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

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by bax

Really? What possible qualifications could ownership have for determining who the right coach is for this group?

Meddling ownership is almost always a bad thing in pro sports. Let the GM do his job.

Quoting myself:

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

But it kind of is. They are executives.
Sure they may not be x and o guys.

But if this is their logic, it is pretty tough to argue
- last time the franchise was in a similar-ish state, Sutter stepped in and made them a playoff team, darn near won a cup
- he stepped in to LA, fixed them up and won 2 cups
- he is available now
- Tre’s handpicked guy just flopped colossally

The bar is now Sutter. How can Tre justify his guy to those cutting the cheques and avoid part of that justification being why not Sutter?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by AC

https://twitter.com/user/status/986985430615711744

Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Edit: Nevermind I see that it was a while ago!

I have no problem with Sutter coming back, but the notion that ownership might be pushing for it is a little scary. Wasn't Treliving getting autonomy key in his re-signing? Hopefully if Sutter does come back, it's because Treliving wants him.

I personally take it with a grain of salt - but if I am one of the owners, I wouldn't forget about a guy who came in and turned my business around. Maybe the owners are thinking that it would be prudent to go back to that well again.

With regards to Treliving's autonomy, I am not too concerned anyway. Here is what the tweet contains:

Pinder confirms source - a current Eastern Conference Coach - tells him he's heard CGY ownership has intetest in bringing Darryl Sutter back.

Key word for me is 'interest'. Not 'pushing', or 'demanding'. Just a relaxed interest. Why wouldn't an owner speak up and just say: "Hey, Sutter was a really good coach here, and he went on to win 2 cups with LA. What do you think about that Brad?"

I think it is not only fair for an owner to to show interest in the team, but rather expected. I would have a problem only if the owner demanded Sutter be hired over what Treliving feels would be a better coach (or better fit).

[bax]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

touché

Not that I think this a fair way to evaluate coaches, but it wouldn’t be right to just pick out the bad ones.

They have also liked Babcock, Quinn, Crawford, Cooper, Tippett, Ruff, Hitchcock, etc

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

I imagine that ownership will allow Brad to hire who he thinks is right.

That said I hope Brad realizes what all of us realize, that Darryl is the best man for the job

According to the poll "all of us realize" it should be AV not Darryl.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

According to the poll "all of us realize" it should be AV not Darryl.

My bad... and honestly as long as its one of those two who really cares

[bax]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Quoting myself:

I won't argue against Sutter's accomplishments because I think he is a good coach, but I take an issue with ownership overruling a GM because they simply aren't qualified to make that decision. Treliving was hired for that specific reason so let him do his job.

As for your points:

- A decision shouldn't be made based on what happened with the franchise 14 years ago. The league, roster, personnel have all changed.

- In my opinion, our roster is not comparable to LA's and the Flames can't play that style of hockey (not to say Sutter couldn't bring something fresh to the table to better suit our roster)

- Lots of coaches are available now

- Gulutzan wasn't the best hire clearly, but I wouldn't say he flopped colossally. The team still improved in year one and there was lots of growth from some key pieces. We made the playoffs once and then under-performed in year 2. Not good enough, but not a colossal flop.

Again- If Treliving thinks Sutter is the best hire then I am more than fine with going in that direction, but the idea of a Sutter hiring being pushed or demanded from ownership just rubs me the wrong way.

[mile]

Originally Posted by AC

Hopefully if Sutter does come back, it's because Treliving wants him.

I hope so. Given that Treliving has said:
- This team lacks identity
- Not emotionally invested enough

I don't think it would be a stretch.

Maybe Pinder's source is Peters himself, who knows it's between him and Sutter.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I just think that Darryl is at another level, and he is, in my opinion, a very 'modern' coach with an actual track record.

And yet nobody has come knocking since he was fired over a year ago.

I'd be wiling to bet Darryl Sutter never coaches another game in the NHL.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And yet nobody has come knocking since he was fired.

I'd be wiling to bet Darryl Sutter never coaches another game in the NHL.

Do we know that though? I thought last thing Darryl said was that he's going to take his time and find something that fits for him and his family. Said he's not going to rush it.

And it's only been 1 year since he was fired. Not 5 or 10.

[dfsflamesfan]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

This... This is exactly what I want and what an actual good coach brings. Coaches who have lasted in this league long term at a high level are able to do this.

AV can do it Sutter can do it

The hybrid system of this where the team defends similar to these 5 man units but also springs guys fast like boston, tampa or vegas is what I want to see. Gallant has an excellent system that can win in the playoffs and also win in the regular season.

