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

[djsFlames]

The power play still needs a huge boost in the arm. I hope this is more evident to Treliving than ever. Maybe you didn't get a coach with the big, sexy resume (although with good attributes and plenty of potential), just don't stinge out on the special teams guy when it comes to the previous body of work. Whatever the polar opposite of DC is, go with that.

[drewtastic]

[St. Pats]

Mr. Process just hires the guy he sorta knows. Yep being a Flames fan is always fun!

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by mikeecho

I don't think he was just throwing out talking points from a list, but he spent all day yesterday and the early part of this morning with Treliving and the team reviewing things. The fact he talks about these things suggests that they have all been talking about these things for the past 2 days and are likely top of mind for Treliving.

I had a hunch that the players were supportive of this move to a new coach and that played a factor in BT's decision to go with Peters. GG did some good things last season, but I am pretty sure the "round hole square peg" on so many levels affected the players as much as the fans. Now we see Peters confirming that players need to play where they are comfortable, "Bennett", Brodie would be 2 examples, and if he had discussions with the players I am sure some of these issues came to the forefront. Excellent of BT to include the players in this introduction to the coach so that that there is some open and valuable communication. As well it provides an excellent opportunity to see what kind of intensity Peters plans to bring. There is reason the team went flat and lacked emotion, they probably collectively did not want to endue more of the same issues under GG and his assistants especially if it did not utilize the players strengths.

[dammage79]

At the end of this day. All I can say is I feel really confident we won't hear "we just weren't ready" nearly half as much as we did last season. does that mean more wins than losses? Who knows. But I do know I can accept a loss if they leave it all on the ice every night. Not whimpering out of the rink like they did many nights this past season.

[dammage79]

Also, I'd be keen to get Steegers take as he has played for Peters.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Hockey is a passionate game. Part of the coach's job is to be a leader, define the personality of the team, show the players he has their back. And lead them.

I never felt that Gulutzan had the demeanor to be an NHL coach. Very happy to hear that Peters is scoring much higher in that regard.

Really agree. I was thinking about a word you used here, “passion”. GG didn’t demonstrate that much that I ever saw. Now that can be a good thing, you want emotional stability. He is not erratic and unpredictable, positive traits. But he didn’t exude passion.

Think about leaders that make you want to follow....rarely do we want to follow someone who doesn’t exude passion for whatever the topic is. And you can be emotional stable, like GG, but still have outward passion. They aren’t mutually exclusive, and it was en element that has been missing.

It appears that Peters has that, and hopefully it is one of the missing ingredients for this team.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I tend to think a record subject to a sizeable number of mitigating factors that need to be taken into careful consideration.

I'm an amazing NHL coach apart from a number of mitigating factors that may have influenced my prior actual results too.

For all the time you try to push people to specify their reasons or suggest that they haven't specified reasons clearly enough with supporting data, I don't read a lot of convincing data to back up your point of view either.

[Ryan Coke]

My thoughts;
-I am confident he is an upgrade on GG. Though I am disappointed that we went for potential over results (hoping Bill Peters can get an NHL record like Sutter or AV have), I have no reservations with expecting a substantial improvement over GG.

-Treliving made a comment specifically referring to Peters as the leader of the team...there have been discussions on here on whether that is the coaches job.

-Peters talking about talking to guys on the PP about where they like to set up, what kinds of plays they like to make, and putting them in positions to succeed. Sounded like talking to Gaudreau about which half wall he likes to work off of.

-Peters making a comment about talking to the team after a game, in direct opposition to GG’s stated beleif to not address the team after a game.

At the end of the day, talk is cheap, results are what matter. I like many of the things he says, hopefully the play of the team reflects what he says.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dash_pinched

If he turns out to be clutch, I will refer to him as the old Billy Baroo

[stang]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Everyone’s most major misgivings about Peters is his lack of NHL success. I thought I’d just go over some of the highly touted current NHL coaches who also did not have early career success.

Peter Laviolette: either missed the playoffs or was out in the first round 6/7 seasons. Mind you the one season he made it passed the first round it was a Cup win.

Barry Trotz: no playoffs his first 5 years (expansion team). Either missed playoffs or out in the first round 5 out of the next 6 seasons.

Alain Vigneault: qualified for playoffs once in his first 4 years as a head coach.

John Tortorella: exact same as Vigneault, 1/4.

Gerard Gallant: no playoffs in 5 of his first 6 seasons.

Claude Julien: one playoff season his first 4 years.

Pete DeBoer: one playoff season in his first 6 years.

Paul Maurice: out of playoffs or lost in first round his first 6 years as a HC (0 playoffs for first 3 years).

