[Rumour] TSN: Peters status. Shake up trade. Hamonic's future

[oldschoolcalgary]

have no idea what's going on...

cycling through another coach after one year, and a year where they finished on top of the West seems crazy to me...GG was too soft and now Peters is too hard? Grow up and be a professional

BT needs to figure out where the discontent is coming from and then trade their asses off the team.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Joborule

That's kinda my viewpoint. Peter's may actually not be a good coach, but then again, he may be.

With how often coaches have been changed over the past several years, I think at this point you gotta stick with him, and ensure some stability behind the bench to instill a culture to the team.

If he's a hard ass and it doesn't respond well to certain players, then you move those players, and bring in those who will be willing to work up to his standards. Make the coach the commander of the team, and no player is above him.

I'm sure lots of players don't like playing with Bill Belichick. But I'm sure they don't mind knowing that season in, season out, they will be one of the best teams in the league, and have the strongest chance of winning the Super Bowl. If they don't do what's asked of the coach, they won't be part of the team.

So, are you saying
Belichick has two traits:

- being an a-hole
- a winning pedigree

And if Peters has one of these, keep him?

You are focused on the wrong one

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So, are you saying
Belichick has two traits:

- being an a-hole
- a winning pedigree

And if Peters has one of these, keep him?

You are focused on the wrong one

He's saying being an a-hole doesn't matter. Fire him if you think he's a bad coach, not just because a few players don't like him.

[Vinny01]

This good year, bad the next is getting very tiring.

First year of the rebuild (first full year after Iggy)
13-14- 77pts
14:15- 97pts
15-16- 77pts
16-17- 94pts
17-18- 84pts
18-19- 107pts
19-20- 79pts (on pace)

Based on where the Flames are at they are trending to be in a selling mode which means they can likely get multiple 2nds or even 1sts when Brodie and Hamomic are dealt. Frolik might return a pick if they eat half his salary. Perhaps Talbot as well?

That would put the Flames in a decent position to make major moves at the draft and they could either retool or stock the cupboards.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I think Hamonic is under appreciated on this forum.

He hasn't been great this year but he isn't alone in that category.

What he doesn't bring in terms of foot speed he makes up for in hockey smarts (again not counting a handful of games this year where the entire team has been awful). He broke his jaw a year ago sticking up for a player, blocks a lot of high danger shots and is the only D man besides Rasmus who makes a point of getting between a forward and our goalie after whistles.

I am not sure what the advanced stats say and I am not saying I want to see him extended to a big contract but at the time of the trade, he was exactly what Calgary needed. When we discuss what the flames are in need of, Tre often delivers. Unfortunately, what we think heading into the regular season hasn't often transpired on the ice and I am not sure Tre is to fault for that.

I actually have to agree with this post. I initially hated the trade since Calgary gave up a lot inadvertently with the way the team tanked so bad at the end of that season. However, Hamonic showed some real toughness that the Flames needed on the D. Hamonic is not flashy like Gio or Brodie, but he's a stable stay-at-home 2nd line D-man with a right hand shot. Flames were desperate to get depth and toughness on that right side. They got it in Hamonic in his second season as a Flames. It's too bad that Tre had his hands tied with cap issues trying to sign Tkachuk because Tyler Myers could've been signed and the Flames could've dealt Brodie and another body to keep the cap space down. If Tre does go down the route of trading or letting Hamonic go to free agency, he would basically need to find another right handed tough top-4 D-man to replace both Brodie and Hamonic for next season. The possibly of Gio not being a Flames get higher each season as well. So, that's 3 D-man and maybe Stone in the mix!

[FanIn80]

I still contend that Backlund is our most tradable asset. I also contend that we need top 6 wingers, and can afford the loss of Backlund with Monahan and Lindholm as our 1C and 2C.

[N-E-B]

This team is quitting on coaches. Firing Peters would be stupid. Quit letting these guys run the place.

If these guys can’t handle a coach after one year it’s time to look at moving the players, not the coach.

[N-E-B]

Dp

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

He's saying being an a-hole doesn't matter. Fire him if you think he's a bad coach, not just because a few players don't like him.

I read it as him saying keep him because “who cares if the players don’t like an a-hole, because here are a couple of successful a-holes”

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

So the players didn’t like Hartley and now they don’t like Peters? I think I sense a trend and it isn’t a coaching issue.

Want to talk about a trend? Here's the head coaches since D. Sutter.

Jim Playfair
Mike Keenan
Brent Sutter
Bob Hartley
Glen Gulutzan
Bill Peters

Speaks for itself.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by zamler

Want to talk about a trend? Here's the head coaches since D. Sutter.

Jim Playfair
Mike Keenan
Brent Sutter
Bob Hartley
Glen Gulutzan
Bill Peters

Speaks for itself.

It’s also worth mentioning the rosters we’ve had.

We just have never, ever had a fully realized roster. We’ve always had holes in the roster and a general lack of talent at important positions.

You can only ask so much of a head coach. He needs a proper roster, and we’ve just never had one unfortunately. Last year was probably the closest we’ve been to having a great roster, but it still had glaring holes and those holes were exposed.

I don’t think the issue with the team is the top end players or the coaches we have - I think it’s that we don’t have enough good players. We’re wasting money on bad players, and have other good players just mis-slotted.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

It’s also worth mentioning the rosters we’ve had.

We just have never, ever had a fully realized roster. We’ve always had holes in the roster and a general lack of talent at important positions.

You can only ask so much of a head coach. He needs a proper roster, and we’ve just never had one unfortunately. Last year was probably the closest we’ve been to having a great roster, but it still had glaring holes and those holes were exposed.

