 players back or whatever set-up they want. This basically means that while the flames skilled players succeeded despite this (basically they are good enough offensively to score even when opposition is fully setup) the bottom six was more often facing a situation where they are less likely to score because of the number of defenders back

if you look at teams like boston vegas and tampa bay they all defend as a five man unit (similar to what GG did but with more pressuring the puck in all three zones) but they moved the puck forward as soon as they got it this gives their players, including depth players more opportunities for 2on1s 3on2s etc.


I think more than anything the Peters/GG system doesn't maximize the opportunities for depth scoring and although it seems to generate lots of shots, as we witnessed most of the season, if they are weak or low percentage shots then whats the point...

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

To me this whole thing comes down to Treliving.

If you think Treliving is a smart man and a good GM, you trust him to make a call based on what he thinks is a good fit and see where it goes. If you don't think he's a great GM, and trust me I get that angst as I had it with Feaster, then you are worried as hell ... and I get that.

To date I think Treliving has been great on the trade front, very good on the draft front, sketchy on the free agent front, and 0/1 on his coaching choices.

Detractors can only hope that his recovery from Bouma to Colborne will be seen again in his recovery for picking a coach that fits the second time around.

The coaching choice is a very different animal and I get both sides.

I don't think you can just circle Corsi numbers and hire the highest corsi guy, there is way more to it than that.

However I also don't think you can just look up the coaching record on hockeydb.com and pick the guy with the highest win percentage.

Both are too superficial.

If it's Peters I hope to hell they dig into why the man has had great corsi numbers but terrible shooting percentages and determine what allotment of luck, personnel and the system are to blame for it.

As an aside, I just continue to shake my head at the growing mass of people on this site that are legitimately angry with those that disagree with them. You can see it in their posting style.

I agree with this, you are putting your trust in the guy making the decision who has access to a whole lot more information than we have.

I would quibble with your rating on the trade front. I don't rate him anywhere near great and in fact over the last 14 months, other GM's have gotten the better of him in deals. Although I get that some people view the Hamonic deal more favorably than I do. He has shown to be adept at auctioning off his pending UFA's, which is an important skill, but I view that somewhat differently than going out and acquiring players you need.

It is slightly OT, but I have yet to be convinced in BT's ability to assess talent, player, coach or otherwise. He sounds smart, and appears thoughtful though.

I do think he deserves credit for many of the contracts he has negotiated.

[Ryan Coke]

No matter who they hire, firing GG was the right call, and I can’t imagine anyone they hire being worse. Thats the good news.

After listening to all the opinions on here and elsewhere, I am definitely falling on the side of disappointment with the potential Peters hiring. It really seems the most compelling quality he has is that he has worked with Tre and he liked Peters work. It is concerning when it appearss that familiarity plays such a big role in his decision making process. If he had worked with D Sutter or AV in the past would we be looking at bringing them and their more illustrious resume in? It looks like that would be likely. But those guys were busy winning with their NHL teams as opposed to coaching in the world championships, so they never worked together.

I’ll give him the same leash that I gave GG....hope that they find success with him, and opportunity through performance to show that it was the right call. But at this point there is nothing to create excitement that this is the slam dunk best man that will really bring out the best in this roster.

Sadly it has solidified my position to not renew my tickets for next year. I hope I come to regret it.

If, of course, Peters is indeed hired.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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

It's funny how such small and short-lived things can become the narrative, isn't it.

"Brouwer on the first unit". Well, not for very long in reality. 11 games.
"Fourth line out after every goal". Not actually.
"3 goalies". For a couple weeks, maybe?
"Jankowski wasn't given a spot". He missed 10 games.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Nelson

The Flames were about -1.2% CF% and +2.16% HDSC% compared to the Hurricanes. But this is a good point. Both teams have good underlying numbers.

It makes me think the real problem with the 17-18 Flames and 17-18 Hurricanes was an inability to score because of bad luck and a lack of shooting ability.

If you look at the HDSC% rankings it’s Penguins, Predators, Sharks, Leafs, Hurricanes, Canadiens, Bruins, Devils, Jets, Flames, Lightning, Stars, and Wild (the best). Obviously the stat is not perfect in terms of correlating with success.

What I think it means is that players are getting chances to score in close, a lot of that is playmaking but a lot is systems too. But the team still has to score. The coach cannot shoot the puck. What really separates the best from the worst is the ability to score.

I think Peters would be a fine choice because his players consistently get chances to score a lot. However, that will be completely irrelevant if the team doesn’t improve its forwards, particularly with respect to shooters.

