[PGT] Oilers 7, Flames 4 -- Nadir

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

So taking a penalty helps how exactly? A coach is fully capable of not taking a penalty and get the best out of his players.

I don't think he's advocating having a reaction that will result in a bench minor, but there didn't seem to be any sort of reaction out of GG on the bench. He doesn't need to go Hartley fill brain meltdown but a serious conversation with the refs might've been nice.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I'm more worried about the 7 goals we allowed than our wingers. The wingers scored 3 goals last night (0 from the top line) and the Flames were a top-10 scoring team last year so why are you concerned about that aspect?

We need to play better defense and get better goaltending while continuing to put up similar offense from the past 2 years.

Last year the flames sacrificed defense for Offense. Sure, top 10 team for offense but last place for defense.

If the Flames are going to shore up the defensive side of things they will definitely lose some of their offensive punch, which means they are going to have to put more pucks in the net on less opportunities. 4 goals on 41 shots isn't exactly shooting the lights out.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Out of curiosity have you ever coached, or dealt with officials?

As much as people romanticize this, it doesn't work. There's a reason why your seeing less and less fly off the handle embarrass the referee type of coaches now.

Because it simply doesn't work, go ahead and embarrass a ref, yell your a$$ off, then be prepared to get a FU call when you can least afford it.

When you watch football, and you see coaches screaming at refs, that conversation that you see on the sideline isn't the ref apologizing or crying about how he screwed up a call.

Its the ref telling the coach to STFU and get off of his back or he can enjoy the game from the TV in the coaches office.

And the players don't sit there and go, awesome the coach has our back. They're all cringing and wondering if the other shoe is going to drop.

A coaches temperament is reflected by the players at all levels. Its likely if you have a coach losing his nut and screaming at the officials, the players are going to take up that insanity.

I've coached with head coaches, who go hard after the refs, its never ever gotten us a even up call, or an apology from the officials, or changed the way that the game is called ever. Most of the time the officiating has gotten worse for us. Not intentionally but the refs will suddenly a lot more on our side then theres.

I agree that it's not helpful to lose your composure, and showing up the refs isn't something you should do. But GG has to let the ref know that that was bullcrap, this is professional not amateur sports, almost every head coach in every sport yaps at the refs.

Also, why did he leave Elliott in to get shelled all game.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I agree that it's not helpful to lose your composure, and showing up the refs isn't something you should do. But GG has to let the ref know that that was bullcrap, this is professional not amateur sports, almost every head coach in every sport yaps at the refs.

Also, why did he leave Elliott in to get shelled all game.

My nonprofessional guess is because you don't want to pull your alleged new franchise goaltender in his first ever game? Also maybe to send a message to the team that they gotta work out their crap play. Or maybe just because he's terrible and we're doomed.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Last year the flames sacrificed defense for Offense. Sure, top 10 team for offense but last place for defense.

If the Flames are going to shore up the defensive side of things they will definitely lose some of their offensive punch, which means they are going to have to put more pucks in the net on less opportunities. 4 goals on 41 shots isn't exactly shooting the lights out.

Are you serious? 4 goals on 41 shots wins 9/10 games in today's NHL. To Generate 41 shots while being shorthanded 1/4 of the game is pretty impressive. Most NHL teams don't allow 6-7 goals every game like the Flames have the past year.

Edit: And I mean come on the top line hasn't played together yet this season and they are learning a new system to boot. 1 quality scoring chance from that line and it missed the net.

[BigFlameDog]

So what did the 960 guys say about the reason for the D pairings?

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yeah, but to be fair, you decided that you didn't like the coach before a single game, preseason or otherwise, had been played.

If this is anything like your previous coaching criticisms I eagerly look forward to several years of banal whining, hand wringing and consternation from you.

Well he was right about Brent Sutter, so time will tell if Gulutzan is a good coach or not.

If he misses the playoffs every year like Brent did, the criticism is certainly warranted.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Last year the flames sacrificed defense for Offense. Sure, top 10 team for offense but last place for defense.

