I think on the PP he moves the shooters to their off-side, so we would see Johnny on the right, Gio and Dougie switch sides, etc. So there's that at least. None of that strong side, off the boards shot we endured under Cameron.
__________________
Until the Flames make the Western Finals again, this signature shall remain frozen.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Gaskal For This Useful Post:
Jon Cooper before he coached the Tampa Bay Lightning: 0 NHL games coached
Bruce Cassidy before the Bruins: never made it out of the first round in washington and was fired a quarter of the way into his second season with a .340 win% that season
I think we’re all familiar with Paul Maurice’s record in Winnipeg before this season. He’s only made the playoffs twice since 2002.
Gerard Gallant as a head coach has made it to the playoffs one time before this season.
Mike Babcock coached the Leafs to dead last just two seasons ago.
Joel Quenneville (who everyone here wanted so badly) coached a team to a WORSE record than GG.
It’s not fair to judge Peters based on his past record. Good teams make good coaches, not the other way around. I’m not suggesting coaching doesn’t matter, but what I am suggesting is the idea that because Peters hasn’t had success in the NHL yet means he can’t have success in the future with a new team is garbage.
You could make the same argument to let GG coach out his contract instead of firing him.
Hey, I was just correcting this guy about the notion of hate, which sounds emotional, vs something where people have opinions which are logical and quite reasonable. Trying to help him understand the accuracy of the words he was using.
I’m losing no sleep on any of this.
There also isn't a single post in this thread from a Peters detractor that uses the word "hate" or anything close. This is just an attempt by some posters here to paint other posters' views in the most extreme way possible in order to silence them. It's a real shame, because I think there's valid points to be made on both sides.
There also isn't a single post in this thread from a Peters detractor that uses the word "hate" or anything close. This is just an attempt by some posters here to paint other posters' views in the most extreme way possible in order to silence them. It's a real shame, because I think there's valid points to be made on both sides.
Thanks for posting this. I started to go back through last few pages to find these hateful posts that have so many up in arms and couldn't find them.
A lot of people here don't like the hire. That's a fact that shouldn't get people upset, even if you are most pro-Flames cheerleader in the world.
I'm looking forward to seeing things shake out on the ice. Which considering we are still in the first round of the playoffs seems an eternity away for the Flames.
Jon Cooper before he coached the Tampa Bay Lightning: 0 NHL games coached
Bruce Cassidy before the Bruins: never made it out of the first round in washington and was fired a quarter of the way into his second season with a .340 win% that season
I think we’re all familiar with Paul Maurice’s record in Winnipeg before this season. He’s only made the playoffs twice since 2002.
Gerard Gallant as a head coach has made it to the playoffs one time before this season.
Mike Babcock coached the Leafs to dead last just two seasons ago.
Joel Quenneville (who everyone here wanted so badly) coached a team to a WORSE record than GG.
It’s not fair to judge Peters based on his past record. Good teams make good coaches, not the other way around. I’m not suggesting coaching doesn’t matter, but what I am suggesting is the idea that because Peters hasn’t had success in the NHL yet means he can’t have success in the future with a new team is garbage.
Something like this has been posted several times in this discussion like it's some sort of revelation.
Literally everyone knows that there are some coaches that were bad before they were good. Everyone.
The point is why would you, after two poor years, considering the core moving through it's prime years and the fact that you need to nail this coaching hire or you're gone, not hire someone you know can have success. Not someone who might be able to have success, but has never shown it at the level that matters.
It's an unnecessary risk, and it shows a dangerous insistence on a style of play which this team hasn't had any success with.
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
There is no chicken and egg argument here, Treliving basically fired Hartley and brought in his coaching staff which was a crescendo crash.
In the dejected fated presser, he came out and said Gulutzan was a good coach. That they would take their time to get someone with proven experience. One would assume that meant playoff and deep playoff coaching experience.
Peters does not fit the description of what he described. I'm really confused.
You mean does not fit the description of what you assumed he meant.
He said NHL experience was critical. And yes Peters has 7 years of NHL coaching experience.
Was just listening to a bit of Kerr's show from yesterday, and it sounds like the Rangers are looking at a couple of coaches from the NCAA that they're currently high on. So I guess we're not the only team looking to roll the dice on an unproven coach.
I think it’s also important to remember that Treliving has had time to have conversations with guys like Sutter and AV, even before he fired Gulutzan, to see what kind of interest they had. And being that he’s known to turn over every stone and be constantly on the phone with guys, I don’t find it ridiculous to believe he might have talked to both those guys and didn’t receive any interest on Calgary, should that position open up.
Do I think they got official interviews? Probably not. But do I think that Treliving has some sense of their interest in coming here? Absolutely.
I just don’t know that Calgary is that desirable of a market to everyone.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I think it’s also important to remember that Treliving has had time to have conversations with guys like Sutter and AV, even before he fired Gulutzan, to see what kind of interest they had. And being that he’s known to turn over every stone and be constantly on the phone with guys, I don’t find it ridiculous to believe he might have talked to both those guys and didn’t receive any interest on Calgary, should that position open up.
Do I think they got official interviews? Probably not. But do I think that Treliving has some sense of their interest in coming here? Absolutely.
I just don’t know that Calgary is that desirable of a market to everyone.
You listen to duhacheck, Francis, kerr and Steinberg on this issue and they will tell you your assumption is incorrect.
The feeling out there is that Tre hasnt done any type of legit deep dive on possible candidates because Peters is his guy. And he's comfortable working with Peters and he's gonna go with who he has comfort with.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
The fact Gullfoss is not banned for life on here is such an embarrassment. Just a joke.
Has anyone looked at the Hurricanes roster? Its actually not bad...its a team that could have been competitive this year, and its probably a team that could have made the playoffs. Arguably Peters underachieved with the roster.
Also, listening to Commodore's interview on the Fan960...you don't have to even read between the lines to hear Commodore's views that Peters is not a good coach
I have looked at the Hurricanes roster and it is that bad. They have some good young forwards but no D and terrible goaltending.
And we are using Mike Commodore as a serious judge of a coach's ability?
If anyone wants to look on YouTube they have a lot of condensed 2017-2018 hurricanes games on there. I'm very disappointed in this hire and failing to see any benefit over the more qualified coaches, however from watching more than a few games I can see a few positives.
Peters doesn't do the D to D or forward drop pass as much as GG. He also had utilized Teravainen for one timers which is something I wanted to see more of from the flames.
- D are very active in the offensive zone
- D backs off the rush and collapses to the net
- D focuses on puck and puck carrier and leaves opposing players untouched around the net
- PP looks very similar to what we had. Perimeter shots, one D man at point
- Replace Teravainen's sniper goals with a Flames player shooting it wide
The Following User Says Thank You to topfiverecords For This Useful Post:
You listen to duhacheck, Francis, kerr and Steinberg on this issue and they will tell you your assumption is incorrect.
The feeling out there is that Tre hasnt done any type of legit deep dive on possible candidates because Peters is his guy. And he's comfortable working with Peters and he's gonna go with who he has comfort with.
I never said deep dive. I said it’s entirely possible he’s called Sutter or AV to see what kind of situation he’s looking for, and it wasn’t this.
We don’t hear about every call between GMs, and I’m sure we don’t hear about every call between GMs and coaches.
