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

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

It is different because if he hires Sutter and they miss he can point back to Sutter's track record as a coach and justify why he thought he could take them to the next level. If he hires Peters and we miss everyone will be asking wtf he was thinking hiring a below .500 coach to take this team to the next level. If he hires D Sutter and we miss he might keep his job, he hires Peters and we stumble out of the gate I think he is gone by Christmas.

Worrying about having a good excuse if things go wrong seems like a bad way to make hockey decisions.

[Moneyhands23]

Im praying for a quiet day tomorrow

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

From the perspective of Treliving's future in Calgary, it doesn't really matter who he picks if we fumble the next two years. He'll be gone anyway.

But, IMO, if Treliving pulls back to back 'smartest guy in the room' coaching hires and both fail, he's likely doing far greater damage to his future prospects of getting a second GM job in this league than if he goes with a more proven/'safer' choice.

Lucky for us then because at least we know he's making a decision for the betterment of the Calgary Flames and not saving face if he does get fired.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Keeps being said though, why hire a guy and hope that he turns out to be a great coach, when there are coaches on the market for hire who have proven they are great.

It's the Family Guy mystery package/boat scenario playing out in real life. Vigneault, Sutter, and Trotz, are boats. We're going to hire Peters, because he could be anything, he could even be a boat!

Coaches are not boats, they're human beings.












No, seriously, the game is fluid and there are many factors at play. How a coach fits can be absolutely unpredictable. Coaches have many roles, winning 45+ games out of 82 in a season is just one measure. Things like

- working in the video room on developing strong habits and mitigating poor ones
- implementing successful systems that fit the personnel's strengths
- utilizing players in a manner that will make those players successful
- dealing with human being face-to-face

are not as simple as good-coach bad-coach.

Let's consider Alain Vigneult. He's near the top of my coaching list and I think there's a fit there. But that doesn't make him a family guy proverbial boat. He utilizes a man-to-man defensive system that is not utilized by pretty much any team that has actually won a cup in the last, I dunno, since the 09 Penguins. That's nine years ago. Yes, he's had success with his system - two cup finals, three president's trophies, but he's always hit a wall and there's probably a reason why. In 2014 the reason was obvious. The Kings absolutely rag-dolled and suffocated the Rangers with Darryl Sutter's puck possession game. It was as close to a sweep as a cup finals can be, and Lundqvist was the only reason it wasn't a sweep. And the 2012 Canucks-Kings upset wasn't so far off. So we already know that Sutter's system is an instant counter to Vigneult's system. That doesn't make AV a bad coach, but it's worth considering as a risk to his style of play.

On the flip side of that is Darryl Sutter. He's an excellent coach himself. But his teams have always won 2-1 nailbiters. Is our team built for that kind of game? I'm not talking about size and grit here, I am talking about how our team is not full of elite shooters who can beat goalies clean. Winning 2-1 nail biters with snipers like Jeff Carter or Jarome Iginla is different from trying to wring that out of uptempo playmakers like Gaudreau. That's magnified when it comes to depth scoring. Did the Kings get much depth scoring under Sutter? No, because the depth's job was to create offensive zone faceoffs for the stars, rather than to create chance and risk rushes against. Do you want the Flames to continue to be a one line team?

What is the real trend in the NHL right now? It's teams with three and a half legitimate scoring lines throwing endless wave after wave. Well every coach would like three scoring lines, but not every coach can utilize their personnel to actually arrive at that.

What Hartley did for us a couple years back was utilize the offensive ability of Mark Giordano, TJ Brodie, Dennis Wideman, and Kris Russell to create extra attackers - true 5 on 5 offense that created opportunities that typical 3rd and 4th liners couldn't create - and this gave us a depth scoring. Hartley's systems were far from ideal but that's besides the point - he was to some extent the right coach for this group because he understood what was needed. I think in the long term firing him was the right play, not because he was a bad coach - he was absolutely a "boat" with a Stanley Cup, a series win, and even a strong understanding of his roster (far stronger than Gulutzan ever got) but I believe Treliving identified correctly that Hartley wouldn't be the coach to take us to the promised land for other reasons. One of those reasons was the stagnating development of Sean Monahan. Mony took more strides in his 200 foot game in 2016-17 than he did in his first three years combined. That's not a knock on Hartley - it's more a reality that there is no such thing as a perfect coach. Every good individual player in the NHL has probably played for at least two coaches along with some pretty good coaches before they hit the NHL.