If the Flames are going to shore up the defensive side of things they will definitely lose some of their offensive punch, which means they are going to have to put more pucks in the net on less opportunities. 4 goals on 41 shots isn't exactly shooting the lights out.

Isn't 4 goals on 41 shots pretty much the standard, if not slightly above? Just going by normal goalie save %. That's a .902%

Anyway, after absorbing the loss my takes are:

I thought each line had its moments. The top line got better as the game wore on, the TBB line pressured at times, Stajan and Chaisson were pretty good together and Backlund's line was fine.

Aside from Grossman and Elliott, there was no standout poor play. Bouma was a little too invisible for me. Monahan was a bit invisible, but he was trying to check McDavid all night. Wideman was better than I feared, Hamilton was OK. In fact, there were more players who played pretty well - Backlund, Frolik, Brouwer had good nights, Gaudreau was starting to play really well, Versteeg was pretty good.

Aside from correctable mistakes (playing Grossman) and bad nights from good players (Elliott), as well as the one horrific reffing sequence which turn the game on its head, the Flames would have won this game. So going forward, I'm not concerned with this one result.

[GreenLantern2814]

We can also blame the absurd 845 start time. Wtf was that about.

[automaton 3]

It probably won't help your relationship with the ref but it can help fire up your team.

Darryl Sutter is a master at this.

Passively standing there looking shell shocked a la Jim Playfair is not helpful.

[GioforPM]

On the coach:

I was a little worried ahead of the season when he praised Willie Desjardins (mind you thatw as about "team building"). I'm going to wait and reserve judgment on his systems. But if he refuses to line match - that's a Willie-ism.

I don't disagree with leaving Elliott in at the end of the game - he wasn't really getting shelled (as in being peppered by shots by a superior team). He let in two or three bad ones, so a pulling would have been because he was playing badly. If so, pulling hsould have happened early. I don't think pulling a guy in the opening game is a good move, overall.

I was a little concerned he didn't raise a little hell over the non-call/penalty shot. The team needs to know the has their backs vis-a-vis the refs.

[calumniate]

Maybe GG is saving up his emotional bank account, or whatever it is he talks about all the time

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

There is no excuse for Engelland having more ice in a game than Hamilton, especially one where the Flames are trailing 95% of the game.

That's not a problem IMO. I thought Engelland outplayed Hamilton last night. Love Hamilton on the power play but his game outside of that still needs a lot of polishing. Engelland is the better defender at this point in Hamilton's career.

The real problem is that Wideman played more than either of them when he shouldn't be leaving the third pairing or press box.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

So taking a penalty helps how exactly? A coach is fully capable of not taking a penalty and get the best out of his players.

You don't have to get a bench penalty, it's about sending a message to your players that you will not take bull**** calls. Gulutzan should never have accepted what happened last night. There was no message sent to the Oilers, or the officials. No he cannot change the penalty shot. Yes he may get a penalty. But it means that he is caring to get a win, and sending a message.

Quenneville gets fined on a regular basis. He's won 3 Stanley Cups. He fights for his players, and the Blackhawks tend to get a lot of calls going their way. The Blackhawks lost this game and eventually the series, but they went on to win the next year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6Tk_mIgL24

Gulutzan acted like the new kid on the block yesterday which he was. But you need to grow a spine as a head coach in the NHL, and he needs to play the part. Not pulling the goalie when down by 2 until there is less than 2 minutes left? The Oilers were hemmed in their own zone around 3 minutes left. It was perfect time to pull the goalie. There is just a lot I saw yesterday that came down to inexperience or simply bad coaching yesterday.

[itsmagic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Reasonable. But if you go full panic after two games, what can you escalate to after that?

I'll go with "doubleplusbad panic".

With thanks to George Orwell.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Isn't 4 goals on 41 shots pretty much the standard, if not slightly above? Just going by normal goalie save %. That's a .902%

Anyway, after absorbing the loss my takes are:

I thought each line had its moments. The top line got better as the game wore on, the TBB line pressured at times, Stajan and Chaisson were pretty good together and Backlund's line was fine.

