[News] Flames hire Bill Peters as the franchise's 19th head coach

[Angelino]

Looking forward to a new GM in a few years.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

How so? If the new coach has the same wrong message in a different voice, you should expect similar results.

The message isn't expected to change. You can't build around a system. We are built around three defensemen who, the day Glen Gulutzan was signed, were identified by Gulutzan as 40+ point guys, and playing systems in which only one of them - the worst of them - is a 40 pt guy. We added an expensive 25 pt defensemen and placed him into a system where he scored 11 points.


All in all it can't be time to "start blaming the players" when you have Giordano, a 55-60pt guy, in the mid-30s and Brodie, a 45-50pt guy without relying on the PP, also in the mid 30s after relying on the PP, and Hamonic being outscored by such offensive beasts as Engelland.


Peters has to implement a system that will make use of the pieces at his disposal. If that fails it is time to start blaming the players. Blaming the players if they don't produce playing Gulutzan's system with a different voice is poor logic. All four guys in our top 4 D have produced offensively in the past and neutering them and then discarding them is just absurd. D creating offense is what gives today's top offenses depth and we should be right at the top of that given the proven production before Treliving's vision was enacted.

Sorry i don't know if you've played hockey - but when you are on the ice you do not feel like a widget or simply a piece of a larger system on the ice - yes you can be instructed to play a system - but the game itself is very fluid and most shifts are filled with moments for players when you need to respond based on skill and desire - things you cannot teach or instruct on how to respond. Its really oversimplified to just blame the system or the coach for the failures of this team this season.

I'm just saying i hope mgmt digs deeper than the coach, and doesn't give this group another year to 'figure it out'.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

sitting here and talking about another year without playoffs and the failure of this move without even seeing day one of training camp just comes off as silly.

Why is it silly to talk about how people expect things to go?
What else are we going to talk about at this point?

Hiring a new coach isn't going to bump this teams revenue

If they'd make the playoffs, that's a lot of new revenue. Not just tickets, it increases brand value which helps when negotiating marketing partnerships.

Besides, sports teams are generally not great investments. I'm sure the owners want to own a successful franchise.

[Stanley]

Did we all suddenly forget about player accountability??
Say what you want about Peters but perhaps the players feel bad enough and get that wake up call to get get their isht together and execute

[Shazam]

Let's not be too surprised that some people are upset and pessimistic about this potential hire.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I can't believe someone on CP called me optimistic .

Jerk, abrasive, stubborn, ahole, flippant, obtuse, rude, stupid, pig headed, argumentative but never optimistic.

But maybe I am an optimistic sports fan. I just can't imagine being so negative about the team all the time. Maybe it's because I grew up cheering for lovable losers and have become too accepting of mediocrity. But I think a lot of just has to do with how emotionally taxing it is to be so negative and to read so much negativity all the time.

I get being skeptical of the current regime and the new hire. I'm just not prepared to get bent out of shape over it.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

Lots of ppl also said give Glutuzan benefit of the doubt, many of us didn't like that hire either.

Where are all those posters who said we shouldn't rush to judgement about Gulutzan? He's been fired. Is it OK to judge now?

Just want to make sure I understand what's acceptable criticism around here and what is "rushing to judgement".

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Where are all those posters who said we shouldn't rush to judgement about Gulutzan? He's been fired. Is it OK to judge now?

Just want to make sure I understand what's acceptable criticism around here and what is "rushing to judgement".

Gotta wait for the right metrics on last season before we can judge Gulutzan, mmk?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Where are all those posters who said we shouldn't rush to judgement about Gulutzan? He's been fired. Is it OK to judge now?

Just want to make sure I understand what's acceptable criticism around here and what is "rushing to judgement".

Rushing to judgement is rarely a good thing even if that opinion ends up being correct.
I have a lot more respect for someone who forms a rationale opinion with some appropriate amount of information in place.
Just because someone ends up being correct doesn't mean the approach they took to form their opinion is sound.

[Toonage]

I didn't love the GG hiring and 2 games in I was convinced there was a problem and called for him to be fired.

That was quick on my part, but I at least waited for him to coach 2 games.

Lets give Peters at least one.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by NewFan

I understood that Peters is a meaner GG. Not good.

Well, the Flames played their best hockey of the season this year after Gulutzan got mean. Maybe that's what they need.

