Treliving on Sportsnet 960 - 4PM (MT) - Tues May 24th

[DeluxeMoustache]

Part of a goalie coach's job is to work with the tender to be prepared mentally and physically, no?

If Sigalet is rock solid and Hiller refused to be coached, BT should have known and demoted his ass.

[dammage79]

Yeah. Not going to lie, Ive suspected Sigalet has been a part of the problem since long before the All Star break.So I too feel some confusion behind retaining him during the Hartley firing.

I mean, why can't Treliving convince the goalie whisperer Sean Burk to come goalie coach. Or be special advisor to Sigalet with a front office marker on him of he doesn't want to coach.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I would be interested in this because I thought that Hiller's failure to improve and fix some obvious flaws logically could be traced back to Sigalet's failure to coach him past it.

Sigalet is not a goalie coach whose philosophy is changing a goalie's style. Some goalie coaches do try to make sweeping changes to technique but Sigalet is not that kind of coach. Maybe a different coach could have "changed" Hiller's technique but really it was a lack of compete, tracking, and positive attitude that did Hiller in, not technique contrary to everyone who hates his blocking style. Hiller's same blocking style gave us a .918 SV% a year ago.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Part of a goalie coach's job is to work with the tender to be prepared mentally and physically, no?

If Sigalet is rock solid and Hiller refused to be coached, BT should have known and demoted his ass.

Yes. It's all just that simple. Why didn't that dummy Treliving think of this?

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Sigalet is not a goalie coach whose philosophy is changing a goalie's style. Some goalie coaches do try to make sweeping changes to technique but Sigalet is not that kind of coach. Maybe a different coach could have "changed" Hiller's technique but really it was a lack of compete, tracking, and positive attitude that did Hiller in, not technique contrary to everyone who hates his blocking style. Hiller's same blocking style gave us a .918 SV% a year ago.

I don't know, it took either Sigalet throwing mud at the wall to fix Ramo's issues and lucked out or Ramo was slow as molasses adapting to any work Sigalet was getting him.to work on.

In any case the amount of time it took address issue with any of the goalies was far too slow to take effect. Almost like nothing was taken seriously. Ramo's post to post coverage was a joke and worse than Hiller's until he magically got better in what looked like over night. This could have been solved by game #13 of the regular season.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes. It's all just that simple. Why didn't that dummy Treliving think of this?

You realize I was poking fun at the idea put forth that Hiller refused to be coached, no? The notion that Sigalet must be solid despite putting out the worst goaltenders in the league??

Fact is that the team did have the worst defensive performance in the league and I don't see how some people don't want to question certain people who should share in the accountability, such as Tre and Sigalet.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I would be interested in this because I thought that Hiller's failure to improve and fix some obvious flaws logically could be traced back to Sigalet's failure to coach him past it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Hiller seemed very obviously disengaged this season, particularly toward the end.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

You realize I was poking fun at the idea put forth that Hiller refused to be coached, no? The notion that Sigalet must be solid despite putting out the worst goaltenders in the league??



Fact is that the team did have the worst defensive performance in the league and I don't see how some people don't want to question certain people who should share in the accountability, such as Tre and Sigalet.

The problem I have is with these demands of "accountability" from the comfortable distance of one's coach, armed with nothing more than veiled, agenda-driven public statements from the org., and with anecdotal interpretations of on-ice events. In short, we simply cannot know enough to have even an adequate idea of what the problems are, nor how to fix them. This is why the management of the Calgary Flames is not a public trust.

[Coach]

I enjoy most of the 960 radio people, but sometimes I feel like they miss some obvious questions.

They talked about Backlund and how Sweden was using him and mentioned the other Canada people were obviously asking Brad about him. I was really curious about his candor in that type of situation. It would be a weird position to be in to try and protect as many secrets about your players as possible, and then be freely giving away the information at a tournament event.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Glad that Treliving isn't only evaluating our coaches based on one season. That applies to Gelinas, Sigalet and Hartley. We see in this league how things change from year to year. One year cup champs, the next missing the playoffs, to back to the playoffs.

The league is tight, giving up on Gelinas, Hartley or Sigalet based only on last years performance would boil down to nothing short of simply making decisions to punish based on results or to hold accountable. While there is a time and place for that, I'm glad Treliving appears to be taking the long view with our on and off ice assets. He's got the right approach, over the next season or two we'll start to see if he's got the right insights and judgement to go along with that process.

[DeluxeMoustache]

I understand that Treliving indicated they would be with the organization but that leaves open in which capacity.

I would be surprised if all of the coaches returned in their exact roles.

[activeStick]

Similar to other non-sport organizations, sometimes people are important pieces of the team at large and simply placed in the incorrect roles or placed in challenging situations. Good leadership can see that and instead of firing these people, move them to other roles that are better suited for their skills.

That's essentially what Treliving is saying here.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I understand that Treliving indicated they would be with the organization but that leaves open in which capacity.

I would be surprised if all of the coaches returned in their exact roles.

That's how I took it. They love all these guys and I can see why. Gelinas might not have worked out well with the special teams but you can give that duty to someone else and let him do what he's good at

[Cycling76er]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I am too lazy to look it up, but there was an article during Ramo's strong play this past season that cited the work Sigalet did with him, and how it benefited Ramo's game. IIRC, it also alluded to something about Hiller not working as much with Sigalet as Ramo did, as Ramo was more eager to be coached than Hiller was (or something to that effect).

Based on that article (and it was the only article I have read that touched on Sigalet's work either good or bad), I can see why Treliving wants to retain him.

I recall this article as well. I think it had to do with how far out Ramo was playing. Did some work with Sigalet when he was called back up that he credited to his improved performance.

[Dr. Doom]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

I'm curious as to what management sees in Gelinas. Most people want him gone due to his work with special teams.

You don't remove Gelinas from this organization, he removes you.

2004 buddy

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Dr. Doom

You don't remove Gelinas from this organization, he removes you.

2004 buddy

Yup

From the Hartley Fired thread

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

One doesn't simply eliminate, the eliminator.