[PGT] Bolts 7 Flames 4. Flames blow a third-period lead and lose for the 6th straight game

[CroFlames]

I think Tkachuk would outperform Ferland on the top line.

What effect that has on the other three lines is debatable, but in a vacuum, Tkachuk is the best option for the top line winger.

Tkachuk has 17 goals and 36 pts to Ferlands 31 pts. Putting Tkachuk with the Assist Machine Gaudreau would certainly increase his offensive output.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

Stone doesn't take much heat cause he's on our 3rd pairing...but a -5 night is pretty hard to do. Another 2 years left on the contract after this season, at $3.5M, for limited minutes and very limited offence. Many of us opposed that deal when it was signed, wishing that money was spent on a forward instead. Does anyone think there would have been a significant downgrade if we were playing Andersson or any other $1M fringe NHLer in his spot, and used that money on scoring?

Stone cost us no assets to re-sign, Hamonic cost us potentially a lottery pick. We'd be in exactly the same place with Stone + Anderson + 1st + 2x 2nds. But I guess Treliving just had to have a rapidly declining Hamonic.

Past couple games have been Stone's worst as a Flame. But I'm still waiting for Hamonic to have a better than average performance.

Guess I'm in the minority who isn't all that impressed with our pizza heir GM.

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Stone cost us no assets to re-sign, Hamonic cost us potentially a lottery pick. We'd be in exactly the same place with Stone + Anderson + 1st + 2x 2nds. But I guess Treliving just had to have a rapidly declining Hamonic.

Past couple games have been Stone's worst as a Flame. But I'm still waiting for Hamonic to have a better than average performance.

Guess I'm in the minority who isn't all that impressed with our pizza heir GM.

Damn seeing that just pisses me off. Team without Hamonic probably be in the same position.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Probably for the same reason the Gulutzan apologists obsessively want everyone to agree with them and see Gulutzan as a good coach. Strange how both sides want the other to see their side of the story?

I'm not.

Couldn't care less if you agree with me.

Nor do I feel the need to suggest anyone has clouded judgement, group think, are part of a CP collective, are fooling themselves, are blind, or your trick not as experienced as you so therefore irrelevant ... in sharing my opinion.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Bingo

They are outplaying teams and they've done so for almost three months. To me that's the aim of the season, get a team with a structure that is sustainable and let the results come. So he gets a check mark for me in the most important area.

.

How does a team outplay everyone for 3 months yet sit outside of a playoff spot? Bad luck?

This is a gross exaggeration of how well the team has played.

[Two Fivenagame]

Originally Posted by Metro Gnome

Did you know I sometimes stop by this site too?

The quote you see is me responding to people asking me about coaching tonight. Before that, I was very vocal about this being almost all on goaltending. Calgary outplayed TBay in aggregate. They deserved better. The list included were minor quibbles I had with GG's decision making, but they weren't offered as THE REASON for the loss.

As for being a "hack", that's your opinion I guess. I have dedicated years of my life to studying the game in great detail, both in terms of statistical analysis and scouting. I have hand counted stats and created my own databases to aid my writing. I have contemporaries and former peers contributing in front offices and I have been interviewed by analytical departments for input into advanced stats. I'm a published writer, and a former chief editor of a network of sites that are now some of the largest independent sports sites in Canada.

I'm certainly not perfect and not always right, but I put a lot of work and effort into my work and I stand by it.

Wilson to Tranny like

[delayedreflex]

Originally Posted by New Era

Probably for the same reason the Gulutzan apologists obsessively want everyone to agree with them and see Gulutzan as a good coach. Strange how both sides want the other to see their side of the story?



What determines whether a coach's system is working? Is it not ultimately results? It is not ultimately whether the team is achieving the production you expected them to? Is it not how well the players fit in that system and whether they are being used to their fullest potential? I guess that is where player utilization comes in, but does that not ultimately show in the results generated by the team?

This is not a team that is utilizing its players properly. Coming into the season it was predicted the Flames defense was going to be one of the picks from the NHL litter. Coupled with a solid starter this was supposed to be a rock solid playoff team. How close to reaching any of those expectations is this team? Do we think for a second that our player personnel is being used to its fullest? Are we leveraging the strength of the talent on the team or are they being cast into a system that works against their natural instincts and abilities? I think results indicate pretty strongly that we are not see the results expected from the talent on this team.



