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

[Matt Reeeeead]

The canes have had basically the leagues worst goaltending the last few years, and no franchise forwards since Staal.

The last two years the canes peters had the canes playing playoff hockey with good motivation and discipline despite these points.

This is a coveted coach that has had great people to learn from in his career.

It's a good hire, and most here need to look beyond the won loss record of a team with clear talent deficiencies to make a fair take on this one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Yamer]

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....

More veteran players, stable goaltending, spending to the cap, arguably more skill. And it isn't the ownership/management circus that Carolina has been.

[Yamer]

And this might not be a popular opinion, but I think coaching a team to a Memorial Cup Championship is more difficult than the Stanley Cup.

Let's not pretend that Peters has absolutely no pedigree at all.

[oldschoolcalgary]

the thing is, the people who are saying "Give it some time" or "Don't rush to judgement" or similar statements are NOT shilling for the organization.

not one bit.

I didn't like the GG hire and took a "Wait and see attitude". With Peters, I'll do exactly the same thing, for one simple reason:

You have no say in that decision process...

Now, undoubtedly, some posters will continue to shout from the mountain tops about what a crappy hire this was... and for all their wailing and teeth gnashing, it does exactly nothing.

This is an anonymous message board...if people are really that angry, don't renew you season's tickets. Stop going to games. Stop watching games. Because the Flames, like any other business, won't change their philosophy if they feel that their cash flow isn't being damaged.

We get it. There are some people that HATE Peters, even though he hasn't coached a game or even has been named coach... The bigger question is whether any of those posters will actually do something other than angrily post and argue with people that disagree with them and will continue to post simply to have an outlet where they can vent their frustrations

[Jaydee]

Originally Posted by Yamer

More veteran players, stable goaltending, spending to the cap, arguably more skill. And it isn't the ownership/management circus that Carolina has been.

We have better forwards than them too...

Johnny >> Aho
Monahan >> Lindholm since the moment they both drafted

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

The canes have had basically the leagues worst goaltending the last few years, and no franchise forwards since Staal.

The last two years the canes peters had the canes playing playoff hockey with good motivation and discipline despite these points.

This is a coveted coach that has had great people to learn from in his career.

It's a good hire, and most here need to look beyond the won loss record of a team with clear talent deficiencies to make a fair take on this one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Since you brought up Staal...

I tried pointing out that the guy only got 50 ish points out of Eric Staal, franchise player.
Canes fans complained about Peters turning Staal in to a middling winger. Obviously Staal is capable of 40 goals and over 70 points under Boudreau.

That somehow met a lot of resistance and dismissal here though.

One guy even suggested there were several players with career years under Peters. Even though Staal was his top scorer those first two years with 50 ish points and nobody has touched 70 points during his tenure.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Yamer

And this might not be a popular opinion, but I think coaching a team to a Memorial Cup Championship is more difficult than the Stanley Cup.

Let's not pretend that Peters has absolutely no pedigree at all.

I think it isn’t. So there you go.

One thing you don’t deal with as a junior coach in the same way is salaries and egos, and commanding respect.

[djsFlames]

I will say the Flames are a better constructed team top to bottom than the Canes and BP will have more to work with in goal and in top end skill. A big thing will be if he can help us shore up the defense so that we're not leaving Smith out to dry and needing him to play the hero. Also eliminating that unraveling in games that came after bad goals. After the hiring, it's up to Treliving to address the issue of scoring depth. Without helping that situation we can't really expect too much regardless of who's coaching. We figured out in the last couple months that the vast majority of our scoring ability relies on three players.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Since you brought up Staal...

I tried pointing out that the guy only got 50 ish points out of Eric Staal, franchise player.
Canes fans complained about Peters turning Staal in to a middling winger. Obviously Staal is capable of 40 goals and over 70 points under Boudreau.

That somehow met a lot of resistance and dismissal here though.

One guy even suggested there were several players with career years under Peters. Even though Staal was his top scorer those first two years with 50 ish points and nobody has touched 70 points during his tenure.

Is that a measure of the coach, or the players? It's probably both.