You gotta figure out what's right for your team at a given time and winning coaches can still easily be a terrible fit. Mike Sullivan was the right coach for the Penguins and absolutely the wrong coach for the Bruins at a different point in time. The Canadiens went after a so-called boat in Claude Julien couple years ago and what exactly did that accomplish? meanwhile the Bruins fired a "boat" in Claude Julien and look at how impressive they are now.

It's a fluid game and you have to be a step ahead just to keep up. I don't know if Peters is the right guy. My eyes tell me Lindy Ruff is the coach who fits this roster at this present point in time and even that doesn't mean I believe he will take us to the promised land, although I think he could. That's not because Ruff is more of a boat than Sutter but because I think the best fit is there. And that best fit may only last for a couple years before a different coach is suddenly a better fit. That's how quickly things change.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Lucky for us then because at least we know he's making a decision for the betterment of the Calgary Flames and saving face if he does get fired.

Just like his decision to hire GG was right?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Just like his decision to hire GG was right?

GG = bad, therefore throw away your process and only hire guys with a proven track record that clash with your original vision?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

GG = bad, therefore throw away your process and only hire guys with a proven track record that clash with your original vision?

If GG = bad then why hire the same guy only with a rougher edge? I will stick with GG over a guy that would publicly throw his goalie under the bus.

[Mattman]

Like are they even contacting anyone else? For the amount of whispers around Bill Peters sounds like he might be the only person Treliving and Co. have talked to/about.

Going to be extremely disappointed if they go with Peter's when Alain Vigneault, Darryl Sutter, Lindy Ruff and even Dave Tippett are still on the board.

I forget the how far back and who posted it, but the thing about tiers of coaches is a real thing. 1216(AV) 1285(DS) 1493(LR) 1114(DT) you don't get to coach that many games and not be considered a great coach. You want a veteran coach Brad? You've got 4 of them sitting right there.

[FiveSeven]

The man has a vision and he's going to execute it, end of story.
I doubt prior success it a top factor in choosing someone.
BT is obviously a very intelligent person and he learns from mistakes.
He hired GG, regardless of popular opinion on a coach, do you think he would hire a clone of a coach he just fired???
He knows where GG went wrong, I'm sure. So he'll apply that to his hiring process and choose the right coach. One that checks all the right boxes that matter to him.

Whoever it is, I'm excited. I look forward to learning about them and withholding my judgement till a ways into the season.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Just like his decision to hire GG was right?

All we can do is hope he's learned a lot from that hire about what works for our group and players and what doesn't.

If Treliving is an idiot we're doomed for failure anyway. If he's a smart guy who learns from his mistakes then maybe we're in good hands.

All we really can do is hope and trust he makes a better choice this time. As fans we have no control over it. It just seems silly to me to rage against a choice before we've even seen it in action. Threatening to not even watch just seems emotionally petty. We only have a small fraction of the information on Bill Peters that Brad Treliving does. If Treliving goes with Peters I will be slightly disappointed but certainly willing to give him a chance. From watching some videos of him talking he does talk about moving players up and down the lineup depending on how they're going so that's already a massive step up on GG. He seems to be more of a presence, more of a leader just by his personality so that may already be a big step up from GG. It's really hard to judge him based on his record with a rebuilding CAR team that hasn't had good goaltending. I don't think thats enough information to say its a horrible hire or not.

[Aarongavey]

I fully expect BT to make a poor choice, but I also think BT is a poor GM. If I was him I would hire Sutter or Vignault. That being said I suspect Peters or Eakins are in the running after the process plays out.

[dfsflamesfan]

2. Frustrating style of play/lack of ability to finish scoring chances

The Canes have the second lowest shooting percentage in the NHL this season. It’s become a regular sight for this squad to see them at least double the amount of shots of the opposition, and it happened again last night. Hopefully, the Canes fare better against the Bruins.