A team needs to be able to adapt tactics in game and not play a rigid style like GG from what i've read Peters is basically running the same system as GG which is great if youre winning games but lousy and awfully boring if youre losing

50/50 hockey is boring, and the whole system is flawed. If a team is coached to play 50/50 hockey then of course you’d expect to have a 50% winning record. We know a 50% winning record won’t be good enough in the regular season. 50/50 hockey sure won’t give you the best chance to win 4 playoff series if it’s left to a 50% chance each game 7, assuming you split games 1-6.

Sure the system is heavily realiant on special teams, but I don’t think you can rely on just a good power play and penalty kill, because other teams have their own special teams. Also, penalties in this league are inconsistent, especially in the playoffs. Overall, I think we, as fans, expect and want to see a 100/0 or 95/5 system or even 60/40 (assuming it means chances for) in place instead of 50/50.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Responding to bax:

(About owners meddling / giving Tre autonomy)

^ yeah, but everybody with a job has a boss.

And when you screwed up the decision last time, your subsequent decision is going to be scrutinized by your boss, no? And if your boss declines to approve your move, you can make a new choice.

So ownership doesn’t have to meddle, maybe Brad is free to make a choice. As long as he can get it approved

I know what you are saying but the league 14 years ago, and then in LA , were different. What was common? Sutter’s ability to get more out of the roster in different situations.

Change is constant. Succeeding in a changing environment can be seen as a desirable trait, not a drawback

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/987095162508603392

[DeluxeMoustache]

Ugh. Hope not.

[bax]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Responding to bax:

(About owners meddling / giving Tre autonomy)

^ yeah, but everybody with a job has a boss.

And when you screwed up the decision last time, your subsequent decision is going to be scrutinized by your boss, no? And if your boss declines to approve your move, you can make a new choice.

So ownership doesn’t have to meddle, maybe Brad is free to make a choice. As long as he can get it approved

I know what you are saying but the league 14 years ago, and then in LA , were different. What was common? Sutter’s ability to get more out of the roster in different situations.

Change is constant. Succeeding in a changing environment can be seen as a desirable trait, not a drawback

Yeah those are all fair points and again- I would have no issue with Sutter being named the coach if it's Treliving's choice, it's just the meddling ownership that doesn't seem right to me. Where do you draw the line with that sort of thing?

I don't think comparing a relationship between an owner and GM in professional sports to a typical worker-boss relationship is fair. My boss is an expert in the same field that I work in.

Ownership in this case are not experts in professional hockey.

[direwolf]

Well crap, this thread has now become super depressing. Mckenzie is a pretty damn good source when it comes to these things. We should probably all prepare ourselves for the inevitability that Peters will indeed be our next coach. While there's a lot of uncertainty with this hire, at least it's not Gulutzan and Cameron. So there's that to look forward to I guess.

[Nsd1]

Wonder if Ralph Krueger will ever come back to the NHL. The Oilers must have destroyed every bit of his love for hockey.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

https://twitter.com/user/status/987095162508603392

Ugh. This is totally happening, isn't it?

Originally Posted by direwolf

While there's a lot of uncertainty with this hire, at least it's not Gulutzan and Cameron. So there's that to look forward to I guess.

It's as close as you can get, and comes with results that look even worse. Like Chinese knock-off Gulutzan.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Ugh. Hope not.

That was exactly my reaction. I really hope we hear tomorrow he's staying in Carolina or going somewhere else. I just don't see him as much of an upgrade.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

It's as close as you can get, and comes with results that look even worse. Like Chinese knock-off Gulutzan.

Possibly. But Peters would have a better roster to work with here, so for all we know this might be a good fit. But it's still pretty disappointing to think that Treliving is once again rolling the dice on an outside-the-box, unproven coach (at the NHL level anyway). For his own sake, he'd better pray this works or he can kiss his job goodbye after next season.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Possibly. But Peters would have a better roster to work with here, so for all we know this might be a good fit. But it's still pretty disappointing to think that Treliving is once again rolling the dice on an outside-the-box, unproven coach (at the NHL level anyway). For his own sake, he'd better pray this works or he can kiss his job goodbye after next season.

I agree. I hate this choice and just think that bringing Peters in means that they may as well have just stuck with Gulutzan. Why fire him if this is the replacement, particularly when you could have taken a stab at a legitimate upgrade in someone like AV.