The Deal With Geoff Ward

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well you're more than welcome to your opinion.

Doesn't fit with what I've heard and seen from Trelving at all.

Peters was anything but a pushover, and had a lot more resume than you're giving him credit for.

Honestly ... I don't think Ward was his first choice as I've said earlier.

I'm having a tough time buying that one

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Across these things you are looking for things to confirm something you have already decided. I'm not saying Ward is a good coach but there is a whole lotta confirmation bias happening here.

What do you see the difference to be between confirmation bias and the concept behind the scientific method of hypothesizing and then looking at the data available to see how it fits that hypothesis?

A post on the internet expressing an opinion is likely not going to be presented with the same structure as a full lab report, of course

I would also suggest it is plausible that there is difference between a strong coach who is not a pushover, and one that Tre would view as a potential political or existential threat, and that naturally Tre probably would be much less interested in the second type

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I'm having a tough time buying that one

Then don't.

As I said earlier I think the fact that it took longer than he first said, and that Laviolette was hired the day before Ward is interesting.

Not a fact at all.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Across these things you are looking for things to confirm something you have already decided. I'm not saying Ward is a good coach but there is a whole lotta confirmation bias happening here.

What evidence of Ward being a good coach am I ignoring. Because if you can't provide some then you can't claim I am guilty of confirmation bias. Who is having years above expectation? Who is at expectation? Maybe Lindholm and Mangiapane are at expectations. Everyone else is either slightly or well below.

My point was simple. We are told the players don't care or aren't trying. I described two players who will do whatever Ward asks them to do, and both are performing below expectations. Or are they also not trying?

Nobody is doing mental gymnastics to make Ward a bad coach. His results with the Flames thus far and his meagre body of work as a head coach point to him being completely mediocre.

Many have asked, and we are still waiting for some description of the positive things Ward does as a head coach. Until some positives are pointed out I'm not sure how you can accuse me of confirmation bias because I point out the negatives.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well you're more than welcome to your opinion.

Doesn't fit with what I've heard and seen from Trelving at all.

Peters was anything but a pushover, and had a lot more resume than you're giving him credit for.

Honestly ... I don't think Ward was his first choice as I've said earlier.

You are correct I'm that Peters was the most experienced of all Trelieving hires, at many levels of hockey. But I also believe Peters and Trelieving had history from hockey Canada, which fits my narrative that Peters was a "Trelieving Guy". I mean, I have no personal experience with either person, so I can't tell you the power dynamics for a fact.

I'm just saying I see a pattern where Trelieving seems to hire guys who won't challenge him.

Peters is of course a tough one to asses as he was fired for non results reasons. We don't know how last year would have played out if his issues didn't exist and he wasn't fired.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I didn't say he was a good coach.
But that's different from saying the bubble guys are struggling because of what the coach is telling them.
Or that BT doesn't want an established coach.

Again I didn't say Ward was a good coach.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

What do you see the difference to be between confirmation bias and the concept behind the scientific method of hypothesizing and then looking at the data available to see how it fits that hypothesis?

A post on the internet expressing an opinion is likely not going to be presented with the same structure as a full lab report, of course

I would also suggest it is plausible that there is difference between a strong coach who is not a pushover, and one that Tre would view as a potential political or existential threat, and that naturally Tre probably would be much less interested in the second type

The biggest difference is he's not really looking at data. He's looking for patterns that fit his hypothesis.
For instance the hypothesis is the depth players are underperforming because of what the coach is telling them.

We know the depth players are struggling
What data supports it's because of what the coach is telling them? I suppose historic performance and their declines since being in Calgary? But there are several other factors that could be influencing that. Have those been examined?

Agree the standard is far lower for an internet chat forum, but I just think a lot of people are looking at things that suit their narrative.

We all do it. I do it. But let's be aware of this biases as they come into play.

