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

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ I understand how you interpret it Jiri. I considered it that he has less freedom, he has likely spent his last coach bullet, made his bed and has to lie in it, and I suspect would naturally be under scrutiny. Probably you are right, I doubt they are breathing down his neck.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

As soon as they feel like they need to be more involved is the day they should just fire him
So no I don’t agree.
Again the statement was he’s on a shorter leash meaning those above him are taking more control. I don’t see any evidence of that

You never answered the question. Do you not think that management would become far more active if Treliving's second coaching hire also struggles?

The question was about what you think they would do, not what you think they *should* do.

And, FWIW, I would include a potential replacement of the GM as being part of a shorter leash, and I think that is how DeluxeMoustache meant it (in his second post, at least). Basically: it strikes me as being unlikely Burke and above will tolerate too many more major gaffes.

For all of our sakes, but most especially Treliving's, this had better work.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You never answered the question. Do you not think that management would become far more active if Treliving's second coaching hire also struggles?

The question was about what you think they would do, not what you think they *should* do.

And, FWIW, I would include a potential replacement of the GM as being part of a shorter leash, and I think that is how DeluxeMoustache meant it (in his second post, at least). Basically: it strikes me as being unlikely Burke and above will tolerate too many more major gaffes.

For all of our sakes, but most especially Treliving's, this had better work.

I said already I don’t agree
They either have confidence in him or they don’t
I don’t see a scenario where they take more control from him or becoming more active or him tolerating that

[Itse]

Btw, I think it's possible Treliving gets the boot before Peters.

I mean, next season will be Trelivings fifth season here already, and he has yet to bring home a single playoff game win. If we don't win a round next season he probably needs to do that in his sixth year. If we don't make the playoffs next season Treliving could very well be gone.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Itse

Btw, I think it's possible Treliving gets the boot before Peters.

I mean, next season will be Trelivings fifth season here already, and he has yet to bring home a single playoff game win. If we don't win a round next season he probably needs to do that in his sixth year. If we don't make the playoffs I think he's gone.

If we do nothing in the next two years, you're at the point of blowing it up entirely, because we'll be down to two years of Gaudreau left and nothing to show for it. And that's when you will have to start making the serious decision about trading him.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If we do nothing in the next two years, you're at the point of blowing it up entirely, because we'll be down to two years of Gaudreau left and nothing to show for it. And that's when you will have to start making the serious decision about trading him.

Gaudreau would be 26, Monahan 25, Tkachuk 22, Hamilton 26. Very premature to give up on that core, and in two years we'll see what we have in our young goalie prospects.

Besides, superstars rarely change teams these days, and in any case that's just very premature speculation, as so much could happen before that.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by Itse

Btw, I think it's possible Treliving gets the boot before Peters.

I mean, next season will be Trelivings fifth season here already, and he has yet to bring home a single playoff game win. If we don't win a round next season he probably needs to do that in his sixth year. If we don't make the playoffs next season Treliving could very well be gone.

I get your point. But treliving was gm when we beat Vancouver in round one.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by edn88

Darren Haynes from Flames from 80 Feet looks at Peters with some rational, reasoned thought (something that a portion of our audience cannot appreciate) - http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2018/...l-mistake.html

Pretty good article thanks for posting it.

Lot's to take in there.

I like his look at possession numbers and shots allowed, that's definitely reason to be optimistic.

I didn't totally understand what he was trying to justify in his section regarding "The Curious Concept of The Proven Coach".

I think it's pretty obvious that winning a Stanley Cup in the NHL is not easy and will go a long way on an NHL Head Coaches resume. So to mention Hitchcock was puzzling, who has taken teams to the NHL playoff 14 times, won a Stanley Cup and then to say he did very little with St Louis after taking them to the Conference Finals? Seems like a pretty proven track record of success at the NHL level no? Then to mention earlier on in the article the benefit of working under Babcock's tutelage but then to say

"In the last five seasons, he has not made it to the second round. Did he win Olympic gold with Canada? You bet, but he had a pretty good team also."

So Babock isn't as good as we think he is because none of his teams haven't won a playoff round, but the Olympic Gold is a product of the team and less of him? Ask Mark Crawford how easy it is to win an Olympic Gold Medal. Again just an extremely puzzling section there.

[EldrickOnIce]

Not puzzling at all, in context.
Haynes he doesn't know if great coaches make great teams, or vice versa. So because the great Babcock has either missed playoffs or not madr it out of first round in 5 years, does that mean he's not a great coach? Or is he a great coach who lately hasn't had great teams? Was the gold a product of a great team or great coaching, or both?
This is how I read it anyway, and I agree.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Not puzzling at all, in context.
Haynes he doesn't know if great coaches make great teams, or vice versa. So because the great Babcock has either missed playoffs or not madr it out of first round in 5 years, does that mean he's not a great coach? Or is he a great coach who lately hasn't had great teams? Was the gold a product of a great team or great coaching, or both?
This is how I read it anyway, and I agree.

Yet he somehow can comfortably decouple goaltending from the team.

Not disputing Darling last year but the other three, I dunno.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

Meh, nothing there that hasn't already been discussed in this thread.

I dunno I think we haven't talked enough about how Peters trusted and gave ice time to some youngsters and therefore put them in positions to succeed vs Gulutzan. Gulutzan didn't start Jankowski on the big club and then gave him 3rd line ice time. Bennett? 3rd line ice time. That's not the way to develop those guys into confident scorers IMO. You want them to score and evolve into top two line players? Play them with some established top two line players. Mangiapane scores a crap ton in the AHL? Let's play him on the 4th line so he'll never have any offensive confidence at the NHL level.