Here is my problem with GG and Peters, why didn't the players score despite these supposedly great systems? Was it pressure? Was it anxiety? Was it mental?

Are the players feeling too loose with GG? Are the players feeling too tight with Peters?

A big Part of being a coach is the ability to motivate and instill confidence in the players. That doesn't mean the player has to love you but he needs the right motivation or inspiration to perform at peak level.

Based on what we've seen thus far, I don't know that Peters or GG have been able to instill that confidence or swagger in their players. Maybe it's not all just luck? Maybe the coach has to be that calming influence or instill a sense of swagger so that players aren't shooting wide 3 feet of the net or firing right into the goalies chest?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Royle9

I mean, I cant discredit you for this point it could very well be true.
But one would think that a group of guys who are front and center about all things flames from a media perspective would know a bit more than the general assumptions of the public.

Eric Francis aside, those guys rarely throw out complete bull#### information just for listeners. It may not be 100% actual fact but I give merit to some of what they say as I know those guys are in the dressing rooms and in front of the flames brass much more than anybody else in the city. Again you go back and look at the coaching choices even the last 15 year's and you'll see clear cases of taking an "up and coming guy" or a "guy waiting to break into the NHL" over the proven veteran winning record NHL coaches.

Hmm, I seem to remember Keenan (Stanley Cup), Brent (winning record) and Hartley (Stanley Cup) all coaching within the last 15 years.

Hey, I'm cheering for AV to be coach. Your assessment is incorrect however.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I agree with this, you are putting your trust in the guy making the decision who has access to a whole lot more information than we have.

I would quibble with your rating on the trade front. I don't rate him anywhere near great and in fact over the last 14 months, other GM's have gotten the better of him in deals. Although I get that some people view the Hamonic deal more favorably than I do. He has shown to be adept at auctioning off his pending UFA's, which is an important skill, but I view that somewhat differently than going out and acquiring players you need.

It is slightly OT, but I have yet to be convinced in BT's ability to assess talent, player, coach or otherwise. He sounds smart, and appears thoughtful though.

I do think he deserves credit for many of the contracts he has negotiated.

We actually printed out his trade history at the office and me and a co worker gave check marks or X's against them all, then reduced it to impact trades and rated them.

I had 10 impact trades

Glencross - check
Baertschi - check
Hamilton - check
Hudler - check
Russell - check
Elliott - check
Stone - check
Lazar - X
Smith - check
Hamonic - check

I realize there are many that will be "X" on the Hamonic deal, maybe the Elliott deal but my assessment is on what they acquired and based on what logic, not necessarily things working out.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Talk about only hearing what you want to hear.

- he also said he's a very well respected coach in hockey circles
- and that hockey people suggest having $15M less in that division makes it very difficult to compete

On the note of hearing what we want, i know at least the one time I heard he said there are “some” hockey people who think he is a good coach. It didn’t strike me as a resounding description of someone the business thinks is the next big thing in coaching.

Of course maybe it was nothing, but it does change the flavour of what you had heard.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

On the note of hearing what we want, i know at least the one time I heard he said there are [B]”some”[B] hockey people who think he is a good coach. It didn’t strike me as a resounding description of someone the business thinks is the next big thing in coaching.

Of course maybe it was nothing, but it does change the flavour of what you had heard.

I said respected in hockey circles which is a paraphrase of something he certainly said. I certainly didn't say he was "respected by every single person in said hockey circles"

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Talk about only hearing what you want to hear.

- he also said he's a very well respected coach in hockey circles
- and that hockey people suggest having $15M less in that division makes it very difficult to compete

Your second point doesn't actually address WHY they should pick Peters over AV, and that was the question to Elliotte.

They brought that point up earlier in the segment and explained that Peters may be a good coach, but its hard to say for certain because his teams were always budget.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by 868904

Here is my problem with GG and Peters, why didn't the players score despite these supposedly great systems? Was it pressure? Was it anxiety? Was it mental?

Are the players feeling too loose with GG? Are the players feeling too tight with Peters?

A big Part of being a coach is the ability to motivate and instill confidence in the players. That doesn't mean the player has to love you but he needs the right motivation or inspiration to perform at peak level.

Based on what we've seen thus far, I don't know that Peters or GG have been able to instill that confidence or swagger in their players. Maybe it's not all just luck? Maybe the coach has to be that calming influence or instill a sense of swagger so that players aren't shooting wide 3 feet of the net or firing right into the goalies chest?

All very fair questions

[chummer]

Interesting that Friedman said he wouldn't have fired Gullutzan if Peters wasn't available.
Or did I hear that wrong?