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

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by dino7c

This post is terrible

Ya its terrible that he has his own opinion.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Other one shouldn’t have happened.

Nah, sureLoss can start new threads any time he wants as far as I'm concerned.

It's a legit update, and now any other big updates will get put into the title as they happen.

He's a well oiled machine.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Nah, sureLoss can start new threads any time he wants as far as I'm concerned.

It's a legit update, and now any other big updates will get put into the title as they happen.

He's a well oiled machine.

I absolutely agree with points 1 & 3.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Red

That is certain. But can a poster make a better decision that said GM? It will be a less educated decision, but is it possible that a fan makes a better call?
I mean there are tons of contracts that are signed to fans dislike and later proven terrible. What does that say about the GM?

Well sure, by luck or chance, or some degree of that due to your "less educated decision" a fan can do better. It might even be that in a particular case they have an insight that helps them make the better decision.

But it's not going to happen, with the same fan, many times to warrant several of the mistakenly applied "appeal to authority" quips that have shown up here.

[Nsd1]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Care to share what it said? If you remember

Weird, still shows up for me...

https://mobile.twitter.com/darrendre...66342008430592

Darren Dreger
@DarrenDreger
All indications suggest Bill Peters is heading to Calgary, but it’s not done yet.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

Ya its terrible that he has his own opinion.

I think it was the manner he delivered his opinion in.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

Ya its terrible that he has his own opinion.

"#### you brad" is childish and worthy of being called a bad post

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

....and we're back to multiple threads on the coaching.

Can we lock this one up?

No. Forcing everything into mega threads is annoying and pointless.

[Red]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Well sure, by luck or chance, or some degree of that due to your "less educated decision" a fan can do better. It might even be that in a particular case they have an insight that helps them make the better decision.

But it's not going to happen, with the same fan, many times to warrant several of the mistakenly applied "appeal to authority" quips that have shown up here.

I think the problem is that people use the "gm knows best" as a rebuke to other points of views. It is frustrating to be shut down like this and it certainly does not set a stage for a productive conversation. This is a fan forum after all. Without our opinions it wouldn't exist.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by the2bears

I think it was the manner he delivered his opinion in.

Yeah expressing displeasure that Treliving is hiring a guy who will most likely just continue the decades of suckage isn't permitted.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by the2bears

I think it was the manner he delivered his opinion in.

Well BT is responsible for the hire, so if I don’t like it, should Brad be above reproach? Toughen up you guys, I’m allowed to be frustrated with the gm if, in my opinion, this is an awful hire. So yah I’ll double down on it, eff you brad, do better.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Honestly it's better to look at it over a longer period of time if you want to see the outliers.

Here is 5v5 Corsi Looking at the last 4 seasons:

1) Los Angeles: 54.16%
2) Carolina: 52.43%
3) Boston: 52.42%
4) Nashville: 52.03%
5) Tampa Bay: 52.01%
6) Pittsburgh: 51.95%
7) Chicago: 51.77%
8) Dallas: 51.47%
9) St. Louis: 51.40%
10) San Jose: 51.40%

In that situation I think it's pretty clear that the teams that people usually think of as "elite" are in the top 10. It really is astounding that the team would be in that company over a 4 year period and not have one playoff appearance to show for it.

Really the failure comes down to save percentage + shooting percentage issues. Over the same 4 year period Carolina is last...by a lot.

31: Carolina - .981
30: Buffalo - .989
29: Edmonton - .991
28: Arizona - .993
27: Vancouver - .994

So they have the Corsi of an elite team, but the PDO of a lottery team.

The problem is these stats don't tell us why this is. And my worry is that when you see these results over a 4 year period that they are no longer an outlier but that there is something structurally wrong with that team.

Then the question is:

A) Are those PDO problems due to the lack of talent on that roster. Poor goaltending & shooting talent has cratered what is actually a really strong system.

or

B) There is something structurally in Peters system that causes his team to give up a higher proportion of high quality scoring chances, while failing to generate their own high quality chances.

Tough to know since I really haven't watched much of Carolina outside of when they play the Flames.

Very helpful post. Thank you!

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Red

I think the problem is that people use the "gm knows best" as a rebuke to other points of views. It is frustrating to be shut down like this and it certainly does not set a stage for a productive conversation. This is a fan forum after all. Without our opinions it wouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Yeah expressing displeasure that Treliving is hiring a guy who will most likely just continue the decades of suckage isn't permitted.

