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

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by P-DAZZLE

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

The fawning media coverage sounds far too much like that for someone (an option in this poll) who was also a coach for the Marlies not very long ago.

[Textcritic]

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?

Honestly? I don't think he is is a great fit for this group. The Flames don't need to so much learn the game as they do need to figure out how to manage it psychologically and emotionally.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Red

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.

Impressive that you concluded all that from a single article.
What do you want to hear that would give you confidence that someone knows how to "take charge" and "make players play hard".

[Enoch Root]

Sutter to run the bench and Keefe as an associate coach? (who can take over after Sutter tires of lifting cups)?

[Buck Murdock]

I think Treliving likes being the boss, and because of this has an affinity for diminutive coaches that he can keep his thumb on and control. It would be interesting to see him hire a truly elite coach who won't allow that. While Gulutzan jumped every time Brad said so, I'm sure Sutter or Trotz or Vineault would tell him where to go if he tried that.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

I think Treliving likes being the boss, and because of this has an affinity for diminutive coaches that he can keep his thumb on and control. It would be interesting to see him hire a truly elite coach who won't allow that. While Gulutzan jumped every time Brad said so, I'm sure Sutter or Trotz or Vineault would tell him where to go if he tried that.

This is a terrible take. I think Treliving wants to win.

[DazzlinDino]

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?

After reading a little bit about him I also felt the same way. It would be nice if we could have him as an associate coach and then take over for somebody like Darryl Sutter. This would be a great way to groom an excellent coach.

[Macindoc]

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 a perfect candidate for assistant/PP coach.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

I think Treliving likes being the boss, and because of this has an affinity for diminutive coaches that he can keep his thumb on and control. It would be interesting to see him hire a truly elite coach who won't allow that. While Gulutzan jumped every time Brad said so, I'm sure Sutter or Trotz or Vineault would tell him where to go if he tried that.

This is a hell of a conclusion to draw from a single data point.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by 868904

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.

This is true. We are all guilty of it. Honestly was he was right to be hard on guys like Hodgeson and while fans like to complain about how coaches are keeping young players down how many of these young players ever went on to being great or even good? Isn't it all about winning at the end of the day? Flames in 38 years have have iced exactly 5 teams that had .600+ winning percentages and we are going to condemn a guy that's done that 9 times over the last 12 years because he's hard on young players? Really guys?

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally Posted by 868904

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.

Thinking back on it, I remember the same as you with regards to the Canucks. Looking at the Flames’ roster, I don’t think there would much concern of young guys not getting a chance to play.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Honestly? I don't think this is a great fit for this group. The Flames don't need to so much learn the game as they do need to figure out how to manage it psychologically and emotionally.

I think there are two pieces.

As you mention, managing it between the ears.

There is also the need for tactics that work, and there were clearly and obviously some major problems (glaring example the PP - the pause and have a look, low speed of puck movement leading to a predictable and very unsuccessful PP)

To me the players lost faith in the coaches/systems/themselves, and not even Stuart Smalley could instill the self love that would overcome the failing tactics.

[Angelino]

Randy Carlyle might be an option after tonight’s game. Hopefully Calgary passes on him if available.

[dfsflamesfan]

Originally Posted by 868904

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.

Reading the article there is an interesting point about the Glass situation, but it was the last postseason game in 2017 last season (Game 5) where Buchnevich sat instead of Glass. It was during the playoffs, which is better than where the Stars are this year...

This year Buchnevich was behind Zibanejad, Miller, Hayes, Nash, Spooner, Namestikov and Kreider on average TOI. Which would indicate him being in the Rangers top 9. Buchnevich was in the top 4 players (including defenseman) for PP TOI/game and didn’t spend much time on the PK. I guess Rangers fans/media thought that he was better than the players he was playing behind during 5on5. Maybe AV thought that he would excel playing against other teams 3rd lines/bottom lines to be introduced/sheltered a little? Regardless, I think the Buchnevich issue is overblown. There are also articles stating that his defenseman development decisions are poor, but Pionk and Skjei both finished in the top 2 TOI for the Rangers (besides McDonagh, but he was traded). The two young rookies had more TOI than Shattenkirk, Staal and Holden.

Also the following part of the article didn’t make much sense to me:

In a story that will sound eerily familiar to Stars fans, Vigneault scratched high-ceiling defensemen like Anthony DeAngelo and Neal Pionk over preferred veterans, even though Pionk would end the season on the top pairing with Marc Staal, and DeAngelo finally broke into the lineup before an ankle injury cut his season short in March.

