[Rumour] G.Gulutzan front-runner for Flames HC - UPD: Hasn't been officially offered contract

[868904]

Stay Golden is normally a good poster but when it comes to Treliving, he has a serious bias, it's almost personal.

Right at the beginning of this thread, he came out guns blazing raging on Treliving and Gulutzan and said he wanted Muller. When a bunch of posters commented on Muller's poor coaching record, he then switched to wanting Reirden. When more posters start commenting on Reirden's lack of head coaching experience (106 games total at the AHL level), Stay Golden may change his tune to wanting someone else.

At this point, Gulutzan hasn't even been confirmed yet, and if Treliving actually surprises and goes with someone else, like Reirden, i'm sure Stay Golden will find something else to complain about Treliving somehow. Just like how the 3 goalie thing is Treliving's fault. Even though it is the coach's job to manage the goalies on a day to day basis.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

I disagree, I find there is a huge range of opinions on here...most of which are debated respectfully.

When concrete/emotional/outlandish statements are made and the author is unable to justify them with rationale thought, then it is not an issue of group think or ganging up, but a question of a poorly presented argument.

I hate to back ricardodw on anything but there is some truth to his comment. Having a contrary opinion is not always received well here. If you have an idea or opinion that is not part of the groupthink you leave yourself open to a lot of ridicule, even if your perspective plays out in the long run. This past season was a good example. I stated my displeasure with Wideman, Hiller, Bollig and Hartley early on in the season and took a lot of abuse for it. It just took time for people to see what I was observing and by the end of the season there were a lot of similar comments to what I had made at the start of the season. It can be tough to have a different opinion, especially when it comes to favorite players.

Having said that, ricardowdw is a different story. His post and thinking are so bizarre, and never come to fruition, that he is easy to take as trolling or posting for effect. I don't think he should be playing the victim card here as he works awfully hard to have a contrary view on pretty well every issue. Get down off the cross ricardowdw, it doesn't fit you.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When there were several candidates in the running, people argued about who they liked better. But it was pretty low-key.

Once a front-runner was announced, the pack closed ranks around him and that's where we got the mob mentality. The moment Gulutzan became 'our guy' it became disloyal to criticize him and dumb to second-guess the GM. Never mind that second-guessing the GM (and the coach) is one of the main reasons for sports forums to even exist.

I think there are a large group of people who didn't really have a preferred choice. Myself, there was a small number of people I didn't want (Crawford coming to mind) but apart from that I had no real strong preference. I liked the idea of Krueger only because I think he got a raw deal in Edmonton and it would be good to stick it to them. But that's not a rationale way to pick a coach.
So I think the "wait and see" crew was "waiting and seeing" through this whole process, for the most part.

[Point Blank]

Makes emotionally fueled, caustic, or baseless statements. Get a big negative reaction. Blame everyone for mob mentality.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

No it is just you.....(and a small group of internet bullies who are no worth standing up to) and I have moved on.

Come back from time to time to see if the dog-piling and bullying has lessened.

95% of people on these boards present their views in a measured and relaxed way, and engage in thoughtful debate and dialogue, because they understand that everything is subjective.

From what I can tell, you feel dog piled because you have a hard time explaining the logic of your opinions when challenged. I'm sorry you feel this way. But overall this is a fantastic forum.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

Makes emotionally fueled, caustic, or baseless statements. Get a big negative reaction. Blame everyone for mob mentality.

Well you can't say that about my post a few pages out which was questioned by Jiri and scolded by TC. I never said the hiring will be a disaster or that this is a terrible hire only that I have concerns and that I don't think there's much middle ground in that this hire will be great or bomb. I don't have a history of criticizing the GM so no bias here but I've been a Flames fan for a long time and have lived through the Ridebrough, Page, Hay, Gilbert, Keenan, etc bad hirings and while it's great that Treliving believes Gulutzan its nothing we haven't heard before every GM when a bad coaching decision has been made. Seeing that the Flames have a history of hiring the wrong guy I'm allowed to be a little skeptical as I know the history of this team better than Treliving and I've been a fan long before he was here and will continue to do so long after he's gone.

That said I'm already warming up to the hire and I'm sure after his announcement presser a lot of fans on the fence will open up to him. I intend to support him fully like any new hire as all I care about is this franchise winning and becoming a contender and if he can accomplish this I will be his biggest fan.

