Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Until we truly invest in a full system makeover, from development coaches to scouts to GM to getting a truly great coach.

Fielding the right roster isn’t as easy as you make it sound...

Changing out he coach is a much easier change

Yes and we've done that for 29 years. 14 different coaches. We've had 29 years to field a better roster that could actually be more than just a middling team, but fact is, we haven't. Until we stop thinking the same way and trying to beat that square peg into a round hole, we're not going anywhere.

We tried to vastly different systems between 2 vastly different coaches and we're still getting the same results. I've already reached my conclusion on what I think needs to be changed and to me, it's not a coaching problem no matter how many people tell me otherwise. I've seen the same song and dance too many times for the last 20+ years.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Yes and we've done that for 29 years. 14 different coaches. We've had 29 years to field a better roster that could actually be more than just a middling team, but fact is, we haven't. Until we stop thinking the same way and trying to beat that square peg into a round hole, we're not going anywhere.

We tried to vastly different systems between 2 vastly different coaches and we're still getting the same results. I've already reached my conclusion on what I think needs to be changed and to me, it's not a coaching problem no matter how many people tell me otherwise. I've seen the same song and dance too many times for the last 20+ years.

If the coach doesn’t matter and it’s gonna take a way bigger change (I don’t disagree with you entirely) then why not put a coach in place who at least has an entertaining brand of hockey?

But blowing it all up isn’t what’s needed, getting in a time machine and stopping us from getting fleeced by the leafs back in the early 90s is likely what would solve this...

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Yes and we've done that for 29 years. 14 different coaches. We've had 29 years to field a better roster that could actually be more than just a middling team, but fact is, we haven't. Until we stop thinking the same way and trying to beat that square peg into a round hole, we're not going anywhere.

We tried to vastly different systems between 2 vastly different coaches and we're still getting the same results. I've already reached my conclusion on what I think needs to be changed and to me, it's not a coaching problem no matter how many people tell me otherwise. I've seen the same song and dance too many times for the last 20+ years.

The Pittsburgh Penguins have had 14 different coaches over the past 29 years. They have won 5 Stanley Cups during that period of time.

I think the Flames need a new coach and they should find a GM who is experienced and has had success in the NHL.
Dean Lombardi comes to mind as a GM, solid track record. Darryl Sutter would be a great coach.

Having a rookie GM whose previous experience was being assistant GM for a franchise that missed the playoffs for 7 of the 10 years he was there and then a head coach who had never won a playoff game was always a head scratcher. It has not worked out, we are back to square one and I think this is a good opportunity to get a new group in, give them a 5 year runway and see what they can do. BT had 4 years, this team had 2 more wins this year than they did the year before he became GM. That type of growth may be good enough in Arizona, but in Calgary we should have a higher standard.

[Vinny01]

The reason you have Burke in the POHO chair is so a rookie GM has an experienced boss to have as a mentor and sounding board. If you bring in Dean Lombardi then fire Burke and use that salary to pay a coach because we don’t need two old boys running the team.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

The reason you have Burke in the POHO chair is so a rookie GM has an experienced boss to have as a mentor and sounding board. If you bring in Dean Lombardi then fire Burke and use that salary to pay a coach because we don’t need two old boys running the team.

I would be fine with that, Lombadi's teams have always been more successful than Burke's.

[Toonage]

Lombardi/Sutter were a cup winning duo as recently as 4 years ago. We could do so much worse.

I'm a fan of Treliving, and I don't want to see him go but if there were a move to replace Burke/Treliving/Gulutzan with Lombardi/Sutter I wouldn't be too mad for too long.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Yes and we've done that for 29 years. 14 different coaches. We've had 29 years to field a better roster that could actually be more than just a middling team, but fact is, we haven't. Until we stop thinking the same way and trying to beat that square peg into a round hole, we're not going anywhere.

We tried to vastly different systems between 2 vastly different coaches and we're still getting the same results. I've already reached my conclusion on what I think needs to be changed and to me, it's not a coaching problem no matter how many people tell me otherwise. I've seen the same song and dance too many times for the last 20+ years.

I'm not exactly sure why you are going through so much trouble to defend Gulutzan. You watched the games did you not? You have seen the standings have you not? It's kind of a no-brainer at this point that the coaching staff has been part of the problem. I don't know how anyone at this stage could dispute that.

When you consider the following coaches over the past 20 years include; Page (poor), Brian Sutter (mediocre) Hay (horrible), Gilbert (even worse than Hay), Playfair (not effective, wasn't respected), Keenan (past his prime but laughably the best of the lot), Hartley (outdated methods), and Gulutzan (near identical mediocrity in 4 years with two teams) that just maybe a big part of the "song and dance" is that this organization has a habit of hiring bad coaches?

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Toonage

We know a major move or two is coming but I'd prefer they settle any coaching issues first. I think you want that coach in on any personnel decisions as they may have a plan or some idea of how they could get better production out of players that have been miscast or just haven't produced to this point. After this season you'll want a complete management team in place to make sure that everyone is on the same page going forward.

I hear you. Wonder how much of the left shot/right shot defensemen thing is just GG or is it Treliving’s preference too. Would they have paid up so much for Hamonic if GG wasn’t there?