Doesn’t that mean that Pionk earned his ice time and AV eventually adjusted? Are they mad that AV adjusted at the end?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Honestly? I don't think this is a great fit for this group. The Flames don't need to so much learn the game as they do need to figure out how to manage it psychologically and emotionally.

I would disagree with that.

I don't think the problem is all in managing their emotions and psychology. I really do think they need an experienced coach who can manage those aspects, but they also need to revamp the way they play.

I do think that defensively this team is a work in progress. They haven't been able to play 'lockdown' defence for any length of time. They simply make too many errors with what seems like too many odd-man rushes.

I think their entire transition needs to be revamped. I think they can cycle well now as a group - I would say the size and strength of this team allows for that now, and they seem like a decent team at actually sustaining offensive zone time as well as having the ability to block the opposition's cycle in the defensive zone - something I don't think this team has been able to do since probably the Keenan days.

I don't think this team plays well in the offensive zone - the need to learn to block guys off, where to go for second chances, tips and tricks to avoid getting your stick tied-up - stuff like that. I think they need to shift back to a quicker transition - heck, Darryl Sutter even made that comment about how important it is for a team in today's NHL to transition quickly.

The Flames do a lot of things right. I don't think that the time spent under Gulutzan has been a complete waste - that 50/50 hockey will help them out in future battles, and as mentioned, they have become proficient at cycling, and probably a tonne of other stuff. I just think their structure and play-style needs to change, and it will require a coach to come in and teach them these things, and it goes (IMO) well beyond just managing emotions and impacting their psychology.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is a hell of a conclusion to draw from a single data point.

You could build a narrative if you want.

- Tre is a first time GM
- He saw the Tippett power move attempt in Phoenix
- He got rid of Hartley as soon as possible. Would have done it sooner if not for that darn Jack Adams
- Hell, let’s even say he sabotaged him with the three headed goalie monster and insistence on keeping Hiller on the roster
- Gul was a guy lucky to get a second chance as a coach, milquetoast and no threat to Tre
* Only problem is that Gul was a crappy coach

Kinda kidding.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I would disagree with that.

I don't think the problem is all in managing their emotions and psychology. I really do think they need an experienced coach who can manage those aspects, but they also need to revamp the way they play.

I do think that defensively this team is a work in progress. They haven't been able to play 'lockdown' defence for any length of time. They simply make too many errors with what seems like too many odd-man rushes.

I think their entire transition needs to be revamped. I think they can cycle well now as a group - I would say the size and strength of this team allows for that now, and they seem like a decent team at actually sustaining offensive zone time as well as having the ability to block the opposition's cycle in the defensive zone - something I don't think this team has been able to do since probably the Keenan days.

I don't think this team plays well in the offensive zone - the need to learn to block guys off, where to go for second chances, tips and tricks to avoid getting your stick tied-up - stuff like that. I think they need to shift back to a quicker transition - heck, Darryl Sutter even made that comment about how important it is for a team in today's NHL to transition quickly.

The Flames do a lot of things right. I don't think that the time spent under Gulutzan has been a complete waste - that 50/50 hockey will help them out in future battles, and as mentioned, they have become proficient at cycling, and probably a tonne of other stuff. I just think their structure and play-style needs to change, and it will require a coach to come in and teach them these things, and it goes (IMO) well beyond just managing emotions and impacting their psychology.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but my opinion stands insofar as I don't classify these things as items to learn so much as adjustments to be made. And to that end I remain dubious that Keefe is a good choice for this group.

[hockey.modern]

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?

Head Coach: Alain Vigneault / Darryl Sutter
Assistant Coach : Sheldon Keefe
Assistant Coach: Tim Hunter

Problem Solved.

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

The fawning media coverage sounds far too much like that for someone (an option in this poll) who was also a coach for the Marlies not very long ago.

I get the comparison is largely because of them coaching same team which is in a very media-heavy market but do we want a coach that is described as poor by the media? Eakins and Gulutzan both failed in the NHL but that doesn't mean every new coach with a more modern style will. All the veteran coaches on their third, fourth, or fifth NHL job had to have a first NHL job at some point and did well enough that they got another job in the future. Some even won cups with the first team they coached.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Honestly? I don't think he is is a great fit for this group. The Flames don't need to so much learn the game as they do need to figure out how to manage it psychologically and emotionally.

There are some parts in the article about his ability to get along with players, teach the game, but also be hard on players when necessary. Sounded like he was pretty good on the people management front, however, it was just one article and it had a positive angle and quotes from people with all good things to say.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Head Coach: Alain Vigneault / Darryl Sutter
Assistant Coach : Sheldon Keefe
Assistant Coach: Tim Hunter

Problem Solved.

Hmmm....I kinda like this, but still leaning toward Sutter more.