Are they? Are they really outplaying teams, or does the fancy stats tell you that they are? What I see is a team that spends a lot of time in the offensive zone and generates a lot of low quality shots and chooses stupid time to take shots. They pass up way too many quality scoring opportunities in favor of making an extra pass resulting in just more cycle or time in the zone battling for possession. Sure, they puck is in the one end of the ice more, but does that really mean they are outplaying the other team? Is it not possible the other team is taking exactly what the Flames system gives them and they are just playing us better on the defensive side of the puck? The Oilers under Eakins followed a similar flawed strategy and it achieved poor results as well. Could it be that other teams recognize what the Flames are going to do, and they allow them to take all these low percentage shots knowing they won't turn into much?



Gulutzan's utilization is terrible. You've highlighted a couple of them. He doesn't let any of his defensemen play the game the way they can. They are handcuffed by the system. His reliance on Brouwer and Stajan, two guys that would not have jobs elsewhere in the NHL, is disturbing. His refusal to change things up is just maddening. Same four lines pretty much night-after-night, hoping for something different to result. His refusal to step in and take a more active role in the PP is almost criminal. Its like he has no answers to anything other than to try and grind out a win.



Element one is no going well. The fancy stats say one thing, but the outcomes tell a completely different story. If your system is to play perfect hockey, you're going to lose. In Gulutzan's system the team may spend most of the game in the offensive zone, generating a lot of nothing, but with the Gulutzan Gap happening in the defensive zone there are too many instances of quality opportunities for the opposition. I don't see a system that is designed for success. Element two continues to be problem. A guy makes a brain fart, you don't leave him out there to immediately make another. You don't go and leave a guy out killing a penalty for a full two minutes, especially after losing two straight draws. Utilization is still a massive failure.



I would be more concerned about sitting down with Gulutzan and asking him about his decisions of when and how to use personnel. But if you want to sit down with both parties I would hope that you allowed the player to be frank and call out the garbage systems in play. No matter how good this team is 5-on-5, their special teams more often than not lose them games. I don't think that is on the players and their fortitude. That's on the coaches and the systems they put into play.

Generally agree about utilization - perhaps the most frustrating thing is that Gulutzan is very slow to adapt how he uses his players. Utilization was better this game than many previously - the defense jumped up into the play on offense quite a bit against Tampa, but why did it take half a season for the coaches to allow this? PP finally had some changes for the better, including Gaudreau on the right side, but it took them a dozen games of miserable PP to change it up. For the most part though, the worst thing is his game management and his inability to know who should be on the ice when. I don't know if he thinks keeping guys out when they are struggling somehow helps them build fortitude or something, but it's losing us games, straight up.

Knowing when to call a time out, or who to have out after a tough goal, or when to pull the goalie, or when to shorten the bench in a tight game - these should not be the hardest part of coaching, but they are the parts that Gulutzan can't seem to grasp and even if it's only 10% of coaching it's important enough to be the difference between winning and losing games.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Are they? Are they really outplaying teams, or does the fancy stats tell you that they are? What I see is a team that spends a lot of time in the offensive zone and generates a lot of low quality shots and chooses stupid time to take shots. They pass up way too many quality scoring opportunities in favor of making an extra pass resulting in just more cycle or time in the zone battling for possession. Sure, they puck is in the one end of the ice more, but does that really mean they are outplaying the other team? Is it not possible the other team is taking exactly what the Flames system gives them and they are just playing us better on the defensive side of the puck? The Oilers under Eakins followed a similar flawed strategy and it achieved poor results as well. Could it be that other teams recognize what the Flames are going to do, and they allow them to take all these low percentage shots knowing they won't turn into much?

Dallas Eakins' Oilers were ranked 28th in shot attempt differential and 25th in scoring chance splits.

I'm sure most teams follow the same strategy of trying to out play the other team, but he wasn't any where near what the Flames are doing in pulling that off.