[TornBetween2Pucks]

I would also suggest it is plausible that there is difference between a strong coach who is not a pushover, and one that Tre would view as a potential political or existential threat, and that naturally Tre probably would be much less interested in the second type[/QUOTE]

Tre isn't worried about losing a GM job to a coach. Name one good coach who has his eye on his GM's job. They don't exist anymore. He analyzed the situation, took advice from his 'team', knew the budgetary constraints he would be working with, and made his decision.

As far as the political threats go, even the most volatile of coaches (Torts) only bring up their managerial criticisms behind closed doors. Babcock, being the arrogant, put the blame on everyone else type of guy he is, made comments openly critical of Dubas, but that behaviour (coupled with his being a jerk) has him on the sidelines. Boudreau, Gallant, and whatever other experienced coaches were available aren't threats to any GM.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Ward did a fine job on an interim basis, I'm just not sure how he managed to get the contract extension that he did (term-wise). Like, was Treliving afraid they were going to lose him if he only signed him to a year? Handcuffed the team a little further.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The biggest difference is he's not really looking at data. He's looking for patterns that fit his hypothesis.
For instance the hypothesis is the depth players are underperforming because of what the coach is telling them.

We know the depth players are struggling
What data supports it's because of what the coach is telling them? I suppose historic performance and their declines since being in Calgary? But there are several other factors that could be influencing that. Have those been examined?

Agree the standard is far lower for an internet chat forum, but I just think a lot of people are looking at things that suit their narrative.

We all do it. I do it. But let's be aware of this biases as they come into play.

Very sanctimonious. Exactly what data should I be looking at to confirm Ward is a good or bad coach? Wins/losses, CF%, goal differential? Are we statistical darlings under Ward?

You seem to be honing in on one of many things I and other people have said. Stawman much?

Supporters of Ward (and detractors of the core) like to say the core is heartless and/or not doing what they are told. I merely pointed out that the players who are mostly likely to bust their butt on every shift and do exactly what they are told are also struggling. At least argue Lucic is the exception.

The frustrating part of this discussion is that Ward detractors point out, time after time, what they believe to be things that show Ward is not effective as a head coach. Instead of a single counterpart the response is "the core is rotten/heartless/not skilled enough.

If you want to talk about confirmation bias let's talk about the complete and utter discounting of the fact the Flames finished second in the NHL two years ago. People ignoring that are guilty of confirmation bias. Not people who point out that Ward has done exactly squat as a head coach.

[zamler]

CP seems to be stuck in a loop when it comes to head coaches. We heard many of the same talking points defending the previous hires.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Very sanctimonious. Exactly what data should I be looking at to confirm Ward is a good or bad coach? Wins/losses, CF%, goal differential? Are we statistical darlings under Ward?

You seem to be honing in on one of many things I and other people have said. Stawman much?

Supporters of Ward (and detractors of the core) like to say the core is heartless and/or not doing what they are told. I merely pointed out that the players who are mostly likely to bust their butt on every shift and do exactly what they are told are also struggling. At least argue Lucic is the exception.

The frustrating part of this discussion is that Ward detractors point out, time after time, what they believe to be things that show Ward is not effective as a head coach. Instead of a single counterpart the response is "the core is rotten/heartless/not skilled enough.

If you want to talk about confirmation bias let's talk about the complete and utter discounting of the fact the Flames finished second in the NHL two years ago. People ignoring that are guilty of confirmation bias. Not people who point out that Ward has done exactly squat as a head coach.

There were many reasons, including overachieving perhaps, but also the defence was better. This season specifically, it's taken a hit (not surprising as two of the top 3 from that era are gone), as has all forward scoring. There's plenty of the blame to go around.

• GM's moves have not filled out the lines with championship calibre players for their position in the lineup
• GM has handcuffed the team with overpaid and/or longer term contracts
• Coaching has them performing under their ability
• Players have tuned out (again) and thrown the coach under the bus (minus Markstrom and Lucic), with no leaders stepping up publicly

Again, tons of blame to go around. Everyone gets in their rut and honkers down on coaching, and that's probably the number one factor, but the GM and players have almost as much culpability here.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Very sanctimonious. Exactly what data should I be looking at to confirm Ward is a good or bad coach? Wins/losses, CF%, goal differential? Are we statistical darlings under Ward?