The stat line appears solid for the Canes most games, under Peters, until you come across the final score. The style of play that he runs promotes puck control and a large quantity of shots on goal. However, the defense keeps breaking down and the offense cannot convert on scoring chances.

https://cardiaccane.com/2018/03/13/c...his-welcome/5/

Sounds exactly like the things we complain about with this team...

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I really hope it's not Bill Peters. Sounds like Gulutzen 2.0. What's the point. May as well have kept Gulutzen (but still fired Cameron).

IMO, Glen Gulutzan may have been the worst bench boss in the league. You can praise him for his system theory (aside from how god damn slow it could be) if you like, but he just could not hack the bench itself. If Peters is better at that, then he is definitely an upgrade, even if the system is almost the same.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Lucky for us then because at least we know he's making a decision for the betterment of the Calgary Flames and not saving face if he does get fired.

That is an incredibly self-serving and frankly terrible false dichotomy you've built there.

There's nothing about choosing Peters over someone like Sutter that automatically makes us "lucky" or implies that he made a decision for our betterment ahead of "saving face".

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by dfsflamesfan

https://cardiaccane.com/2018/03/13/c...his-welcome/5/

Sounds exactly like the things we complain about with this team...

That is what I see too, it would be like they fire GG and then hire GG under a different name.

[Roof-Daddy]

If Peters is the guy, then Peters is the guy.

I would have loved to see AV, but hopefully this works out good.

I'm not going to flip out now, there is no point in that. Maybe it will work.

If it doesn't work, THEN I will flip out haha.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

If GG = bad then why hire the same guy only with a rougher edge? I will stick with GG over a guy that would publicly throw his goalie under the bus.

Could your analysis get any more overly simplistic and emotional?

You can't possibly know that Peters = GG with a rougher edge.

Seems like a very simplistic analysis of two men who are going to have very different styles and methods because they aren't the same person. Trying to equate them to be the same person is silly.

Step away from the keyboard perhaps. Your reaction just reeks of emotional lashing out without any logic or analysis behind it.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I couldn't disagree more with the assertion that some have that the game has passed Darryl Sutter by. The same was said when he left Calgary, and boy did he get that LA team turned around in a big hurry.

The single biggest issue I see with this team, and especially contrasted to Hartley's team, is a complete lack of swagger. The opposition scores.. and they suddenly score again! 23 times, in fact. Though you can't count on the sheer number of comebacks that the Hartley team made famous, it seemed like every time this year's Gulutzan team pulled a goalie to try and get the equalizer, they allow an empty net. At the same time, how many empty net goals did this year's team score themselves?

So what does this have to do with Darryl? His teams gush swagger. They are always a confident team out on the ice. They are ready to play, and they play hard all game. This is the philosophical change that this organization desperately needed.

Ok, the next argument is "But his tactics and x's and o's are from a bygone era, and this is the new NHL! - he is a dinosaur!"

I don't buy that for one second. While Gulutzan - who was hand picked for his 'new age' possession game - kept making terrible judgment calls.

I have always disagreed with the notion that the 3M line has to be kept together. You know who should play on that 3M line? A rookie with speed who is given the task to skate hard. Tkachuk in my mind has 'graduated'. Darryl has said two things recently that already makes me believe he is more knowledgeable about the FLAMES than Gulutzan was - that Backlund's line is the best THIRD line in the league, and that in today's NHL you HAVE to transition the puck quickly.

For all the accolades that get thrown Gulutzan's way for being a modern NHL coach that takes into account possession metrics, he hasn't quite figured that one out. The 5 man zone entry system is the relic he has resurrected from the past. That was how teams played to counter the infamous trap. That was how teams would play - including the Flames in '04 - to counter the 'dead puck era'.

Modern teams play with a fast transition. I don't think it has anything to do with possession. It has to do with generating offence - better quality chances from the get-go that allow your 'PDO' (I think it is a stupid metric btw) to increase - after all, you should be expected to score more on odd-man rushes, breakaways, and other premium chances, right? As a benefit, these include things like hitting the open trailer, having the goalie move more and give up juicier rebounds rather than freeze the puck or direct the rebound.

