[PGT] Flames win in Arizona 6-1

[Calgary4LIfe]

I'll chime in as well on the Gulutzan talk. Why is it wrong to talk about him? New posts come up time to time talking about coaches from years ago - Bob Johnson, Terry Crisp, Don Hay, Pierre Page, Greg Gilbert, and so on.



Gulutzan was coaching this team just last season, and of course he is going to both get compared to Peters (just as Hartley was to Gulutzan), as well as getting both slammed and praised for various things on these boards. I think it is fair talking point, or even fair for drive-bys. As long as they don't delve into his personal life and other BS like that, I don't think you can expect for it not to happen.


Considering he went to Edmonton after getting fired in Calgary? Definitely will get much more attention than previous head coaches, even without the recency bias.


I guess since everyone is complaining/slamming Glen Gulutzan, I will go against the grain and find three reasons to praise him:


1) Identified the Tkachuk-Backlund-Frolik line as being very effective together, and Tkachuk's defensive prowess is in large measure to his two years there.


2) Got this team to play the most boring hockey I have ever witnessed by the Calgary Flames. He has made me appreciate exciting hockey much more - win or lose.


3) Made me realize just how much of a team player Giordano is. Bought into the Gulutzan system completely, allowed Hamilton to get the accolades on offence while he had to play in his own zone much more. Not one complaint out of Giordano. Never took a game off. That's a captain.


Now, points 2 and possibly point 3 were not exactly points directly praising Gulutzan (point 2 was probably a slam), but you will have to excuse me for disliking and disagreeing with a coach of my favourite team for two whole seasons while loving the coach and the product on the ice the years before and now immediately after. Of course there will be comments and comparisons. I personally don't enjoy the outright posts slamming Gulutzan without any substance - I am sure he is a real nice guy outside of hockey. I prefer to read posts that compare and contrast his system (like I used to often lament between Hartley's system and his system). That's fair game.


Gulutzan was a waste of the Flames for two straight years, and possibly more if you want to factor in players that may have suffered under his coaching style. Maybe Bennett would have been a much better player now? Maybe Brodie was still developing under Hartley, and would have taken yet another step forward and would have been a league-wide superstar, rather than clawing his way back up to where he once was.


Posts that only have 'Gulutzan sucks' without anything else explaining why he sucks is boring (not annoying to me anyway, but boring), but I for one feel that people should be contrasting between coaching styles, differing utilizations of the same players and so on.


I would have loved if Hartley wasn't such a hard-ass during his time here that it prompted his firing. I bet he would have made changes to his system as the personnel changed (even if you hate Hartley, you have to agree that those teams had little to no depth, but at least there were a number of players that really blossomed under his watch that we still enjoy today), and we could have at least experienced the same amount of success (I bet more, actually) while really being entertained. Would have been interesting to see Hartley - Peters right away.



Gulutzan? Tkachuk did very well. Ferland grew (though I think he would have grown under Hartley too). Monahan and Gaudreau. Who else really blossomed under Gulutzan? Who regressed? Either way, that was some seriously boring hockey.



Brent Sutter - boring, frustrating hockey to watch
Hartley - exciting and fast paced
Gulutzan - insufferably boring
Peters - exciting again


Chances of winning the cup for any team is against them. Hockey is in the business of being entertaining first and foremost. If you can win by being incredibly boring (ala 1990's NJD I am looking at you), then great. In today's fast game, you can't win if you don't transition quickly. Goalies are simply too good. Heck, even Darryl Sutter made mention of that during his brief media appearances after LA let him go. Kings were not a quick team, but they transitioned quick. They used the quick transition, their size and their smothering defence to win championships. Take out the quick transition, I don't think they would win (though they seemed to jam the net really well).


Gulutzan hockey didn't involve a quick transition - always move up as a 5 man unit. Attack the net? Where was that? 2 years of no swagger, no moxie, no life. Of course he is going to be brought up, especially since it was only last season, and I think it is fair game to do so.