[VladtheImpaler]

This is the guy that pitched for the Expos in the 80's?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It's not hard to spot bias, when a poster comes in dead set against a guy, before there is any way of knowing how he would coach this team. Treliving has been reasonably transparent why Hartley was fired and what he wants in the new guy. Unless it can be demonstrated that the new guy does not fit the description, I don't think there is much to complain about. I get that the coaching record should matter, but it isn't a slam dunk conclusion that x candidate is worse than y candidate based on record. In particular when BT explains he is open to finding new talent and isn't looking for a retread (with a likely better record).

Looking back at the Hartley hire, I was not very happy. I thought he was a retread, living off the past of coaching a stacked team. Still, was willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and let him actually coach the team before making any declarations of "awful". As it turns out, I was quite impressed with how Hartley started and it was clear my first impression was not fair. I would only hope the new guy gets the same consideration.

[Bingo]

I like methodical thinkers, and Treliving is one of them.

He hits the process button often, and with that style you have a risk of being a guy that analyses things forever without ever making a decision. The flip of the coin is the emotional guy that talks "gut" and will get swayed in an interview by a guy that can talk but do little else.

Treliving has said he built a profile. Made a list on the profile. Talked to some on his list. Then revisited his profile. Narrowed things down. And arrived at a decision.

That says to me the current Calgary GM went through a thorough step by step procedure to hire who HE thinks is the best man to succeed as head coach of the Calgary Flames.

I have a tough time finding a problem with a process like that.

If you think the GM is an idiot (I'm sure some do) then you have every right to be worried. If you don't then you have to see this is a logical way to go about things in my mind.

He talked about having the puck more. He said Hartley took the team as far as he could.

That says his profile included possession, and likely more of a tactical approach. He mentioned winning, and didn't care what level as long as it could be demonstrated that the candidate was a significant part of it.

If that guy is Gulutzan so be it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

...I know the history of this team better than Treliving...

I think that is probably debatable. But even then, so what? As far as it pertains to how well or poorly he does is job, how important is Treliving's knowledge about the Flames' history in the grand scheme of things?

I get frustrated by opinions that are strongly influenced by fears about the (often random) repetition of history in this fashion. I am frustrated by opinions that are imbalanced in their evaluation of one candidate or player over another. This is the most important decision made by Treliving for this team in his tenure, so emotions and opinions are bound to be high. But unless he completely drops the ball here by hiring a re-treaded dinosaur like Ron Wilson, or a clearly unqualified neophyte with minimal coaching experience, then I see no reason why we should not be optimistic about his choice. I think most posters agree that Treliving is a bright guy, and that he seems to know very well what he is doing. Under these conditions I would be surprised if he makes a poor decision with his first head coach hire.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Scotty Bowman's head coach replacement in Detroit was his long-time assistant Dave Lewis. He lasted two seasons, spent three years in Carolina as an assistant, and hasn't coached since.

Yeah, so that was obviously the weakest of my criteria.

GG fits my other criteria better than Reirden.

[GoJetsGo]

The difficult part to fathom about those raising a stink is there's pretty much two things being pointed to with regard to the coaching search by fans:

1) Are you already familiar with the name?

2) If not, what's his coaching record like thus far?


Those two criteria are such a limited, inconsequential part of the hire it's bewildering to hear people ranting and venting apprehension and negativity with those being the only things to go on.

Treliving is very thorough and there's such a wide array of elements that would no doubt go into this interview process that it's pretty much impossible for casual fans to critique the hiring process with any semblance of certainty.

Saying you'll wait and see before casting judgement is a perfectly acceptable reaction, bit immediate apprehension, gut-bad feelings and the always fun impending doom are head- scratching reactions, although typical of a small contingent of fans / posters here.

[azzarish]

Whoever it is, we have no idea how he's going to perform until he actually stands behind the Flames bench. Only then can we ultimately judge him. For all we know he might not be most people's candidate for the role but may actually turn out to be a really good coach for us.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well you can't say that about my post a few pages out which was questioned by Jiri and scolded by TC. I never said the hiring will be a disaster or that this is a terrible hire only that I have concerns and that I don't think there's much middle ground in that this hire will be great or bomb. I don't have a history of criticizing the GM so no bias here but I've been a Flames fan for a long time and have lived through the Ridebrough, Page, Hay, Gilbert, Keenan, etc bad hirings and while it's great that Treliving believes Gulutzan its nothing we haven't heard before every GM when a bad coaching decision has been made. Seeing that the Flames have a history of hiring the wrong guy I'm allowed to be a little skeptical as I know the history of this team better than Treliving and I've been a fan long before he was here and will continue to do so long after he's gone.

That said I'm already warming up to the hire and I'm sure after his announcement presser a lot of fans on the fence will open up to him. I intend to support him fully like any new hire as all I care about is this franchise winning and becoming a contender and if he can accomplish this I will be his biggest fan.