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Well BT is responsible for the hire, so if I don’t like it, should Brad be above reproach? Toughen up you guys, I’m allowed to be frustrated with the gm if, in my opinion, this is an awful hire. So yah I’ll double down on it, eff you brad, do better.

Relax. I was just saying why I thought the original response, "this is a terrible post", was used. Doesn't mean anyone is "beyond reproach", just that "FU" is a poor way to express it. Doubly so when the hiring of Peters has yet to *actually be confirmed*.

[Galakanokis]

I don't know enough about Peters but I wanted a legit, established NHL coach with a proven winning track record to take over these current Flames. Peters does not fit that bill for me. He may turn out to be the next coming of Bowman but there is not much in his history to establish that. I will disappointed if this comes to be but will support it as that is what we do.

[Split98]

I think it needs to be clear that there are 3 levels of CP opinion here

1. Excited/optimistic about Bill Peters, or at the very least to have a new direction going forward.

2. Was more excited about other coaches, and haven't turned the corner yet on what Peters can do. Using games we've watched, fan opinion and past track record to help form their own opinion.

3. Upset about the hire. Perfectly capable of using games they've watched, fan opinion and past track record to form their opinion.


All 3 CPers are perfectly valid at this point. There were good options on the table with better records than Peters that will be passed over if this hire is true. There could be other factors in play that drove Peters to be the hire, but overall, 'Peters hired, Coach X not hired' is what everyone but CPer #1 is thinking.

I think that until he's shown success in Calgary, his resume leaves a lot to question.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Going back to a tweet yesterday regarding the Flames' owners being interested in Sutter...

I just wanted to add that the positive with that is that Darryl Sutter is making north of 3.5 million IIRC. I am assuming it would take at least that much for him in his next coaching stint.

That's good news as far as I am concerned. The Flames are not 'cheaping out' on a coach. They are willing to pay to get a qualified coach.

Now, with that being said, I am disappointed it SEEMS like Peters is the front runner here. It SEEMS (at least on the surface) that some of the same issues that plagued the Flames were present in Carolina - high CORSI, but low shooting percentage and unreliable goaltending.

Did Scott Darling over-achieve in his time with Chicago, became overrated there, and then 'come back down to Earth'? I don't know.

Darling's 3 seasons in Chicago:
.936
.915
.924

Darling in Carolina
.888

Can we conclude that Carolina - although really strong in metrics, still allowed way too many glorious chances a game, but kept the relative number of chances down? In my opinion, that has somewhat haunted Calgary. It is a subjective stat, and offers very little insight into how good exactly a scoring chance is.

Maybe we can conclude that Darling just had trouble being 'the guy', or that playing that many games (43 - previous year he played 32) was a tough adjustment. I don't know, and I don't watch enough Carolina to have an informed opinion. I can see both sides of the argument here.

Next up is shooting percentage. Now, I have been horribly fixated on shooting percentage and trying to make sense if a low shooting percentage is a lack of talent, or a lack of opportunity. The metrics will tell me that Calgary is suffering from a lack of talent, or a temporary run of 'bad luck'. First, let's boot that 'bad luck' excuse to the dumpster - that's a garbage rationale. You can control your luck by making better decisions.

Maybe I would have been stuck in the 'lack of talent' category (probably never in the bad luck category though) if I (and everyone else on this board) didn't witness the SUSTAINED goal scoring put on display by a rebuilding squad under Hartley. His fast transition system allowed for more goals scored. Why? How did he accomplish this? Didn't he have MUCH worse CORSI for numbers, and got less shots on net as compared to that of the Gulutzan-led Flames?

One simple answer. Hartley made the damn opposing goalies move more. His system tried to break down defences BEFORE they could get set-up to defend. His system tried to take advantage of odd-man rushes. Heck, his smaller team sure seemed much more willing to crash the net too.

Now, I am not going to sit here and say "all the shots under Gulutzan was from the perimeter". Yes, there were games like that, but the Flames did indeed shoot quite often from 'home plate'. Those are high-danger chances.

One could easily be led to believe that this is just 'bad luck' then. Hold on.