So if you can't discount Staal's struggles, you also can't discount other players' ability to excel. It's a zero sum argument.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Is that a measure of the coach, or the players? It's probably both.

So if you can't discount Staal's struggles, you also can't discount other players' ability to excel. It's a zero sum argument.

See, this is what I’m talking about.

Dismissal of facts with excuses. It’s not that complicated.

Before Peters, elite. With Peters, mediocre. After Peters, elite.

Ok. Make an excuse and say nobody knows.
It could be really complicated, or it could be pretty damn simple.

A 70 point guy was available, and he got 50 of those points out of him

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Is that a measure of the coach, or the players? It's probably both.

So if you can't discount Staal's struggles, you also can't discount other players' ability to excel. It's a zero sum argument.

Every coach probably has a player that does poorly under them and well elsewhere. And vice versa. And even with those examples there are multiple reasons. Look at Carter in Columbus. Look at every ex-Oiler.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I think it isn’t. So there you go.

One thing you don’t deal with as a junior coach in the same way is salaries and egos, and commanding respect.

You deal with a high turnover, young men yet to mature (most of which are balancing education with playing), and having to win 2 championship tournaments. The latter of which is made from 3 other teams you have never played before.

And they absolutely deal with egos and demanding respect. Who is more likely to disrespect you: a 17 year old kid that's constantly been told he's the next big thing, or a 34 year old veteran humbled by years of training and the rigors of professionalism?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Since you brought up Staal...

I tried pointing out that the guy only got 50 ish points out of Eric Staal, franchise player.
Canes fans complained about Peters turning Staal in to a middling winger. Obviously Staal is capable of 40 goals and over 70 points under Boudreau.

That somehow met a lot of resistance and dismissal here though.

One guy even suggested there were several players with career years under Peters. Even though Staal was his top scorer those first two years with 50 ish points and nobody has touched 70 points during his tenure.

The two years before Carolina hired Peters, Staal scored 53 and 61 points. Peters did not magically cause a 70-point player to drop off the face of the earth. The drop-off was already happening.

Incidentally, if Peters is a bad coach because he only got 0.62 PPG out of Staal (87 points in 140 games), what does it say about Vigneault that he only got 0.3 PPG from the same player?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Corral

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'.

So to clarify, your rationale for why the Flames went from 10th in goals (2015-16) to 28th (2017-18) is because the team had less skill and desire... even though we added Tkachuk, Hamonic, Jankowski, Stone, Kulak. Coaching had no impact on the offensive decline of the team as a whole in a league where goalie equipment changes resulted in increased, not decreased, offense. This all happened because the team suddenly started not caring about scoring goals that might help them win games. The players just don't care, even though every person around them - including the fired coach - has nothing but praise for their compete and character.

Sorry but the coach has to take the blame for the two years of underperformance. The 2015-16 Flames had their own unique issues - penalty killing and goaltending, but they were a team that was on the cusp of being a powerhouse with how they played. They needed tweaks absolutely but by your logic the shift from Hartley to Gully was insignificant. A team that is notably more talented and skilled than that while retaining the entire core suddenly stopped being able to score because they now simply lack the desire. Is that maybe because Joe Colborne was the heart and soul of that team and brought the desire to thr table?

You don't think there is the slightest possibility that NHL level coaching (which is far more involved than even Major Junior, which is far more involved than lower levels) affects the way NHL caliber approach every puck battle, every pinch, every moment with the puck, the ability to generate rushes?

I agree with you that hockey is a simple read and react sport and players shouldn't need a coach to draw up a perfect system. But when the system is what the team is built around then you have a problem of a system restricting reading and reacting and playing instinctually. That happened under Gulutzan and the possibility is strong based on Peters' track record that this trend continues - systems being emphasized over individual's skills and creativity.

It is not unique to Gully and Peters. L.A. had similar issues with scoring under Darryl Sutter. The system helped win them two cups but the price to pay was barely squeezing into the playoffs. Kopitar last year had 52 points. Kopitar this year had 92. Did he judt desire it more or was a system implemented that was less restrictive than Sutters' system?

Systems are a fine line. You need them but you can't build around them. You build around players. We are inherently built around three defensemen who are very good at the unique thing they can do. Treliving however seems to be infatuated with systems that do not seem to mesh with said players.

