[News] Flames hire Bill Peters as the franchise's 19th head coach

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I dunno I think we haven't talked enough about how Peters trusted and gave ice time to some youngsters and therefore put them in positions to succeed vs Gulutzan. Gulutzan didn't start Jankowski on the big club and then gave him 3rd line ice time. Bennett? 3rd line ice time. That's not the way to develop those guys into confident scorers IMO. You want them to score and evolve into top two line players? Play them with some established top two line players. Mangiapane scores a crap ton in the AHL? Let's play him on the 4th line so he'll never have any offensive confidence at the NHL level.

I think Haynes perfectly illustrated just how different Peters approach to young skilled players was vs GG's. And on a club coming out of a rebuild we need a coach who is willing to trust young skilled players and put them in situations to succeed. Won't surprise me one bit to see Bennett explode under Peters. More likely guys like Foo and Mangiapane get roles on the top few lines if called up or if they make the team as well.

I am definitely glad to hear that he is quicker to play young guys, and give them more ice-time and better opportunities.

[Enoch Root]

I keep getting hung up on the goaltending. Crappy for 4 years in a row. Coincidence? Maybe.

But I go back to style of play and the types of chances that you're giving up. If you are giving up the fewest shots in the league, every year, and yet you are getting the worst save percentages in the league every year, you have to look at the style of play, and the types of opportunities you're giving up.

I hope it's the goalies. And I assume the youth of the defense is a factor.

But this stat worries me. Especially after what we've just been through.

[Ashasx]

Well Eddie Lack looked as bad here as he did in Carolina, so at least we have that for consistency between coaches.

[Toonage]

Scott Darling, Eddie Lack and an often injured Cam Ward.

It was bad.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If you agree with Haynes that he has one bullet left (maybe you don't) then by definition he is losing the ability to make certain decisions on his own isn't he? At a minimum as it relates to coaching.

As of now it appears he had the authority to make all decisions so no

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I said already I don’t agree
They either have confidence in him or they don’t
I don’t see a scenario where they take more control from him or becoming more active or him tolerating that

He already doesn’t have full autonomy over hockey operations. One look at the org chart tells you that unless something has happened I’m not aware of.

I think it’s a valid, but separate question, as to just how much confidence ownership has in BT. Or BB for that matter.

But to say there is no scenario where they take some control from him? Unless you know the Flames owners, I don’t know how you can come to that conclusion. That is quite a regular occurrence in business, don’t know why it wouldn’t apply here.

[Jiri Hrdina]

The statement was he was on a short leash now. Meaning he has less autonomy now
I don’t see any signs of that being true

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I keep getting hung up on the goaltending. Crappy for 4 years in a row. Coincidence? Maybe.

But I go back to style of play and the types of chances that you're giving up. If you are giving up the fewest shots in the league, every year, and yet you are getting the worst save percentages in the league every year, you have to look at the style of play, and the types of opportunities you're giving up.

I hope it's the goalies. And I assume the youth of the defense is a factor.

But this stat worries me. Especially after what we've just been through.

But it was more than just four years. Carolina has had bad goal prevention since long before Peters' arrival.

2011–12: 2.89GAA (26th)
2012–13: 3.31GAA (29th)
2013–14: 2.76GAA (20th)
2014–15: 2.67GAA (17th)
2015–16: 2.70GAA (17th)
2016–17: 2.80GAA (17th)
2017–18: 3.09GAA (20th)

The most glaring outlier here is Scott Darling. The question is how much of his struggles are attributed to coaching, or to the increased workload, or to various other factors.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think anyone can blame Peters on the goaltending. Lack is a back-up at best and Ward has always been inconsistent.

And I can't believe that Darling got that ridiculous contract. He was pretty much unproven and only had a handful of NHL games on his resume after being in the minors for a long time. So glad we dodged that bullet when we were looking for a goalie.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

As soon as they feel like they need to be more involved is the day they should just fire him
So no I don’t agree.
Again the statement was he’s on a shorter leash meaning those above him are taking more control. I don’t see any evidence of that

A shorter leash doesn’t mean they’ve taken control it just means he’s fewer mistakes away from them doing it

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

A shorter leash doesn’t mean they’ve taken control it just means he’s fewer mistakes away from them doing it

Sorry no that’s not what it means
That’s fine if that’s what people are trying to say but that’s not actually what the saying means.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Sorry no that’s not what it means
That’s fine if that’s what people are trying to say but that’s not actually what the saying means.

I’m not gonna argue semantics with you but I’m pretty sure that there isn’t one way that it is truly defined and I’d argue you are wrong on this one and have spent about 2 pages complaining about semantics

[JerryUnderscore]

Are we seriously having a semantics debate over the meaning of "shorter leash"?

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

Are we seriously having a semantics debate over the meaning of "shorter leash"?

It's gonna be another long off-season

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

Are we seriously having a semantics debate over the meaning of "shorter leash"?

It isn’t semantics. It has a meaning and on that basis is why I disagreed.
If indeed we all agree that he’s not on a shorter leash meaning control hasn’t been taken away from him then indeed the debate is over

[VladtheImpaler]

The phrase you were looking for was "Damocles' sword", not "short leash".

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It isn’t semantics. It has a meaning and on that basis is why I disagreed.
If indeed we all agree that he’s not on a shorter leash meaning control hasn’t been taken away from him then indeed the debate is over

I disagree. I think it is semantics.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It isn’t semantics. It has a meaning and on that basis is why I disagreed.
If indeed we all agree that he’s not on a shorter leash meaning control hasn’t been taken away from him then indeed the debate is over

I believe the original discussion was whether Treliving would have another coaching hire after this one, assuming Peters doesn't work out. Some people said Treliving is on a short leash, meaning he's on thin ice and will likely be fired along with Peter if it comes to that.

Whether "short leash" is the proper euphemism or not is irrelevant. The discussion should be about whether Treliving will survive another failed coaching hire.

As far as I can tell, the only way Treliving will be allowed to hire another coach is if Peters works out well. If he's here for the next five years with a few rounds of playoff success, it will go a long way to establishing Treliving's credibility.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I disagree. I think it is semantics.

I guess it depends on your definition of semantics.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I guess it depends on your definition of semantics.

Save it for the semantics dome.