Reaction to coaching hire

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

See that is where I disagree. Last year there were just under four games where the Flames didn't play Gulutzan hockey.

One of them was the game on Halloween. I don't remember who we played against but the storyline that morning was how the players were skated hard which was unusual under Gully. We can out and looked elite.

The next few were all a string of games on a road trip near the end. One was in Pittsburgh where our D were incredibly active and aggressive with TJ Brodie leading the charge. The next in Buffalo the game after. And finally the first period of the win in Ottawa. Those three games were unlike the Gully era - a different style of play - but the team looked like a legitimate cup contender in them. I don't think teams like Nashville or San Jose do anything we can't. Even Boston/Tampa/Pitt, while stacked at forward are not cup locks. The cup is within reach if this team plays that style of play we saw on that road trip.

This is a team that has a top scoring line that, healthy, should be good for about 90 goals even with a poor PP It's a team with a 2nd line that has actually carried them into the dance before. It's a team with a blue line that should be top 3 or top 4 along with the likes of CBJ /Nashville / Tampa offensively. These are all traits of a team that's closer than their record states.

Hey Spec. You need to get out to the rink bro

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Itse

Not how you construct a poll yeah. Not that it matters, but it's still bad. Vague options that don't form a clear continuum with the neutral option at the bottom an additional only indirectly related option "don't think it matters" to further confuse the matter. D-

The results are still likely in the ballpark. Only a clear minority have a strong opinion either way, which is to be expected since Peters isn't a well-known coach.

Thanks for the grade
For the record part of my aim was indeed to take an emotional pulse which is why the answers are constructed as they are.
Was anyone actually confused? Or are people just looking to complain about something?

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Was anyone actually confused? Or are people just looking to complain about something?

Pretty sure the later. I think it's fairly clear that the "wait and see" voters weren't big fans of the hire, but will give Peters a chance to prove them wrong. I don't think anyone is saying, "I think Peters was the right call, but I'm going to wait to see if he screws it up."

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Was anyone actually confused? Or are people just looking to complain about something?

This is CP in 2018. Is there really any doubt?

[Shazam]

Where's the "I'm too sexy for Bill Peters" option?

[crapshoot]

I can't wait for the team to play better so the doom-and-gloom crowd might be a bit less right in your face as soon as you enter CP. Hey people, we have a new coach! It has the possibility to turn out great! Best of luck to you Bill Peters!

[madmike]

What kind of worries me is Peters' coaching style sounds somewhat similar to Gulutzan.

In my opinion, the Flames were doomed in large part by their predictible rushes and shot selection, resulting in one of the league's worst shooting percentages. And guess what team finished just ahead of them in shooting percentage - also in the league's bottom-4? Peters' Hurricanes.

I'm a bit worried we're going to get more of the same. But I'm willing to give Peters a chance.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Thanks for the grade
For the record part of my aim was indeed to take an emotional pulse which is why the answers are constructed as they are.
Was anyone actually confused? Or are people just looking to complain about something?

"Take a wait and see approach" is the worst offender. This is the only answer that is an approach, while the others are reactions.

You could hate it and take a wait and see approach. You could love it but also be taking a wait and see approach. You could be a little nervous but also take a wait and see approach.

It becomes the cop-out answer and doesn't fit with the rest of the poll options.

[Boreal]

I don’t think Gully had to go, I just think Treliving gauged the team’s mental fragility & had to do something.

They lacked consistency all year, were garbage at home, & fell apart in emotional games. Glen knew this as much or more than anyone else. If the horse is led to water & wont drink, you either change horses or change leaders.

They dominated at times, but frequently failed to execute & when they didn’t & the opposition scored they lost confidence, tried to do too much & crumpled.

My main question is who is the team’s sports psychologist? I get the whole want to win vs. hate to lose etc.but this team can’t even get to the want to win stage without self sabotage.

[NiklasSundblad]

well for a guy many wrote off before he was even announced he managed to make a really good first impression.

[Chris Biotti]

Living in North Carolina and watching the 'Canes play over the past few years, I am a little nervous. The Canes play softer than the Flames and have less of an identity. At best, this is a lateral move.

[Timbo]

I start every season with optimism. It’s what I do as a fan.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by nik-

No, it's a response to a reaction of not knowing enough.

Maybe the option should have been "I don't know enough to have a response".

I disagree. I think it just means I am going to be patient. No reaction there.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Cautiously pessimistic, so went with a "little nervous". On the fringe of optimistic but not there yet.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Thanks for the grade
For the record part of my aim was indeed to take an emotional pulse which is why the answers are constructed as they are.
Was anyone actually confused? Or are people just looking to complain about something?

The grade was actually meant as sort of dry humor, I mean it is admittedly silly to pick these apart, even though badly formulated polls are a pet peeve of mine. It's a non-issue really, it's just... Like bad grammar. Not a real issue if you can get the point but still grating.

But hey, at least I didn't give you an F

(I also couldn't find an answer that made sense for me. Not confusing, just a case of "none of the above".)

[PlayfulGenius]

I hope he's amazing... of course, he's a Flame now, so he's my my new favourite coach... but I don't see any evidence to suggest he's anything other than mediocre... am I missing something?

[RichKlit]

I’m sure it’s been said but if the team is still hot and cold middle of the pack type team it’s not the coach it’s the players. That’s on Tre to improve the roster to give the coach a chance. I didn’t like GG and I’m not sold on Peters yet as I just don’t know anything about him but at some point the players need to be held accountable rather then firing yet another coach. I’m not sure what next years roster is going to look like as there are obviously some holes to be filled up and down the lineup and yet again I feel like goaltending may be a question mark and none of those issues are the coaches fault. I’m hopeful we can improve the roster and see some playoff hockey I’m just not willing to bet the farm on it or put all the blame on Peters if the team doesn’t.

[Duffalufagus]

unless they fix the massive roster holes it won't matter who coaches this team.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by RichKlit

I’m sure it’s been said but if the team is still hot and cold middle of the pack type team it’s not the coach it’s the players. That’s on Tre to improve the roster to give the coach a chance. I didn’t like GG and I’m not sold on Peters yet as I just don’t know anything about him but at some point the players need to be held accountable rather then firing yet another coach. I’m not sure what next years roster is going to look like as there are obviously some holes to be filled up and down the lineup and yet again I feel like goaltending may be a question mark and none of those issues are the coaches fault. I’m hopeful we can improve the roster and see some playoff hockey I’m just not willing to bet the farm on it or put all the blame on Peters if the team doesn’t.

I think the biggest issue with this hire is that it doesn't actually answer that question if things go sideways. People are going to be analyzing Peters performance as much as the team next year, simply because he isn't coming in with a prior history of great NHL results.

[Duffalufagus]

Bill Peters is not the guy that is taking this team to the conference finals. Tre just sunk his own battleship with this hire.

"we see the game the same way and have a great connection!" Yeah, as two guys who have next to no success in this league.