If you don't like fancy stats you can ignore them, but they're not all that fancy.

More shot attempts ... good
More shot attempts closer to the net ... good

I can't imagine coaching against those philosophies.

[Teroy]

We may make the playoffs but will go nowhere. We don't have any draft choices so other than the possibility of adding a right hand scorer I see no improvement next year. I've felt for quite a while that a coaching change is the the only answer. GG might be a good assistant but he's not a good head coach.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Igottago

How does a team outplay everyone for 3 months yet sit outside of a playoff spot? Bad luck?

This is a gross exaggeration of how well the team has played.

It matches my eye test.

They're not the tire fire in their own zone that the used to be and it shows in the basic stats.

Not sure how that can be a gross exaggeration? It's pretty simple stuff.

[EVERLAST]

I never seen this team go without an identity for so long.

We used to hear hardworking, lunchbucket brigade, heart, never give up and now it's like oh oh.....when we have what appears to be a good game on hand and we get scored on we fold.

I keep hearing Bruce Boudreau speech in my own head.

What are you guys? Do you have to be perfect premadonna? So stuffs not going right !!! When you skate to the bench and your heads down and your feeling sorry for yourselves.....etc etc blah blah.

It's not wrong for any coach to say these things and I often wonder how often a coach needs to say these things.

I remember Conroy telling A story about getting beaten bad and he and Iginla sitting on the bench and Sutter looking over to see them looking over to them and him saying " don't worry guy's, I won't put you on the big bad ice again"!

What does this team need ? I think we have good leaders in the room I just don't know that these guys can back up what they say after they say it or we have guys that silently lead by example but other guys just aren't paying attention.

I think that room is gotta be divided. Gio plays hard but I don't know if he's the heart of the team.
Smith I imagine is vocal but prefers playing hard to illustrate his point.

Tkachuk just does whatever is required to win. Monahan is just boring. Johnny....who knows. Ferland doesn't engage much in fighting anymore and hits when he wants to now it seems.

Versteeg skating around telling guys no one likes them .....you get it .

I don't think these guys are all on the same page for whatever reason.

I hope to hell we can find something quick as the team should have gelled by now but hasn't.

In years past I can point to things which created a bond with these guys and gave them the identity they are missing.

It's hard watching when all you wish for is success and hope things go their way but the moment it doesn't you cringe.....the fragile mental makeup of this team has been commented on by every coach we have had.
The best way I've heard it expressed was by D Sutter when he said " don't get to high and don't get too low.

Im amazed at what rolls around in my pea brain sometimes when I think of this flames team.

[Calgary4LIfe]

With the 'should he or shouldn't he' pull the goaltender thing, I always think: "Two".

I thought Smith was having a good game and looked really good in net (the team in front of him, however, were gifting Tampa way too many glorious chances, even if they were out-shooting them). Suddenly a bad one goes in. You ignore it. As a coach, you go up and down the bench and say: "Let's get that one back for Smitty, he has been saving your bacons all game tonight".

The second one goes in? I pull him. I don't think you wait, and I don't think you look at the score. Every goalie lets a stinker in a game that they otherwise play great in, and the team usually has a chance to win. Two stinkers? That's a goalie not being sharp in my opinion. You pull him and hope that the backup - cold as he might be - maybe won't win the game for you, but hopefully won't lose it.

Considering how poorly I thought the Flames were playing defensively, it might have provided for that proverbial slap across the head to play better in their own zone. I just don't think you wait for bad goal #3 to happen. When it does, it is too late to respond and you lost the game. You are then relegated to hoping for a miraculous comeback, and you essentially have to switch your system into a river-hockey offensive game just to try and get close again.

Do I think Gulutzan screwed up there? I think so. I also understand the hesitation of pulling Smith - Smith has been sensational for the Flames and is a fierce competitor. Maybe he didn't want to rock the boat. Who knows? I just seem to notice that when a team has a starter that lets in 1 shaky goal, you should probably ignore it if the goalie is otherwise doing a good job. Two is the number that I think you have to act on. 3 is just too late, and you are simply salvaging the goalie's pride, or saving him for the next game/preventing injury as the game is already lost.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I think Tkachuk would outperform Ferland on the top line.

