[POLL] Calgary Flames coaching change mega-thread—with poll

[the_only_turek_fan]

The more I think the more I want to change my vote to AV.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Agreed. I was quite interested in what he said, because I think it provides a perspective of the talent-level of the Flames from a seasoned NHL executive, which is in fairly sharp contrast to the sentiment expressed by a number of fans at the end of the season. Perhaps this team is actually not that far away from being a contender after all.

That’s been my belief all season. This roster should have been competing with the Knights for the division title. It’s not a finished product but this team is really close IMO.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't have a link, but a number of CP posters were pretty certain after the expansion draft that George McPhee was a moron who had no clue about what he was doing. By sharp contrast, this was not something that was echoed with the same enthusiasm in the media.

I didn't say moron, but I certainly thought his approach was wrong. I was mistaken and how.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I didn't say moron, but I certainly thought his approach was wrong. I was mistaken and how.

Most of us were.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't have a link, but a number of CP posters were pretty certain after the expansion draft that George McPhee was a moron who had no clue about what he was doing. By sharp contrast, this was not something that was echoed with the same enthusiasm in the media.

I meant popular opinion about something relating to the Calgary Flames. A topic of which CP is most familiar.

Regarding the expansion draft, I think popular opinion was more that McPhee could have done even better. Which is a frightening thought in retrospect.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't have a link, but a number of CP posters were pretty certain after the expansion draft that George McPhee was a moron who had no clue about what he was doing. By sharp contrast, this was not something that was echoed with the same enthusiasm in the media.

I thought the Galant hire was okay but I didn’t love how McPhee handled the draft. He’s proven me wrong but I don’t think even they in their wildest dreams thought they would make the history they have this season. Never underestimate what good coaching and a committed bunch of underdogs can accomplish is the morale of the story here.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Fire

Why even have a GM if you think the Flames should make moves based on the popular opinion of the fans. Maybe every decision should be done via a poll on CP!

Given how garbage the past 30 years have been, we'd be hard pressed to do worse.

[cannon7]

A lot of GMs and coaches are classic examples of the Peter Principle. Bill Peters having the appropriate surname in this case.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't have a link, but a number of CP posters were pretty certain after the expansion draft that George McPhee was a moron who had no clue about what he was doing. By sharp contrast, this was not something that was echoed with the same enthusiasm in the media.

There were a couple people who thought GMGM was purposefully picking terrible to get too draft picks.

[Vinny01]

I just hope this Peters deadline comes and goes without a deal in Calgary. Like I mentioned earlier I hope the media are drawing conclusions based on timing like they did with Boudreau back in 2016. The inside knowledge that has been discussed in this thread also has me worried this is happening. Having said that other posters with inside knowledge have heard Tippet is the guy so maybe nobody knows?

I would be very happy with AV. He was the second choice for me after Quenville when there was speculation who could be available this summer. He is currently available so I just wish the Flames would bring him in.

[Johnny Rotten]

I voted for Vigneault, but this is interesting unless it's already been posted:

https://www.defendingbigd.com/2018/4...-hitchcock-nhl

[Shin Pad]

I would like Lindy Ruff. It always seemed hard to play against teams coached by him. This team might be the right mix for him. There would be a few changes in players on the team, but I think he could take this team to the next level or two. I like Sutter, but I think his style of hockey has been superseded by the speed game that is now in vogue. Just my 2 cents.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Have you seen this piece on Jim Montgomery? His hat was in the ring for the Florida job, now being talked about for Dallas

Some neat perspective, used to coach Gaudreau:
https://mooterati.com/2018/04/15/4-1...im-montgomery/

The reason I mention him is that he, too, has a process
https://thecoachessite.com/2016/04/0...denver-hockey/

[vennegoor of hesselink]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

Sounds like he has a cushy job at Southampton. Would take one hell of an offer to get him to Calgary.

Is that job so cushy now with Southampton's seemingly impending relegation?