Look at the damn goalie. How often was that goalie set in position? An argument I made last month was that the good shooters on the team - Gaudreau, Monahan and Ferland (and people want to trade him - HA!) scored because, well, they are damn good shots. They were able to pick corners better. Lazar, Stajan, Backlund, Frolik.... does anyone classify them as snipers? Brouwer's lack of scoring IN SPITE of every opportunity can also be roughly included here. These are the players that need to either get greasy goals, or actually shoot at more available net. When an NHL goalie is set for a shot, then you are looking at only elite players being able to beat a goalie.

I don't think Gulutzan's 5 man system was what we regard as part of 'possession hockey'. I mean, even as Versteeg stated on garbage day, a lot of the shots were one and done. A fast transition system may just be one and done as well. I think a quick transition system allows for a few more rebounds - teams aren't as set, after all.

I am hoping that Peter's system employs a fast-transition. That will help with the scoring - everything else being equal. I don't know if he will or not.

In the offensive zone, there isn't enough cross-crease passes. Not enough jamming the net and getting a greasy goal. That HAS to change. Why the Flames didn't incorporate more of that I will never know, but the Wild's PP seems almost completely designed just to get that tap-in.

I think it will also help if Peters (assuming it is him) actually put a guy like Hamilton or Giordano (or both) on the point for the big slap shot - I disagreed with Gulutzan as I do think that there are defencemen that are capable of scoring from there (Giordano and Hamilton both have) as well as it creates different options. Teams HAVE to respect the shot and have to spread out more, and that means a lot less sticks and bodies in lanes. It also means giving options - shot from the point, slap-pass from the point (Brodie can do this well too), and rebounds. You out-number the opposing team on the PP - rebounds is not a bad thing on the PP, especially when it starts to fizzle.

If Peter can better identify how to use the personnel on the PP (dependent on the PP coach I guess), then there is hope that the Flames see a good improvement in the standings. This was another Gulutzan + Cameron weakness.

Now let's tackle PDO. The one stat that I think is utterly ridiculous.

Shooting percentage + SV percentage = 100

Garbage garbage garbage.

Good teams usually have good systems and good players. You expect their shooting percentage to be higher than most.

Good teams also have good goaltending. You expect them to have higher save percentage.

I do not expect a good team with a high PDO to regress to the mean, especially in a season. Season to season? Maybe... and that is due to the often (but not necessarily a law) that team success is cyclical.

Poor teams, or poor systems - does anyone expect their PDO to improve? No.

So, was Calgary a team with poor talent? No.
Is Carolina a team with poor talent? Poorer, but not horrible.

Who cares?

PDO tells you nothing. For me, PDO means poop dung orifice. That's where it should stay.

I look at shooting percentage, try to factor CORSI somehow into the equation, and now I look at how those high quality shots are actually being shot - did the goalie move or was the goalie set with clear sight of the puck? Did the shooter have time and space? Was the shooter a good player or a bad player? Sometimes one (or all) of these are judgment calls - subjective stats are as good as the 'eye test'.

I find Calgary is guilty of not creating enough in the offensive zone, while allowing too much creativity in the defensive zone. It isn't every game, but there are a lot of people rolling their eyes at CORSI and seeing how the past two coaches got two different results from having CORSI at opposite ends of the spectrum.

That to me implies that CORSI in itself is relatively meaningless. One SHOULD EXPECT a good team to have good CORSI. Not always, but it should be an expectation. I think part of the issue now is teams that are playing with possession in mind.

Fallacy number 1: If you have possession of the puck more, than you are more likely to win.
This has been proven false in soccer. The ability to counter-attack a team is what means more. What good is possession really when you are not doing much with it? When you are forced to try and pick corners and miss (uhhmm... Flames led the league in missed shots BTW).

What good is possession when you are still allowing a 'prime' opportunity the other way? (like breakaways, 2on1s, etc) - this happens way too often on the Flames, and you see the Flames' goalies lunging too much.

Possession is great only as far as you are able to do something positive with it. The Flames sucked. The Canes sucked. On the outside looking in, I would say that both teams suffered from trying to play to CORSI, rather than have CORSI being a product. I am inferring (and could be wrong) that by trying to play this methodical possession game, it has actually shot themselves somewhat in the foot.

Is Peters Gulutzan2.0? I don't necessarily think so. I haven't seen anyone state why he isn't, however.

Those are the two similarities that ring off an alarm to me.