What effect that has on the other three lines is debatable, but in a vacuum, Tkachuk is the best option for the top line winger.

Tkachuk has 17 goals and 36 pts to Ferlands 31 pts. Putting Tkachuk with the Assist Machine Gaudreau would certainly increase his offensive output.

Heres the issue I have with that... Players aren't necessarily able to just swap sides of the ice and play the same style of games.

A left handed shot on the left side is able to protect the puck a bit better and get the puck down-low. One of the main reason that Johnny hasnt been moved to the right side and Tkachuk moved up to the top line left wing (which I wouldnt mind seeing).

But their play styles are too similar in wanting to get behind the net with the puck. To me, both Johnny and Matty seem to both thrive when trying to make plays from behind the net. This is, in my opinion, where I feel they clash.

What makes Ferland work so well is that he appears to excel along the half boards and cutting through the middle like a knife and over powering defenders. Matty can do that to an extent but his natural or default appears to be to get to behind the net so he is able to better protect the puck and make a play. This style compliments Backs and Fro, who like Monny and Ferly like to play more from the half boards to the front of the net.

But at this point mixing them all up, but with a sense of purpose, certainly wouldnt hurt anything... But that doesnt mean throwing Brouwer back in that top 6 and demoting Ferly to the 3rd line.

I dont disagree that Matty would be more productive on the top line, but that comes with the risk of that second line not being as productive. And no that doesnt indicate Ferland is inferior... It indicates that playing styles actually do matter when it comes to pairing players.

[monkeyman]

Advanced stats tell me that even though my buddy gets way more dates, I'm hitting on way more woman, so it's bound to even out. Right?
maybe my lack of success is me, maybe it's my buddy, or maybe it's my dating coach, who's encouraging me to hit on all these woman, but also telling me to rub my crotch and say, hey baby, you want some of this while I do it?

btw, I'm my own coach.
it's going to work one of these days.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

I never seen this team go without an identity for so long.

Oh no, this team does have an identity alright. Problem is, it's a terrible one, the wrong one.

Right now, they are the find a way to lose Flames. That's their identity until further notice.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It matches my eye test.

They're not the tire fire in their own zone that the used to be and it shows in the basic stats.

Not sure how that can be a gross exaggeration? It's pretty simple stuff.

I believe the anti-advanced stats crowd are being purposely obtuse to further their view point. It is simple.

Here is last nights 5 on 5 shot chart. Numbers aside, this isn't complicated. Calgary had more shots from in close. It just so happens that Tampa did a better job capitalizing on shots from, or behind, the goal line.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

The second one goes in? I pull him. I don't think you wait, and I don't think you look at the score. Every goalie lets a stinker in a game that they otherwise play great in, and the team usually has a chance to win. Two stinkers? That's a goalie not being sharp in my opinion. You pull him and hope that the backup - cold as he might be - maybe won't win the game for you, but hopefully won't lose it.

Smith should have been replaced for the 3rd, it is very difficult for a backup to go in stone cold at moments notice. Especially one that hardly plays at all. Maybe it would not have worked but it sure as heck had a better chance then leaving Smith is, it was blatantly obvious he was not right after the 3rd goal.

Anyone defending Gulutzan for not pulling Smith until it was way too late are massive apologists.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by zamler

Anyone defending Gulutzan for not pulling Smith until it was way too late are massive apologists.

Anyone who doesn't share my opinion is a *insert insult here*

I hate that stance.

Far too binary for a complicated issue.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

Anyone who doesn't share my opinion is a *insert insult here*

I hate that stance.

Far too binary for a complicated issue.

Nothing complicated at all, about the easiest and simple call Gulutzan should have made. You don't think the results of the game back that up?

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by kevman

I believe the anti-advanced stats crowd are being purposely obtuse to further their view point. It is simple.

Here is last nights 5 on 5 shot chart. Numbers aside, this isn't complicated. Calgary had more shots from in close. It just so happens that Tampa did a better job capitalizing on shots from, or behind, the goal line.

Do you think a boxer who throws a lot of in close punches but often gets knocked out is a good fighter?