[GioforPM]

It's not wrong to talk about Gulutzen. That's a real misreading of both my posts and JH's. The objection was just random posts about him a propos of nothing, in the middle of other relevant stuff.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Red

A few spent a very long time defending GG. And that's ok. But they were quite condescending about it, as if we were rushing judgement or didn't see the whole picture etc.
Some people saw a dud half way through the first season. They were right all along. GG was a terrible coach here full stop.

What is interesting is that people here dugged their heels for a guy that had no track record. Why? I can at least understand why some like the Hitch hire up north, he at least has a resume. But GG? He was a wannabe.

And before we hear again that Peters has a much better team. Troy Brouwer has 2 less goals than Neil, Ryan, Dube and Czarnik combined. I consider Ferland and Lindholm a wash. So no, the new forwards are not making that much of a difference at all. Some are disappointing to say the least.

Oh and I am not annoyed with this conversation. I quite enjoy it.

Both sides were condescending and consistently misrepresented the points someone was making. Certainly wasn’t from just one side
To reiterate my consistent point was never to say gg was a good coach but rather I felt like the players should be accountable and roster moves are also needed
Which is exactly what happened. Coach fired and significant changes to the roster made
Which is all I ever wanted
I disagree with your assessment on the forwards. I think they significantly upgraded and it’s one of the reasons for improved performance. Lindholm, to me, is a far better player than Ferland

[SportsJunky]

What in theeeeeee Hell is going on in here? Back to work people!

[dissentowner]

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Red

A few spent a very long time defending GG. And that's ok. But they were quite condescending about it, as if we were rushing judgement or didn't see the whole picture etc.
Some people saw a dud half way through the first season. They were right all along. GG was a terrible coach here full stop.

What is interesting is that people here dugged their heels for a guy that had no track record. Why? I can at least understand why some like the Hitch hire up north, he at least has a resume. But GG? He was a wannabe.

And before we hear again that Peters has a much better team. Troy Brouwer has 2 less goals than Neil, Ryan, Dube and Czarnik combined. I consider Ferland and Lindholm a wash. So no, the new forwards are not making that much of a difference at all. Some are disappointing to say the least.

Oh and I am not annoyed with this conversation. I quite enjoy it.

Ryan has essentially replaced Stajan, or made it possible for Jankowski to replace Stajan. Either way - improvement. Czarnik and Dube have replaced Lazar/Shore/Versteeg/Stewart/etc. Improvement. Ferland is not as good an all-around player as Lindholm, and Lindholm makes Gaudreau and MOnahan better in ways that Ferland couldn't. Neal is a better player than Brouwer, in lots of ways other than scoring (and he's halfway to Brouwers goals last year anyway), and let's just see who ends up with more goals anyway. Plus the line combos have improved because of the new players, from the bottom line up.

Plus you have three new D who have played better than the old ones as a group. Hanifin > Hamilton already, plus he's had a benefit to Brodie and Hamonic in his slotting. The rookie D pair are better than throwing out Kulak and Stone or Bart.

Bottom line, Treliving improved both the roster and the coaching.

[Frank MetaMusil]

I had almost flushed my memory banks of Bartkowski, jerk!

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I'll chime in as well on the Gulutzan talk. Why is it wrong to talk about him? New posts come up time to time talking about coaches from years ago - Bob Johnson, Terry Crisp, Don Hay, Pierre Page, Greg Gilbert, and so on.



Gulutzan was coaching this team just last season, and of course he is going to both get compared to Peters (just as Hartley was to Gulutzan), as well as getting both slammed and praised for various things on these boards. I think it is fair talking point, or even fair for drive-bys. As long as they don't delve into his personal life and other BS like that, I don't think you can expect for it not to happen.


Considering he went to Edmonton after getting fired in Calgary? Definitely will get much more attention than previous head coaches, even without the recency bias.


