The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by colbym72

People romanticize the Hartley playoff year way too much. That team relied on miracle comebacks and the perfect first round matchup. That team had so many issues. Go look back at that roster. The Flames got absolutely dusted in the 2nd round and would have by any team they played that year

Dusted? You must be confusing them with the team that got humiliated in the first round last year. Ya know, the team with the miracle streak to make the playoffs? GG is no good.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by colbym72

People romanticize the Hartley playoff year way too much. That team relied on miracle comebacks and the perfect first round matchup. That team had so many issues. Go look back at that roster. The Flames got absolutely dusted in the 2nd round and would have by any team they played that year

That team did rely on miracle comebacks. But it was also the 5th highest scoring team in the NHL with offensive contributions from the backend allowing less skilled players to produce playing a simple game, and it also had barely-average NHL goaltending with Hiller and Ramo both letting in their share of soft goals but just good enough to win games. It absolutely had issues, but it had legitimate strengths that were tossed out the window when Gulutzan came on board. In fact the 2014-15 Flames had a +25 goal differential.

As to your other points:

1)Were the Canucks really the "perfect" first round matchup, or is that revisionist history after Hartley coached circles around Desjardins? They were a 100 point team, with most of its roster healthy. They were predicted by most to beat us:

Originally Posted by TSN

The Pick: Canucks in six.

Originally Posted by Globe and Mail

Prediction: Canucks in six.

7/12 espn writers picked the canucks


NHL.com even had an article about how the Canucks would win the Cup.

I'm sure I could find more. In general few thought the Flames drew an "easy" matchup, although obviously Anaheim would have been a difficult matchup.

2) They got dusted by the Ducks, and yet still won a game, which is more than can be said about them from last year. And they didn't have Giordano or Ferland in that playoff series(or Hamilton, or Hamonic, or Stone). The Flames now SHOULD be much better than that team, but it's not clear at all. If anything, if the 2014-15 Flames and the 2017-18 Flames were to meet in the playoffs, the Flames would be the "2014-15 Canucks" of the matchup. That team was not remotely a contender, yet they pulled every stop to get the most out of what they had. This current team arguably gets the least out of what they have, even though they probably "should" be a contender.

[colbym72]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

That team did rely on miracle comebacks. But it was also the 5th highest scoring team in the NHL with offensive contributions from the backend allowing less skilled players to produce playing a simple game, and it also had barely-average NHL goaltending with Hiller and Ramo both letting in their share of soft goals but just good enough to win games. It absolutely had issues, but it had legitimate strengths that were tossed out the window when Gulutzan came on board. In fact the 2014-15 Flames had a +25 goal differential.

As to your other points:

1)Were the Canucks really the "perfect" first round matchup, or is that revisionist history after Hartley coached circles around Desjardins? They were a 100 point team, with most of its roster healthy. They were predicted by most to beat us:





7/12 espn writers picked the canucks


NHL.com even had an article about how the Canucks would win the Cup.

I'm sure I could find more. In general few thought the Flames drew an "easy" matchup, although obviously Anaheim would have been a difficult matchup.

2) They got dusted by the Ducks, and yet still won a game, which is more than can be said about them from last year. And they didn't have Giordano or Ferland in that playoff series(or Hamilton, or Hamonic, or Stone). The Flames now SHOULD be much better than that team, but it's not clear at all. If anything, if the 2014-15 Flames and the 2017-18 Flames were to meet in the playoffs, the Flames would be the "2014-15 Canucks" of the matchup. That team was not remotely a contender, yet they pulled every stop to get the most out of what they had. This current team arguably gets the least out of what they have, even though they probably "should" be a contender.

Fair points but our play vs the Ducks in all four games last year felt a lot more competitive than it did in the 14 year. We got dominated in most of those games where as last year we could have won any of those

[memphusk]

Glen Gulutzan is no good.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by colbym72

Fair points but our play vs the Ducks in all four games last year felt a lot more competitive than it did in the 14 year. We got dominated in most of those games where as last year we could have won any of those

In 2014-15, the deeper, healthier, more talented team won. The same team that was a game 5 Andersen choke away from the SCF. Our team gave it all they had against them, and we loved them for it.

Last year, despite Anaheim's injury and overall decline, Gulutzan beat himself with overplaying a 3rd pair that was absolutely killing us, and not switching goalies when our starter was in a slump. It was the definition of shooting yourself in the foot. Did Gibson/Bernier stand on their head at times keeping us from scoring when we were carrying the play? Sure. And at the same time, a rookie-filled blue line of the Ducks, who were without Fowler, Lindholm, etc were giving us easy power play goals so it all balanced out. What didn't balance out was that we handicapped ourselves with the great Bartkowski-Engelland pairing spotting the opponent multiple goals a game.

[colbym72]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

In 2014-15, the deeper, healthier, more talented team won. The same team that was a game 5 Andersen choke away from the SCF. Our team gave it all they had against them, and we loved them for it.

Last year, despite Anaheim's injury and overall decline, Gulutzan beat himself with overplaying a 3rd pair that was absolutely killing us, and not switching goalies when our starter was in a slump. It was the definition of shooting yourself in the foot. Did Gibson/Bernier stand on their head at times keeping us from scoring when we were carrying the play? Sure. And at the same time, a rookie-filled blue line of the Ducks, who were without Fowler, Lindholm, etc were giving us easy power play goals so it all balanced out. What didn't balance out was that we handicapped ourselves with the great Bartkowski-Engelland pairing spotting the opponent multiple goals a game.

I was fine with sticking with Elliott until game 4 especially with how poor Chad Johnson was in the second half of the season

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

So when you were calling Glen trash you hadn’t really made up your mind yet?