Lack of early career success ≠ future failure.

I don’t mind Peters as a coach and think he’ll do ok for you guys, HOWEVER this argument can be used as a reason to not fire Gulutzan.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by stang

I don’t mind Peters as a coach and think he’ll do ok for you guys, HOWEVER this argument can be used as a reason to not fire Gulutzan.

Sure. But Gulutzan proved he wasn't a leader of men, couldn't get his team ready to start games, couldn't motivate players and failed to make adjustments when his lines and PP structures weren't working. Gulutzan wasn't the answer, it became very, very obvious. From what Peters says it seems like he should be an upgrade on Gulutzan in several areas. He already has a presence that Gulutzan completely lacked.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Sure. But Gulutzan proved he wasn't a leader of men, couldn't get his team ready to start games, couldn't motivate players and failed to make adjustments when his lines and PP structures weren't working. Gulutzan wasn't the answer, it became very, very obvious. From what Peters says it seems like he should be an upgrade on Gulutzan in several areas. He already has a presence that Gulutzan completely lacked.

To be fair Peters has never proven that either. But yes I think he’ll be better then the previous.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by dammage79

At the end of this day. All I can say is I feel really confident we won't hear "we just weren't ready" nearly half as much as we did last season. does that mean more wins than losses? Who knows. But I do know I can accept a loss if they leave it all on the ice every night. Not whimpering out of the rink like they did many nights this past season.

I agree with you here, but the coach is only a partial ingredient of leaving it all on the ice every night.

The Hurricanes record notwithstanding, were people saying that about them last 4 years? Any more than the Flames? I felt the effort was there last season.

[calgarywinning]

Not an original fan of this move, but like many my pendulum has moved to let's wait and see. Really liked his interview except for the person who posted the eerily and similar hiring interview from the Hurricanes.

I think Darren Haynes article is very well done.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Not really - And there's no need to personally attack me rather than the content of the post, which is exactly what you've done.

No. You have not been "personally attacked."

A couple points to consider

1) I explicitly brought up the fact that one of Gully's shortcomings holding the team back was his lack of aura (way back in December and even earlier). A number of posters thought the observation lacked merit then, but now they're jumping on Peters' aura now.

So some posters have gone from "aura is irrelevant" to "OMG PETERS'S AURA IS A HUGE POSITIVE," and yet somehow you're calling me out for having tinted glasses?

I am one of those posters. Back in December I was really sceptical about how high an impact a coach's demeanour could have behind the bench, but as the season wore on—as things continuously failed to add up between various aspects of how the team was playing and their results; as we saw more and more an apparently fragile group of players that struggles on home ice—I gradually began to change my mind.

I try not to become so blinded by my own opinion that I can see where it is probably wrong. It sure doesn't work every time, but I think in this instance I have learned something personally about the value of a strong personality in a coach—at least for certain groups of professional athletes.

2) My position is that Aura is important is actually unchanged. I just don't think Peters' has it - is that a fair position? I think so.

His "aura" doesn't pass my eye test and I think its phony.

What specifically about Peters persona strikes you as "phoney"? I must confess that I don't see it.

He has a history of being condescending and demeaning to his players.

"A history"? I recall this happening once with Eddie Lack. Are there other instances in which Peters' has been similarly condescending to his players?

He doesn't have a history of NHL success. So its a guy who hasn't really earned his stripes as a successful NHL coach that is acting like he has.

See, this is where you lose me: A person is either confident, gregarious, and magnanimous, or he is not. I don't believe it is possible to just turn these qualities on and off, nor do I think they should be.

Call me crazy, but I don't think millionaire players with big egos are going to put up with his "confident" demeanour for very long, especially if they don't have success right out of the gate.

Well, I think players at any level would prefer their coach to exude an air of confidence than not. I think it is crazy to believe that a player would rather their coach demur until he has achieved some ambivalent level of "success."

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I'm an amazing NHL coach apart from a number of mitigating factors that may have influenced my prior actual results too.

I don't believe you.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by stang

I don’t mind Peters as a coach and think he’ll do ok for you guys, HOWEVER this argument can be used as a reason to not fire Gulutzan.

#Chiarelliforever

[stang]

Originally Posted by Beninho

#Chiarelliforever

He’s our GM...

Did you mean #Toddforever? Good one either way.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Literally your last post:



Treat people like you want to be treated, or quiet down about it.

I can’t imagine what you think calling someone a d#######g is if you think someone calling you “angry” is a personal attack. Yikes.

You literally misunderstood my post.

I wasnt suggesting the post was mean or hurtful for attacking me. More simply that attacking the messenger rather than the content of the message is pretty low value-add in terms of discussion.