[FiveSeven]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

I voted for Vigneault, but this is interesting unless it's already been posted:

https://www.defendingbigd.com/2018/4...-hitchcock-nhl

Sounds scary.

[Cube Inmate]

My biggest worry this off season was that GG would get another chance. With that one quelled, I'll be optimistic with whatever we get.

But I don't put any weight in the idea that BT's data- driven coach hunt will give results any better than simply taking the most established, successful coach available.

First, if it were possible to distill and identify a great coach analytically, then a smart guy like GG would have been able to learn and adapt in 2 years. He didn't, so I conclude that there's too much intangible about coaching to rate and rank logically.

Also, there's so much chance and circumstance involved in a season, and so few samples to get the "noise" out of the equation, that it ultimately doesn't matter what basis is used to hire the next guy. He might succeed or fail whether he's a "gut feel" hire or one who "checks every box." So the only thing I ask is that the next guy gives me at least the illusion of having great potential.

GG never did that. AV comes closest to giving me some confidence.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

I voted for Vigneault, but this is interesting unless it's already been posted:

https://www.defendingbigd.com/2018/4...-hitchcock-nhl

I noted this in another thread, there were no prospects worth playing at the end of his term in Vancouver. In fact the only one worth it was Tanev and he did get ice time and has developed well.

In the front half of his term there, AV had no problem playing youngsters like Kesler, Burrows, Sedins, Bieksa, Edler, etc. These guys were around the same age as the current Flames core.

As for the Rangers, I see some really good production from their young players there and good balance and depth, not sure how much more ice he is suppose to give. It's always the same with fans, young players never get enough ice time.

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

I voted for Vigneault, but this is interesting unless it's already been posted:

https://www.defendingbigd.com/2018/4...-hitchcock-nhl

I was directed to this article by a link in the "No to Vigneault" article:
https://theathletic.com/233808/2018/...toric-heights/

It makes me want Keefe even though he has no NHL experience and is getting very few votes (I voted AV).

"Ward reels off a long list of superlatives to describe Keefe's coaching style, calling him creative, suited to coach skilled players, obsessed by video, detail-oriented, the hardest-working coach he's ever seen and capable of uniquely illustrating to players how to provide support, jump into holes off the rush and set the hockey equivalent of picks and rolls."

"'Sheldon is a great teacher of offence. He sees the ice a little bit different than most people, and he’s a very effective communicator as far as teaching the game, especially to younger players,' Ward said. Keefe also hasn't sacrificed development to create his wins."

Does this not sound like someone who could do wonders with our current roster?

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by Shin Pad

I would like Lindy Ruff. It always seemed hard to play against teams coached by him. This team might be the right mix for him. There would be a few changes in players on the team, but I think he could take this team to the next level or two. I like Sutter, but I think his style of hockey has been superseded by the speed game that is now in vogue. Just my 2 cents.

No to Ruff. If we are going old school Buffalo, then lets go with Ted Nolan. Isnt he coaching in Europe? Would he have an out clause for an NHL job?

[Red]

Originally Posted by P-DAZZLE

I was directed to this article by a link in the "No to Vigneault" article:
https://theathletic.com/233808/2018/...toric-heights/

It makes me want Keefe even though he has no NHL experience and is getting very few votes (I voted AV).

"Ward reels off a long list of superlatives to describe Keefe's coaching style, calling him creative, suited to coach skilled players, obsessed by video, detail-oriented, the hardest-working coach he's ever seen and capable of uniquely illustrating to players how to provide support, jump into holes off the rush and set the hockey equivalent of picks and rolls."

"'Sheldon is a great teacher of offence. He sees the ice a little bit different than most people, and he’s a very effective communicator as far as teaching the game, especially to younger players,' Ward said. Keefe also hasn't sacrificed development to create his wins."

Does this not sound like someone who could do wonders with our current roster?

Sounds like another GG. Good interview, interesting in concept but unproven and certainly gives us no idea about the ability to take charge and make players play hard.