Aside from Grossman and Elliott, there was no standout poor play. Bouma was a little too invisible for me. Monahan was a bit invisible, but he was trying to check McDavid all night. Wideman was better than I feared, Hamilton was OK. In fact, there were more players who played pretty well - Backlund, Frolik, Brouwer had good nights, Gaudreau was starting to play really well, Versteeg was pretty good.

Aside from correctable mistakes (playing Grossman) and bad nights from good players (Elliott), as well as the one horrific reffing sequence which turn the game on its head, the Flames would have won this game. So going forward, I'm not concerned with this one result.

Agreed with everything except Bouma and to a lesser extend Versteeg.

I'm not going to put any stock into Versteeg's play though since he literally just joined the team yesterday. He was engaged with the play which is all you can ask.

Bouma looked noticeable to me throughout the night. He was good on the PK and made a couple good plays in the offensive zone. I think he's faster than he's ever been, I had to double check the number a couple times. Pretty sure he was bumped up to the Backlund-Frolik line for the last half of the game.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

That's not a problem IMO. I thought Engelland outplayed Hamilton last night. Love Hamilton on the power play but his game outside of that still needs a lot of polishing. Engelland is the better defender at this point in Hamilton's career.

The real problem is that Wideman played more than either of them when he shouldn't be leaving the third pairing or press box.

Wideman made mistakes, but was not bad overall. No worse than any other defenceman, and better than Hamilton, Engelland and of course Grossman last night. Gio and Brodie had their issues as well.

Engelland was useful against McDavid and Lucic though.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Is this honestly a legitimate concern? As badly as the Flames lost last night, I'm actually quite positive about going forward precisely because Elliott has a proven track record of playing much, MUCH better than he did last night.

Proven track record means nothing a goalie when he moves to another team. It's been proven with Kipper (where he can't even make the Sharks team, but was outstanding with the Flames) and with Hiller (who was pretty good with a great Ducks team, but can't get it done with the Flames). Hitchcock's teams are always on the defensive side so there's more protection from the defensive perspective. But Elliot's performance last night gave me flashback shivers of Hiller moving across the goal crease all game long. Watching Elliot slide across his goal crease is like watching a Hiller sliding across in slow motion; and we all know how frickin slow Hiller was. That wasn't a very re-assuring way to start the season.

I agree it's not all his fault on some of the goals because of defensive breakdowns. But still, with a 3-3 game and he's not getting it done for his team when the other goalie is just as bad on the other end, I think it deserves a bit of a rant. I definitely expect the Flames opener on Friday will be a lot different than last night's performance.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

So what did the 960 guys say about the reason for the D pairings?

no one on the morning show had anything positive or any rationalizing to spin over the D pairings. In fact the show this morning was basically 3 straight hours of complaining about the D pairings from all 3 guys.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just have to ask yourself a few questions about Treliving to calm these worries down.

We know the man is a methodical tireless worker ... so he didn't hire a bad coach because he was too lazy to interview other people.

We know the man is process driven ... which means this wasn't a scan hockeydb and make a decision. We can probably assume (actually we've heard) that there was a pretty in depth process with systems and what ifs that helped them arrive at what they want behind the bench.

Burke doesn't know him, so that panic cycle can be skipped this time around. And even if he did we've seen enough hints lately that Treliving is going his way and not Burke's now.

So then what are we left with?

1. The process failed and they hired a dud
2. Treliving himself is a dud as he got the right guy with the wrong system.
3. It's one game

All valid points, but lets not pretend that Gulutzan hasn't been coaching in the NHL for several years now and doesn't exactly have a great body of work to fall back on. I'm hoping Treliving knows something I don't, but the Grossman signing makes you wonder if they're seeing the same games as everyone else. If the decisions were logical, then it would be hard to argue despite the results.