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I've already reached my conclusion on what I think needs to be changed and to me, it's not a coaching problem no matter how many people tell me otherwise. I've seen the same song and dance too many times for the last 20+ years.

You need to accept that it's a possibility though. Gulutzan will be judged on his results (none so far) and that's the logical basis for doing so. The Flames won't just keep him around because you want them to, he's going to pay the piper eventually.

When the team does change coaches (which is going to happen, regardless of you not wanting them to) it's going to be a solid indicator of where the problem is.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Pretty sure personalities of coaches might play a bit of a role in the results and performance of the team.

Have you ever had a boss you liked working for? And a boss you didn’t like working for?

Who did you find greater job satisfaction and likely better performance for?

The point is that in the big picture results matter, are you winning or losing? Besides which you can "like" working for people with many different kinds of personalities.

Go back and read how the Habs players felt about Scotty Bowman, they only liked him on one day, the day they won the Stanley cup each year. They may not have "liked" him, but they liked working for him.

[The Boy Wonder]

So you’re proving my point. Bowman was a jerk but it got results.

The point I had been arguing wasn’t whether nice coaches are better than jerk coaches but rather debating classic_snipers opinion that the coach’s personality doesn’t impact results in any way.

[Flamenspiel]

Lol, you moved the goalposts.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Lol, you moved the goalposts...

Nvm

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

So you’re proving my point. Bowman was a jerk but it got results.

The point I had been arguing wasn’t whether nice coaches are better than jerk coaches but rather debating classic_snipers opinion that the coach’s personality doesn’t impact results in any way.

I think it depends upon the group, but there is an abundant amount of evidence that this current group of players could be significantly impacted by the coach's personality.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Yes and we've done that for 29 years. 14 different coaches. We've had 29 years to field a better roster that could actually be more than just a middling team, but fact is, we haven't. Until we stop thinking the same way and trying to beat that square peg into a round hole, we're not going anywhere.

We tried to vastly different systems between 2 vastly different coaches and we're still getting the same results. I've already reached my conclusion on what I think needs to be changed and to me, it's not a coaching problem no matter how many people tell me otherwise. I've seen the same song and dance too many times for the last 20+ years.

Over this time, the team has changed coaches, GMs and several rosters of players. Yet, no one ever points the finger at Harvey the Hound. How come he can't rally the Flames to success?

[Jetfire]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

Over this time, the team has changed coaches, GMs and several rosters of players. Yet, no one ever points the finger at Harvey the Hound. How come he can't rally the Flames to success?

He just hasn’t been the same since his tongue injury. Maybe he can be traded.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

So you’re proving my point. Bowman was a jerk but it got results.

The point I had been arguing wasn’t whether nice coaches are better than jerk coaches but rather debating classic_snipers opinion that the coach’s personality doesn’t impact results in any way.

When did I say this in anyway? Now you're just making stuff up and putting words in my mouth.

Of course, personalities matter. Hockey players are human after all and have to deal with coaches everyday. How could a personality not make some kind of a difference.

Anyways, there's too many posts to respond to and I'm too busy to deal with made up things or all these responses that I've already answered a millions times before.

People know my stance, our history to go along with the fact that there are good, experienced or expensive Stanley Cup winning coaches are sucking just as hard this year or even worse than us, tells me that a "good" coach doesn't guarantee squat.

Maybe Gulutzan actually is terrible or maybe he's the next Paul Maurice and Jared Bednar. I don't know, but what I do know is that I haven't read anything here that has altered my position no matter how obvious people think the answer is. You all have your opinion, I have mine.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Jetfire

He just hasn’t been the same since his tongue injury. Maybe he can be traded.

NSFW!

[Stay Golden]

Treliving over the next week(s) will probably be selling Gulutzan as the next Bob Johnson, Al Arbor, Scotty Bowman all rolled into one.
I have very little faith Treliving will hold Gulutzan responsible and fire him.
The only next announcement the Flames should announce is that the Flames have released HC Glen Gulutzan, and assistants Cameron, Gerard.
Anything else is just white noise.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Yes and we've done that for 29 years. 14 different coaches. We've had 29 years to field a better roster that could actually be more than just a middling team, but fact is, we haven't. Until we stop thinking the same way and trying to beat that square peg into a round hole, we're not going anywhere.

We tried to vastly different systems between 2 vastly different coaches and we're still getting the same results. I've already reached my conclusion on what I think needs to be changed and to me, it's not a coaching problem no matter how many people tell me otherwise. I've seen the same song and dance too many times for the last 20+ years.

I would agree if even one of the coaches we have been through since Darryl had any degree of success anywhere else, but they haven't. And we did well when Darryl was our coach (great coach, terrible GM).

To me, the fault lies with both coaching (complicated system that makes hockey a thinking game rather than an instinctive one, making every player who comes here worse than they were before, insisting that players must play on the side dictated by which side they shoot on, making everyone's shooting percentage worse by making plays develop so slowly that our opponents can react and get in shooting lanes and the goaltender can get in an ideal position for a stop, failing to make in-game or in-season changes based on the current situation) and management (can we just once hire a real coaching staff rather than head coaches with no NHL experience and special teams coaches with a history of creating league-worst special teams, and can we actually have legit 1st and 2nd line right wingers, along with a fast, young, tenacious 4th line?).