I think Haynes perfectly illustrated just how different Peters approach to young skilled players was vs GG's. And on a club coming out of a rebuild we need a coach who is willing to trust young skilled players and put them in situations to succeed. Won't surprise me one bit to see Bennett explode under Peters. More likely guys like Foo and Mangiapane get roles on the top few lines if called up or if they make the team as well.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A shorter leash implies those above him are keeping him under closer control than before. That’s different from saying he likely needs to get this hire right
Do we have any indication that Burke or others are keeping him under closer control?

That's not what I infer when someone says "shorter leash". I infer that there is less patience for that person, and they are more likely to be let-go if things don't work out. I supposed one could argue that the person on a shorter leash would more likely than not be micromanaged and second-guessed, but I always assume it is the likelihood of getting fired if things don't go well.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Ok that’s not what it actually means though

keep (someone) on a short leash. To maintain strict or tight control over someone; to not allow someone very much independence or autonomy

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yet he somehow can comfortably decouple goaltending from the team.

Not disputing Darling last year but the other three, I dunno.

Not following you.
You can't win with league worst goaltending. I didn't think he tried to say anything other than that. I don't think trying to tie that to coaching or decoupling it from coaching is easy, or possible.

I'll guess I'll simply hope that league worst goaltending was because of poor years, or lack of talent at the position, or something other than relating to a style of coaching.
If you have the least penalized team in the league, giving up the least shots per game (some correlation there I expect) that should bode well for goaltending. It certainly didn't in Carolina under Peters, coincidence or not.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by edn88

Darren Haynes from Flames from 80 Feet looks at Peters with some rational, reasoned thought (something that a portion of our audience cannot appreciate) - http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2018/...l-mistake.html

Nothing I read in there that I find very convincing. The one part that stands out as a big positive would be the reduction in penalties taken, but the other points don't say much. The first stat he lists in support of Peters shows Carolina leading the league and the Flames at 4th. So is moving up three places going to be the difference maker or does the fact that both teams were way up there while missing the playoffs suggest it's not all that critical an item to care about?

Also, stating that the Flames under GG play a style more conducive to sustainable winning does not match the reality of their record. They last made the playoffs on the back of one huge win streak, which was then not sustained in the last few games or into the playoffs, and this season they got into a playoff position on the back of another long streak which again could not be sustained. They have mostly sustained losing hockey with seasonal bursts of winning under GG. Go ask the snake if it looks like a style conducive to sustained winning.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A shorter leash implies those above him are keeping him under closer control than before. That’s different from saying he likely needs to get this hire right
Do we have any indication that Burke or others are keeping him under closer control?

When he was hired, Treliving clearly had a number of years to implement his vision. That time frame is shorter now. That was my point so maybe we interpret that saying differently.

As Haynes put it, he has one bullet left.

The runway is shorter. The clock is ticking.

I would nitpick your statement that he "likely" needs to get this hire right to survive. There is no likely about it.

As to whether Burke and ownership will have more involvement in his decisions, it's hard to say since we don't know how that works today. But just like an underperforming business, the BOD start to get more involved in big CEO decisions. I'd be surprised if Treliving doesn't have to explain himself a little more going forward.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Ok that’s not what it actually means though

keep (someone) on a short leash. To maintain strict or tight control over someone; to not allow someone very much independence or autonomy

Yeah, the "less patience" meaning floating around to me is more "shorter runway", i.e. less time to work with.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I dunno I think we haven't talked enough about how Peters trusted and gave ice time to some youngsters and therefore put them in positions to succeed vs Gulutzan. Gulutzan didn't start Jankowski on the big club and then gave him 3rd line ice time. Bennett? 3rd line ice time. That's not the way to develop those guys into confident scorers IMO. You want them to score and evolve into top two line players? Play them with some established top two line players. Mangiapane scores a crap ton in the AHL? Let's play him on the 4th line so he'll never have any offensive confidence at the NHL level.

I think Haynes perfectly illustrated just how different Peters approach to young skilled players was vs GG's. And on a club coming out of a rebuild we need a coach who is willing to trust young skilled players and put them in situations to succeed. Won't surprise me one bit to see Bennett explode under Peters. More likely guys like Foo and Mangiapane get roles on the top few lines if called up or if they make the team as well.

GG started Jankowski as soon as Treliving called him up. And what line did you propose starting a rookie centre on? Who did you want to bump down - Monahan or Backlund? Or did you want him on the wing instead of Gaudreau, Frolik (who is attached to Backlund's hip), Ferland, who was scoring like crazy or Tkachuk?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Ok that’s not what it actually means though

keep (someone) on a short leash. To maintain strict or tight control over someone; to not allow someone very much independence or autonomy

If you agree with Haynes that he has one bullet left (maybe you don't) then by definition he is losing the ability to make certain decisions on his own isn't he? At a minimum as it relates to coaching.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Not following you.
You can't win with league worst goaltending. I didn't think he tried to say anything other than that. I don't think trying to tie that to coaching or decoupling it from coaching is easy, or possible.

I'll guess I'll simply hope that league worst goaltending was because of poor years, or lack of talent at the position, or something other than relating to a style of coaching.
If you have the least penalized team in the league, giving up the least shots per game (some correlation there I expect) that should bode well for goaltending. It certainly didn't in Carolina under Peters, coincidence or not.

My point was that I view save percentage as largely a team stat. I made a thread on that. Based on the types of shots they allow, different teams have different expected Sv%. That sets the bar for performance of individual goalies

I don’t think Cam Ward is a bad goalie. Haynes infers bad goaltending as a root cause of the team’s struggles. I am concerned that there may be more to it.

I don’t know for certain but think it merits a deeper look.