Darryl seems to want to play defensively responsible, possession-type hockey with a quick transition, while being fricken ready to play every damn game.

Sign me up for this dinosaur. I don't care if the ownership group goes over the head of Treliving - heck, if things don't work out and they have to fire Sutter, Treliving gets an automatic pass for it, I don't care.

This is (to me) what Hartley was doing. He just had a god-awful roster (especially on defence, and especially with the injuries on defence and the goalies). You can't expect to have possession of the puck more than the other team when your team is smaller, less experienced and a heck of a lot less talented. Some will argue with me, citing things like possession metrics, but it comes full circle again - the Flames had a lot less talent, and I have always argued that your possession metrics should be a byproduct of how good your team is playing.

Coaches like Gulutzan and perhaps Peters are mucking things up with (imo, once again) by playing FOR possession. That is akin to putting the cart ahead of the horse. I don't watch Carolina play, so I can't comment, but boy do their numbers seem eerily similar to Calgary's, and they even have a drop-off in goaltending, and now everyone is saying Peters is smart but was let-down by goaltending. I don't watch them enough to comment, but that does seem a bit fishy to me. They seem to have a solid defensive group there. They seem to have decent goaltending personnel. I think there is more going on there than simply being let down by goaltending.

The thing I like most about AV is that he utilizes set-plays a heck of a lot. That is the biggest thing I have always noticed about his teams. The Flames have the talent to do that here.

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

As I have said before, this man gets it.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

This phrase is so stupid.

Treliving was hired to run a hockey team. He'd better be a smart man. He'd better have confidence in his own convictions. If he thinks he's the smartest man in his office, great, thats his frackin job. Rather have that than someone who isn't smart, or doesn't think they know whats best.

If he thinks Peters is the best choice available so be it. We won't have enough information to judge him wrong until Peters is here running the team.

But yeah, this smartest man in the room phrase is anything but smart.

I could have phrased it "I'll be pretty tired of Treliving trying to prove he's the 'smartest man in the room' with risky decisions" but you knew exactly what I meant in context, so the phrase works just fine.

But in case you didn't and you weren't purposely being obtuse, I'll reiterate. Through the use of that phrase I was trying to say that I hope Treliving makes the best choice here. I hope he doesn't pull another Gulutzan out of his hat in Peters. The idea behind 'smartest man in the room' is that the smart man might want to put his intelligence on display. To do so, he would pick someone counter to the common vote to show he was able to perceive things they weren't. To demonstrate that he was, in fact, the smartest man in the room.

In no way does that phrase mean that I hope Treliving isn't the smartest man in the room. I'm not hoping that he is stupid, and I'm glad a smart person was hired to run the hockey team.

But for being so careful to criticize a phrase in my post, you decided to ignore the tense I chose to use. "[...]if Peters comes in and we stumble next year" is the future tense, as is "I'll be pretty tired of Treliving's 'smartest man in the room' decisions". I don't pretend to know if Peters will be a good coach, but I do know that there are 2 options available in Sutter and Vigneault that I think are pretty fine options. The phrase implies that a risk will be taken to show how much smarter they are, and I'm hoping he doesn't take that risk.

It sure was easier to say "I'll be pretty tired of Treliving's 'smartest man in the room' decisions", but I hope that clears up my perspective on the Peters hire if it comes to be.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

GG = bad, therefore throw away your process and only hire guys with a proven track record that clash with your original vision?

Mindlessly sticking to one process and one plan without the capability to adapt was one of the things that resulted in Gulutzan's demise.

If Treliving is as smart as we all hope, his original vision isn't set in stone but is adaptable.

That being said, maybe Peters is the best man for the job and will lead us forward. But after the Gulutzan disaster, Treliving certainly does not merit automatic benefit of the doubt if this is the direction he chooses to go.

People are going to be skeptical. Of both the coach and the GM. Treliving has only himself to blame for that, and only time and success can restore faith.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

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

My gut says yes. Do not want.