The next one is - poor offence from the blue-line. Look at the roster in Carolina - they have talent on the back end. Yet, their highest scoring D has 32 points. That's concerning. That is not playing to the strengths of this unit. I am suspecting that they weren't able to shut-down those 'prime' chances either, judging by the poor goaltending they received - that's absolutely horrendous goaltending by Darling (.888) to provide playing behind what appears to be a pretty good defence. Especially so, since that defence should not have been so fixated on creating offence. That smells bad to me.

I am hopeful it isn't Peters. However, I also think there is such a thing as swinging the pendulum too far. If Peters can come in and do some of the tweaks that seem needed to the existing system - better player utilization, better PP strategy, and faster transition - and still play that possession game, then this team could do really well.

I have huge reservations about hiring Peters, especially with the other available coaches, especially with the owners seeming being ok with spending a lot on coaching (if they were interested in Darryl, it leads me to this conclusion), and especially since Carolina seemed to suffer from some of the same things as Calgary does.... but some minor tweaks can make a huge difference over the course of a season. If he is hired, I will hopefully start seeing some of those changes taking place.

Hopeful either way (that's just how I choose to see things), but if it is Peters I will be a heck of a lot less excited somehow.

[shutout]

We know that Treliving is going to have a philosophy on how we is going to put this team together. Based on that roster he is going to have expectations on how they should play to get the most out of the talent he is providing. He is going to want a coach that agrees with him on his philosophy so that they are working together instead of against each other and creating chaos.
Unless you have actually spoken to Peters, Sutter, or Vigneault you have zero idea what their coaching philosophies are, how they would deploy the current lineup, what changes they think need to be made to the current roster, and what they expectations should be for the team.
The best and most successful historical coaches might not be the best fit for Treliving and how he wants this team to be shaped. So you cant make a judgement on coaching record or past history, because every team is built differently, every roster has unique differences, and every management group has a different vision that they want to follow to achieve success.
Successful coaches mean that they have been in roles where their personal philosophies have matched the lineups and management groups they have been paired with. Past success does not guarantee future success and past failure does not guarantee future failure.
Unless you have spoken to the candidates about this team how can anybody be so vehemently and almost violently for or against any of the three coaching options. So much so that there is almost zero rational discussion about possibilities.

Besides in four years the team will be based in Houston and it wont matter.

[jemjey]

Good post C4L. Also, "poop dung orifice" lol

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Going back to a tweet yesterday regarding the Flames' owners being interested in Sutter...

I just wanted to add that the positive with that is that Darryl Sutter is making north of 3.5 million IIRC. I am assuming it would take at least that much for him in his next coaching stint.

That's good news as far as I am concerned. The Flames are not 'cheaping out' on a coach. They are willing to pay to get a qualified coach.

Now, with that being said, I am disappointed it SEEMS like Peters is the front runner here. It SEEMS (at least on the surface) that some of the same issues that plagued the Flames were present in Carolina - high CORSI, but low shooting percentage and unreliable goaltending.

Did Scott Darling over-achieve in his time with Chicago, became overrated there, and then 'come back down to Earth'? I don't know.

Darling's 3 seasons in Chicago:
.936
.915
.924

Darling in Carolina
.888

Can we conclude that Carolina - although really strong in metrics, still allowed way too many glorious chances a game, but kept the relative number of chances down? In my opinion, that has somewhat haunted Calgary. It is a subjective stat, and offers very little insight into how good exactly a scoring chance is.

...

Hopeful either way (that's just how I choose to see things), but if it is Peters I will be a heck of a lot less excited somehow.

I like this post. Pretty sure we watched the same season.

I personally will add that I don’t love pointing of the finger solely at Darling based on raw sv%. There are two main factors that affect sv%
- team play (there is an expected save percentage based on the environment)
- the goalie himself (how his performance deviates)

Here is a good article from a few years ago

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...s-a-team-stat/

Peters has never had a team goalie sv% outside of the .900-.910 range. That’s the range that Kipper dove in to when Keenan showed up and the team stopped playing D.

Manny Fernandez and Dwayne Roloson both put up numbers in the .930s in Minnesota, I think under Jacques Lemaire

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

"#### you brad" is childish and worthy of being called a bad post

He can say whatever he wants its his opinion just like #### I love Brad he is the best that's another opinion. People are gonna love him or hate him after this becomes official.