I guess since everyone is complaining/slamming Glen Gulutzan, I will go against the grain and find three reasons to praise him:


1) Identified the Tkachuk-Backlund-Frolik line as being very effective together, and Tkachuk's defensive prowess is in large measure to his two years there.


2) Got this team to play the most boring hockey I have ever witnessed by the Calgary Flames. He has made me appreciate exciting hockey much more - win or lose.


3) Made me realize just how much of a team player Giordano is. Bought into the Gulutzan system completely, allowed Hamilton to get the accolades on offence while he had to play in his own zone much more. Not one complaint out of Giordano. Never took a game off. That's a captain.


Now, points 2 and possibly point 3 were not exactly points directly praising Gulutzan (point 2 was probably a slam), but you will have to excuse me for disliking and disagreeing with a coach of my favourite team for two whole seasons while loving the coach and the product on the ice the years before and now immediately after. Of course there will be comments and comparisons. I personally don't enjoy the outright posts slamming Gulutzan without any substance - I am sure he is a real nice guy outside of hockey. I prefer to read posts that compare and contrast his system (like I used to often lament between Hartley's system and his system). That's fair game.


Gulutzan was a waste of the Flames for two straight years, and possibly more if you want to factor in players that may have suffered under his coaching style. Maybe Bennett would have been a much better player now? Maybe Brodie was still developing under Hartley, and would have taken yet another step forward and would have been a league-wide superstar, rather than clawing his way back up to where he once was.


Posts that only have 'Gulutzan sucks' without anything else explaining why he sucks is boring (not annoying to me anyway, but boring), but I for one feel that people should be contrasting between coaching styles, differing utilizations of the same players and so on.


I would have loved if Hartley wasn't such a hard-ass during his time here that it prompted his firing. I bet he would have made changes to his system as the personnel changed (even if you hate Hartley, you have to agree that those teams had little to no depth, but at least there were a number of players that really blossomed under his watch that we still enjoy today), and we could have at least experienced the same amount of success (I bet more, actually) while really being entertained. Would have been interesting to see Hartley - Peters right away.



Gulutzan? Tkachuk did very well. Ferland grew (though I think he would have grown under Hartley too). Monahan and Gaudreau. Who else really blossomed under Gulutzan? Who regressed? Either way, that was some seriously boring hockey.



Brent Sutter - boring, frustrating hockey to watch
Hartley - exciting and fast paced
Gulutzan - insufferably boring
Peters - exciting again


Chances of winning the cup for any team is against them. Hockey is in the business of being entertaining first and foremost. If you can win by being incredibly boring (ala 1990's NJD I am looking at you), then great. In today's fast game, you can't win if you don't transition quickly. Goalies are simply too good. Heck, even Darryl Sutter made mention of that during his brief media appearances after LA let him go. Kings were not a quick team, but they transitioned quick. They used the quick transition, their size and their smothering defence to win championships. Take out the quick transition, I don't think they would win (though they seemed to jam the net really well).


Gulutzan hockey didn't involve a quick transition - always move up as a 5 man unit. Attack the net? Where was that? 2 years of no swagger, no moxie, no life. Of course he is going to be brought up, especially since it was only last season, and I think it is fair game to do so.

GG hockey is the reason I gave up the last holding of my season's seats. Worst hockey I have ever watched and I have watched a lot of hockey.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's not wrong to talk about Gulutzen. That's a real misreading of both my posts and JH's. The objection was just random posts about him a propos of nothing, in the middle of other relevant stuff.

Why do you keep spelling apropos as two words?

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I had almost flushed my memory banks of Bartkowski, jerk!

Remember Nick Grossmann? Gully put him in the lineup against the Oil, and I'm pretty sure he was on the ice for every goal against. Quite possibly the worst d man to ever play for the Flames.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

Remember Nick Grossmann? Gully put him in the lineup against the Oil, and I'm pretty sure he was on the ice for every goal against. Quite possibly the worst d man to ever play for the Flames.