Ok nvm

GG is proven trash too, but there's no sense replacing him with someone who also proven to suck

[SportsJunky]

Ha fair enough I guess.

[md-]

Originally Posted by drewtastic

If McLellan’s “second-tier”, why does he get rinkside seats to every home game?

just have to know who the gm of the oilers are

[Stay Golden]

Out coached again tonight very little forecheck put in play. 1 shot on 4 PP. Truth is the tenacious Bennett Janko shift bailed him out. Good late win fir tge players, poorly coached.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by colbym72

Fair points but our play vs the Ducks in all four games last year felt a lot more competitive than it did in the 14 year. We got dominated in most of those games where as last year we could have won any of those

I won't disagree here.

However, all you have to do is go back to that teams' roster, and tell me that any other coach could get that team to perform the way it did. Hartley turned kool-aid into some tasty wine that all us fans got drunk on. You have to give him props.

As well, it wasn't JUST that season. The half-season before that, the Flames were actually playing really well. It was that play that led Aaron ward to (rightfully) predict the Flames making the playoffs. They were rolling. Was it 'sustainable'? This is what bugs me about the whole analytics crowd shouting down at the Flames that year:

The Flames were NOT a talented team, but the coach had them playing above their abilities, had them putting in full-effort games where they just out-worked their opponents, and instituted a system that actually played to the Flames strengths.

Again, I really do believe that the analytic community was right that it was unsustainable - but that 'unsustainability' had a lot more to do with the lack of depth, talent and experience on the roster.

I think people look back at the Hartley years as the Flames just being lucky and everything going right for them, but they battled a lot throughout the season with key injuries, a long losing streak that must have reminded them of their place in the rebuild, and a few other things I am forgetting. That team had moxy. That team just kept out-working opponents. That team had a system that worked for them, and a system that all the players bought into.

I think Hartley would have modified that system as personnel were removed and added, but without a doubt Hartley does deserve praise for managing to get that team with that shallow of a talent pool to play that well for 1.5 seasons, and get them into the 2nd round of the playoffs when coaches like Playfair, Keenan and Sutter didn't manage to take the Flames to.

Gulutzan seems to have this team dialed-in more lately, and hopefully this continues. I think if he manages to get this team to play as hard as Hartley did, this team can go far this year. That's what I think makes Darryl such a good coach - he gets the entire team to bleed that team's colors. That's what Hartley did. Hopefully that is what Gulutzan does this year too. Do that, and we have a contender on our hands. I am optimistic that Gulutzan manages to do just that. Just make them consistent. No more than 2 losses in a row. Make them confident. Get them playing hard all over the ice. That's what Hartley did, and he managed to get a rebuilding team into the playoffs. Do that Gulutzan, and you might do a lot more than just get into the dance.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Out coached again tonight very little forecheck put in play. 1 shot on 4 PP. Truth is the tenacious Bennett Janko shift bailed him out. Good late win fir tge players, poorly coached.

Interesting comment in GG post game. Said he didn't like the first period for both Bennett and Tkachuk, said he had words with them and they responded. I thought in the past he said he didn't talk to the team. Either things have changed or he mislead in the past.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Out coached again tonight very little forecheck put in play. 1 shot on 4 PP. Truth is the tenacious Bennett Janko shift bailed him out. Good late win fir tge players, poorly coached.

what a dumb post

[---Hatrick---]

CP has it's very own trolls I think with some of these posts

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by dino7c

what a dumb post

Stop bullying other posters. He has an opinion just like you do. He provided a hockey opinion, it would be nice if you did the same instead of attacking him.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Stop bullying other posters. He has an opinion just like you do. He provided a hockey opinion, it would be nice if you did the same instead of attacking him.

The problem is it is a rehash with very little merit. The second and third goals were scored off a hard forecheck. In reality it was a well coached game where all the players kept to the system and manged the game like the coach wanted them to. The first line struggled with the puck, could string a couple passes and turned it over a bunch. The PP is an issue as the loss of Versteeg is big. I think we saw a bunch of different looks as the coaching staff is trying things.

It comes across as a negative post for the sake of being negative.

[---Hatrick---]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Stop bullying other posters. He has an opinion just like you do. He provided a hockey opinion, it would be nice if you did the same instead of attacking him.

True. Maybe a bit harsh, but I think we all want to know how exactly GG was "out coached" in this one. PP did look horrible, but that doesn't mean he was out coached lol.
I would argue Greene was out coached, as his dump in and clog the neutral zone didn't do the job and and they probably should have tried to press and get an insurance marker

[Joborule]

This week panned out well for Gulutzan. The team in each game played reasonably well, and very well could be on a 3 game winning streak, rather than a 3 game point streak.

Now the PP has to be figured out. There are gonna be plenty of games where a PP goal will make the difference. When they have the man up, they gotta take advantage when they get several opportunities. The team is playing incredibly flat and disoriented on it right now.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by ---Hatrick---

True. Maybe a bit harsh, but I think we all want to know how exactly GG was "out coached" in this one. PP did look horrible, but that doesn't mean he was out coached lol.
I would argue Greene was out coached, as his dump in and clog the neutral zone didn't do the job and and they probably should have tried to press and get an insurance marker

Maybe the bolded would have been a better question? I agree, I was left wanting to hear exactly what he meant. I thought GG did a good job and if he had a talk with a couple of the young guys as suggested, he is starting to push some buttons!

[PugnaciousIntern]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Interesting comment in GG post game. Said he didn't like the first period for both Bennett and Tkachuk, said he had words with them and they responded. I thought in the past he said he didn't talk to the team. Either things have changed or he mislead in the past.

I only remember him saying that he often doesn't address the team after games, because he doesn't think it has much of an impact. Sleep it off, and address the issues the next day, to avoid over/under exaggerating the game