How many coaches for the Flames has he hired? This will be his first, so to put past coach hires on him makes no sense.

You may have a better knowledge of Flames history than him, but I would be willing to bet he has a better knowledge of hockey than you. What is more important when hiring a coach? Flames history, or hockey knowledge?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Why is it so bad? I honestly want to know because you seem so sure about it.

It can't be just his two years head coaching record, or his years as asst in Vancouver. There has to be more to it since you're so sure of yourself.

I want specifics from you about his coaching style, his ability to relate to players, what kind of system he employs, how he plans to utilize certain players, etc, etc.

I mean, for you to whine so excessively about it you must have more to back up your opinion than merely what you've posted here, because if that's all you've got then you mine as well just shut up, because you have got nothing.

On the surface it seems like a pretty blah hire. Not sure why you're so puckered up about someone feeling like it's awful? It would be just as ludicrous to claim this is an amazing hire.

In a lot of ways it feels like the Flames settled to me as opposed to getting the best guy for the job. It was an incredibly long and drawn out search. Many fans probably were expecting a sexier hire to come out of all of it - hence the OP claiming it was 'awful'.

One thing for sure, Treliving is now officially on the books with the previous reign of terror all but completely wiped away.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well you can't say that about my post a few pages out which was questioned by Jiri

So questioning a post is a problem?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

On the surface it seems like a pretty blah hire. Not sure why you're so puckered up about someone feeling like it's awful? It would be just as ludicrous to claim this is an amazing hire.

In a lot of ways it feels like the Flames settled to me as opposed to getting the best guy for the job. It was an incredibly long and drawn out search. Many fans probably were expecting a sexier hire to come out of all of it - hence the OP claiming it was 'awful'.

One thing for sure, Treliving is now officially on the books with the previous reign of terror all but completely wiped away.

I think I only agree with bolded part, but it is entirely true. For me the Treliving clock finally starts to tick here. This is now his team, and he is on the hook for their progress/success starting now.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by 868904

At this point, Gulutzan hasn't even been confirmed yet, and if Treliving actually surprises and goes with someone else, like Reirden, i'm sure Stay Golden will find something else to complain about Treliving somehow. Just like how the 3 goalie thing is Treliving's fault. Even though it is the coach's job to manage the goalies on a day to day basis.

Not to defend him as I've never been a big fan, but Hartley was dealt a pretty bad hand by the GM going into the season. Treliving has made some errors and that goalie situation was a big one. He's also made some really good moves in a short period of time to tip the scales. As long as a GM is coming out on the plus side long term, he's doing his job.

A coach needs to get more immediate results and if Gulutzan doesn't, he should be on a fairly short leash with a contract that can be easily absorbed considering the trajectory this franchise is on with it's star players.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

On the surface it seems like a pretty blah hire. Not sure why you're so puckered up about someone feeling like it's awful? It would be just as ludicrous to claim this is an amazing hire.

In a lot of ways it feels like the Flames settled to me as opposed to getting the best guy for the job. It was an incredibly long and drawn out search. Many fans probably were expecting a sexier hire to come out of all of it - hence the OP claiming it was 'awful'

I said it above and I'll say it again:

Looking at it realistically and objectively what are the elements that would differentiate this from being (your words) a "Blah" hire vs. a "sexy" hire - not including a big name we're all familiar with (as there aren't any of those available)?

Aside from a massive name with an extensive head coaching history, things like:

- Philosophy
- Systems
- Temperament
- Personality

are all completely unknown elements to all of us.

How then, can this be judged with any degree of fairness as an astute or poor hire?

The answer is that it can't... and that comments like "this is a blah hire" are completely superficial and devoid of any true insight.

[Coach]

Treliving himself was a "blah/unsexy" hire. Everyone seems to want someone they know of, versus just trusting that the management team has done their due diligence and hired the person they thought was the best fit, and waiting to see what happens. Even if this whole "they missed out on better people" was somehow true, there are 30 NHL HC jobs. Just shear probability would tell you that there are more people qualified for any of those positions than are actually available. Even if they did miss out on decent, established candidates (I personally don't think that's true), nothing is to say that someone who doesn't come from that cloth isn't just as good if not better.

The knowledge we have of these people is so minimal that I don't see a reason to react at all either way, and just hope for the best. Even if someone like Carlyle or (horror) Ron Wilson was hired, I'd take a wait and see approach.

Also, even just leaning on one side of the fence or the other based on the Flames' history of coaches seems completely ludicrous to me. What does that have to do with anything?