*cough*Bubba

[Strange Brew]

IMO most of the defense of Gulutzan last year was indirectly just supporting Treliving. If you stayed on the fence as to whether he should stay as coach, then you could pretty much defend whatever decision Treliving made.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's not wrong to talk about Gulutzen. That's a real misreading of both my posts and JH's. The objection was just random posts about him a propos of nothing, in the middle of other relevant stuff.

Originally Posted by jayswin

Why do you keep spelling apropos as two words?

Does he do that...alot?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

Remember Nick Grossmann? Gully put him in the lineup against the Oil, and I'm pretty sure he was on the ice for every goal against. Quite possibly the worst d man to ever play for the Flames.

Barely... because he played a whopping 3 games.

[Red]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Ryan has essentially replaced Stajan, or made it possible for Jankowski to replace Stajan. Either way - improvement. Czarnik and Dube have replaced Lazar/Shore/Versteeg/Stewart/etc. Improvement. Ferland is not as good an all-around player as Lindholm, and Lindholm makes Gaudreau and MOnahan better in ways that Ferland couldn't. Neal is a better player than Brouwer, in lots of ways other than scoring (and he's halfway to Brouwers goals last year anyway), and let's just see who ends up with more goals anyway. Plus the line combos have improved because of the new players, from the bottom line up.

Plus you have three new D who have played better than the old ones as a group. Hanifin > Hamilton already, plus he's had a benefit to Brodie and Hamonic in his slotting. The rookie D pair are better than throwing out Kulak and Stone or Bart.

Bottom line, Treliving improved both the roster and the coaching.

Hanifin is better than Hamilton was for us last year? Seriously?
Are the new forwards outscoring last years guys that much?

Didn't think so.

Dube may be better than Stajan, some day. Same for Czarnik.
But thus far they have done nothing. Same for Neil. Lindholm is doing what Ferland did early on last year. Sure, we think Ferland will fall off, I agree, but early last year he was everything Lindholm is now.

The team is faster. It plays way better.
But we dont know how last year's team would play away from GG. They played slow by design. Todays team would be just as boring and predictable.

And lastly. GG had options other than Bartkowski. He chose to play him early in the season.

[Jiri Hrdina]

The key with Hanifin is he doesn’t have to play with Gio
So you’ve improved both pairs by stabilizing Brodie and then a strong second pair. The second pair last year was not good but I don’t think the Flames felt they could play Hamilton away from Gio
And for me Lindholm is just a far more complete player than Ferland. Measuring by goals or points alone isn’t just too simplistic
But this is just a microcosm of the disagreement as you want to attribute the majority of the improvement to coaching change and not the roster changes
I see both contributing in important ways

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Why do you keep spelling apropos as two words?

Using the original French phrase.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Both sides were condescending and consistently misrepresented the points someone was making. Certainly wasn’t from just one side
To reiterate my consistent point was never to say gg was a good coach but rather I felt like the players should be accountable and roster moves are also needed
Which is exactly what happened. Coach fired and significant changes to the roster made
Which is all I ever wanted
I disagree with your assessment on the forwards. I think they significantly upgraded and it’s one of the reasons for improved performance. Lindholm, to me, is a far better player than Ferland

Show us your calendar with pitchfork day circled and we’ll let it go

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The key with Hanifin is he doesn’t have to play with Gio
So you’ve improved both pairs by stabilizing Brodie and then a strong second pair. The second pair last year was not good but I don’t think the Flames felt they could play Hamilton away from Gio
And for me Lindholm is just a far more complete player than Ferland. Measuring by goals or points alone isn’t just too simplistic
But this is just a microcosm of the disagreement as you want to attribute the majority of the improvement to coaching change and not the roster changes
I see both contributing in important ways

We all see both. But you have called it annoying when people point out coaching differences.

And as to the bold, you're just making excuses for GG. The fact is, he refused to try other things - just keep throwing the same lineup out there and hope for different results.

[chummer]

nm