[1qqaaz]

I don't think I agree with those who are taking the "wait and see" approach.
Hindsight will not ever be 20/20. We may never know how this team could have performed under AV or Sutter. We cannot fully evaluate the decision now, and we won't be able to at the next the next season either. Even if the team succeeds under Peters, we may still wonder "what if?" in regards to the other options.

I am upset because based on the information we have, this is objectively a poor decision.
It truly does sound like Treliving wants to hire Peters because of their existing relationship. If this is true, I have definitely lost a lot of faith in Treliving. This simply isn't optimal decision making.

Maybe we shouldn't be too hard to Peters. It was probably hard to coach a team that was 15 million under the cap. Does it justify finishing with only 83 points each year? Maybe. Probably.
But I would rather the Flames hire a coach who doesn't need to make excuses. Why not hire someone who has had success, someone who doesn't even need excuses?

This decision would not be so upsetting if there were not such strong alternatives available. I believing coaching is incredibly important, and I don't like the logos behind the decision.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

I am upset because based on the information we have, this is objectively a poor decision. .

Objectively? No sorry that's not true. Any opinions at this point, good or bad, are subjective.
The information we have is simply not enough to form an objective opinion.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

But maybe I am an optimistic sports fan. I just can't imagine being so negative about the team all the time. Maybe it's because I grew up cheering for lovable losers and have become too accepting of mediocrity. But I think a lot of just has to do with how emotionally taxing it is to be so negative and to read so much negativity all the time.

Yes you have.

I get being skeptical of the current regime and the new hire. I'm just not prepared to get bent out of shape over it.

Some people are more passionate about it than others.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Rushing to judgement is rarely a good thing even if that opinion ends up being correct.
I have a lot more respect for someone who forms a rationale opinion with some appropriate amount of information in place.
Just because someone ends up being correct doesn't mean the approach they took to form their opinion is sound.

Exactly! We have a new coach with a decidedly worse track-record and statistics behind him than others available. So the rational opinion right now is something along the lines of: “ah crap, wth Treliving?”

I would suggest any “rationale” for why Peters is a better hire than others is just a “wing and a prayer” scenario. Which isn’t out of line in sports fans by any stretch, but if you’re interested in the facts backing opinions, I don’t see how any facts support Peters being a better hire than many other possibilities.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Exactly! We have a new coach with a decidedly worse track-record and statistics behind him than others available. So the rational opinion right now is something along the lines of: “ah crap, wth Treliving?”

I would suggest any “rationale” for why Peters is a better hire than others is just a “wing and a prayer” scenario. Which isn’t out of line in sports fans by any stretch, but if you’re interested in the facts backing opinions, I don’t see how any facts support Peters being a better hire than many other possibilities.

As others have said if all we are going to look at is records then they should have just hired the available coach with the highest career winning percent.

None of us understand the coach enough to make a judgement either way.

I don't see what's wrong with admitting that.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Just because someone ends up being correct doesn't mean the approach they took to form their opinion is sound.

Similarly, just because you were quick to come to a conclusion doesn't mean the approach was wrong.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Rushing to judgement is rarely a good thing even if that opinion ends up being correct.
I have a lot more respect for someone who forms a rationale opinion with some appropriate amount of information in place.
Just because someone ends up being correct doesn't mean the approach they took to form their opinion is sound.

Bill Peters has been a head coach for 328 NHL games. If we can't evaluate Peters as a head coach after that many games, then I don't see how another season's worth is going to make a difference. Were the Carolina Hurricanes rosters he coached flawed? Yup. Are the Calgary Flames any different? Nope.

Peters might pull a rabbit out of his ass, let's wait and see....

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Bill Peters has been a head coach for 328 NHL games. If we can't evaluate Peters as a head coach after that many games, then I don't see how another season's worth is going to make a difference. Were the Carolina Hurricanes rosters he coached flawed? Yup. Are the Calgary Flames any different? Nope.

Peters might pull a rabbit out of his ass, let's wait and see....

How many of those 328 games did you watch? Beyond win/loss what else are you doing to make the evaluation?

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

As others have said if all we are going to look at is records then they should have just hired the available coach with the highest career winning percent.

None of us understand the coach enough to make a judgement either way.

I don't see what's wrong with admitting that.

Ha - that’s just not true. There is a ton of information out there on all of the potential coaching hires. They’ve all - you know - coached before. Not a good sign that the new hire requires “no judging!” to give us some optimism.