I don’t think the issue with the team is the top end players or the coaches we have - I think it’s that we don’t have enough good players. We’re wasting money on bad players, and have other good players just mis-slotted.

Yep. Backlund lucic frolik and buyouts must equal near 20 million.

Ugly

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by zamler

Want to talk about a trend? Here's the head coaches since D. Sutter.

Jim Playfair
Mike Keenan
Brent Sutter
Bob Hartley
Glen Gulutzan
Bill Peters

Speaks for itself.

I mean over this time, the entire roster has pretty much been turned over so I'm not really sure what the trend is.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

I mean over this time, the entire roster has pretty much been turned over so I'm not really sure what the trend is.

Super obvious strawman. We haven't had a legit coach since Sutter, and the lineup has been degrees of questionable since then. IMO the currently lineup is much better than they are showing and would flourish under the right coach. Doesn't mean there are no holes in the lineup.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Good lord. That’s the effort we put in (not sure what the trend is?)? I don’t know what the trend is in terms of roster?

Bob had the blown up, nothing roster, and we saw insanely poor tending from Hiller year 2

Top picks have been made, matured, made the lineup.

Now they have a damn good goalie, 4 guys around a point per game last year, and a guy who has twice shown up in the league top 10, just off a 99 point season. Can’t put it together.

False equivalency

Bob’s overachievers are not Peters’ deadbeats

[Calgary4LIfe]

I have no idea what is really going on behind closed doors with respect to Peters, or how well or how badly he treats players. I am fairly certain that nobody on this site knows as well.


With that said, I see absolutely no argument that either side can definitely make. For those that suggest that Peters should be retained and that he is a good coach - I can see the merit in that. Likewise, I see the argument for canning Peters as well, and I am totally sick of the counter-argument: "Yeah, sure, can another coach. That will solve the problem. - sarcasm".


There are a number of strong points to consider in that a new coach - the right coach - can be beneficial to this team. Hartley made gold out of lead for 1.5 seasons. Peters had a hell of a regular season. Gulutzan was always terrible. Aside from Hartley, none of these coaches are the type of 'proven coach' that a contending team usually has.


So no, it is not stupid or crazy to think that a new coach could actually change the direction of this team. I got criticized a bit for saying that Edmonton got a pretty good coach this off-season (though long-term you can probably expect some drama with management). They fired a whole whack of coaches, and arguably this is the least talented squad that they have had outside the top line. I still say that their couple of racehorses are going to be tired at some point in the grind of the season, but for now, Tippett has that team going.


Is Peters the right coach? I don't know. What I do know is that just because this team makes a few coaching changes doesn't mean that they 100% got it right with the Peters' hire. This is what did Darryl Sutter in as GM (IMO) when he stopped being the coach to concentrate on his GM job. He wasn't able to hire a single good coach. Anyone thing that Playfair, Keenan or Brent Sutter were any good? Maybe Keenan at some point in his coaching career, but definitely not the semi-retired coach the Flames got.



I loved Hartley because he got a lot out of the team, but he was too rough. Gulutzan didn't seem to know what to do. Peters? I am not convinced either way, but I am not convinced Babcock and his coaching philosophy that seems to be popular is really a 'thing'. Hartley showed that you can consistently win by having a strategy that involved more of a counter-attack philosophy. That DID work for 1.5 seasons, and then it worked again when Ramo returned and gave the team solid (unspectacular, but solid) goaltending right up until he got hurt.



However, I have always believed that coaching is a heck of a lot more than 'Xs' and 'Os'. You have to be the general, the motivator, the tactician that adjusts on the fly, the emotional evaluator, the psychologist. Probably a few more related disciplines. Does Peters do that? I thought that he was completely unable to settle the Flames down in the playoffs and have them neutralize Colorado. I didn't see any answers during that series. Was it really all on the players?


I don't know if there should or shouldn't be a move. However, it isn't like the Flames have just gone through Darryl Sutter, Barry Trotz and Scotty Bowman either. Just because they have gone through three coaches in the last number of years doesn't mean that it must be on the players. It just might mean that they aren't able to hire a good coach. No? What is crazy is people DEFINITIVELY stating as absolute fact that it HAS to be on the players since they went through enough coaches. No, that's completely wrong. It might STILL be the coach, it might be the coach and the players, or it may just be the players. To shut down any discussion on whether or not the coach should get canned and to claim that you know better than anyone else on this forum is what is stupid.

[DazzlinDino]

There was a time this team played for the coach, we saw the relentless comebacks, winning battles to pucks, the whole team played for each other, then one day they stopped, the smiles and effort went away.

There is a reason the "whole team" has quit on the coach. Something must have happened; We saw this last season and even in the playoffs, the team just had no will, or desire to move forward. I think consistency is important especially when coaching is concerned but if the coaches have lost the entire room trading for new players won't make any difference. I recall Backlund when interviewed a few years ago talking about coaching consistency, yet even he doesn't seem to be giving much of an effort.

We can talk about 2, or 3 players but it is obviously more than that, it is the whole team. That is concerning.

[Erick Estrada]

It's worth noting that Giordano is playing well below his Norris level of last season. It's hard to say how much of this is due to another year on the odometer and how much of it is him being caught up in the collective swoon by most of the roster. The issue seems to be more widespread than just Gaudreau and Monahan.

[Wolfman]

I would say that Giordano has been pretty bad to start the season. He doesn't get a pass from me that's for sure.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I would say that Giordano has been pretty bad to start the season. He doesn't get a pass from me that's for sure.

Sure seems like he's on the ice for a lot of goals against where he's out of position.