So again, if the team is weak next year playing the system they played this year, that does not automatically mean the team should have been weak next year. The team is built unconventionally around Dmen who can playmake and the onus is absolutely on Peters/whomever to harness that. Changing coaches is only going to be effective if the coach does things sufficiently differently from the previous coach. Otherwise it is a cosmetic change designed not to change results but to mislead the general public and boost ticket sales. This is a legitimate concern about the hiring decision.

And yes coaches do impact results and quality of play depending on the philosophies they implement. Even a player like Sidney Crosby has looked disengaged, unproductive, and frustrated in systems which don't maximize his skills.

Good coaches can be terrible fits if the players around whom a team is built are not catered to.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

See, this is what I’m talking about.

Dismissal of facts with excuses. It’s not that complicated.

Before Peters, elite. With Peters, mediocre. After Peters, elite.

Ok. Make an excuse and say nobody knows.
It could be really complicated, or it could be pretty damn simple.

A 70 point guy was available, and he got 50 of those points out of him

Where did I dismiss any facts, or even manufacture an excuse anywhere in that post?

[EVERLAST]

While my optimism is low I'm going to give Peters a chance and watch and see how fast the players tune him out.

If the players decide to tune him out then it's fully on them .

Seriously if they can't try and out forth the effort to win no matter what system is implemented then we need new players that want to win and put in the effort.

I'm so tired of hearing how it's always the GD coach. Lets do this guys.
All the talk talk talk and none of the walk.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The two years before Carolina hired Peters, Staal scored 53 and 61 points. Peters did not magically cause a 70-point player to drop off the face of the earth. The drop-off was already happening.

Incidentally, if Peters is a bad coach because he only got 0.62 PPG out of Staal (87 points in 140 games), what does it say about Vigneault that he only got 0.3 PPG from the same player?

You know he scored those 53 points in 48 games right?

Vigneault wasn’t using him as a core piece, he was a post deadline acquisition. Insignificant sample size

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

You know he scored those 53 points in 48 games right?

My bad; misread the table.

Vigneault wasn’t using him as a core piece, he was a post deadline acquisition. Insignificant sample size

If he's such a good player, and they gave up assets to acquire him at the deadline (the most expensive time of year to acquire players), why was he being used so little? Isn't that on Vigneault?

[Fischy13]

I can confirm that Pat Steinbergs tweet, is accurate. Not 100% it’s announced Monday but with Peters going to Denmark Wednesday, Monday is most likely.

I’d like to chime in on a few things from these threads.

First, Peter’s essentially put up the same winning percentage in Carolina as GG did in Calgary. IMO, Calgary has a far superior team. On top of that, I also believe that Carolina is in a tougher division as well. With Washington, Pitts, Columbus... being 10-15 million in payroll behind those teams.. I don’t see how he doesn’t improve the Flames. To add to that, bringing in a coach with similar fundamentals, is a change but with familiarity. I’d expect that weighed heavily on the decision. I don’t think the Flames can waste 1/4 of the season figuring it out. This brings in a new and more authoritative voice which is what the team needs.

Secondly, I can only assume that my source will be joining up on a site like this. I’ve seriously contemplated not pointing them to it. To be quite honest, I get the disappointment and by no means am I one with a millenial attitude, but I’m embarrassed for my source to come in and read some of these posts. BP is hung before he’s even been officially hired.

My source has already advised that we (my office staff) can’t be hard on BP and complain. I’d hate to be in their shoes and listen to this. It’s one thing for athletes and coaches to deal with the criticism, they get compensated for it. Family and relatives don’t.

Anyways, I’m working them now to find out the assistants. I’ve put in our request for a top end PP assistant. Still working to get BP’s cell #, but don’t hold your breath. Lol

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Every coach probably has a player that does poorly under them and well elsewhere. And vice versa. And even with those examples there are multiple reasons. Look at Carter in Columbus. Look at every ex-Oiler.

It's an odd argument to make because in almost all cases it balances out.

Brodie and Bennett struggled under GG. Monahan and Hamilton recorded career years. Which indicates the quality of GG?