You seem to be honing in on one of many things I and other people have said. Stawman much?

Supporters of Ward (and detractors of the core) like to say the core is heartless and/or not doing what they are told. I merely pointed out that the players who are mostly likely to bust their butt on every shift and do exactly what they are told are also struggling. At least argue Lucic is the exception.

The frustrating part of this discussion is that Ward detractors point out, time after time, what they believe to be things that show Ward is not effective as a head coach. Instead of a single counterpart the response is "the core is rotten/heartless/not skilled enough.

If you want to talk about confirmation bias let's talk about the complete and utter discounting of the fact the Flames finished second in the NHL two years ago. People ignoring that are guilty of confirmation bias. Not people who point out that Ward has done exactly squat as a head coach.

One huge issue is that half of the things people “point out” are not actually happening on the ice, or happen very rarely. They talk about D to D passes when, on viewing, these happen only on a line change or when there’s no up ice pass. They go up ice with the first pass far more. Or saying the Flames are coached to dump and chase when they, again, only do that when there’s no available entry lane or pass. It silly things like complaining every single time the 4th line comes out. People complain if the 4th line plays after a goal against, a goal for, a power play, a PK, if the Flames are behind, or ahead, if they are struggling, if they are playing well... I’ve literally heard all those complaints. People put a blown coverage on the coach. They put a lazy back check on the coach. A missed pass. I guarantee I can find someone who said Lucic-Bennett’s missed pass was because of coaching. I might even be able to find someone blaming Rittich’s gaffe on Ward.

ETA: there are plenty of legit complaints. They aren’t disciplined with their passing, they are a collapsing passive D, and their powerplay is static.

[Calgary4LIfe]

This is a confused looking team.


I still pin this on Ward, and I really do feel he has to go. The players aren't absolved from this, however, but the first step is Ward (unless you happen to feel that the first step is Treliving - I won't argue).


What's going right on this team?
Goalies - for the most part - have been outstanding, Rittich included.
Tanev - Hanifin have been good for the most part, though they seem unable to generate a lick of offence, they are far from the problem.


However, everyone else at least at one point or another has looked like hot garbage. This is causing the Flames to be:

• Weak on offence - they can't generate squat right now
• Weak on defence - they look lost in their own zone
• Poor transitioning team - simple passes are not working, not getting open, not playing with enough speed, not playing 'heavy' enough, not out-working anyone
• Back-checking terribly - lack of effort, and often picking up the wrong assignments
• PK was great for a short while - where has it gone?
• PP seems to be cooling off too
• Aren't even playing very physical
• Don't even stick-up for each other like they should

This team looked confused/uncomfortable to start the season. They had games where they looked better for a while, but then have started looking more and more disjointed as the season wore on. They went from looking like they were confused, to shell-shocked, and now they actually look apathetic.


It isn't one player. Pick a game and there have been at most less than a handful of players that I thought had strong games.



Flames are not good at anything consistently enough except their goalies are coming through. That's it. I may be wrong - I hope I am wrong - but I don't see them do anything good out there with any consistency whatsoever.



They really look overwhelmed out there, and it doesn't appear that anyone has any answers. They have games when I think they gave a solid effort, but they end up just chasing the puck. Sustained zone pressure and looking very dangerous, only to make an errant pass, giving the opposing team the better chance. Great zone time, moving the puck well, and then getting off a low-quality shot. Even cross-ice passes that connect are being bobbled, and the player sometimes takes too long to shoot.


It just seems like most things are going wrong right now, and nobody seems to have any real answers.


I think some people sound rather alarmist because I think they see the same things that I have been seeing - nothing really working in any area.


During those long losing streaks under Hartley, Gulutzan and Peters, the Flames showed 'something' through them. They weren't terrible at everything in consecutive games. Sometimes it looked like they were terrible defensively and were cheating too much. Sometimes too careful on defence, and played it too safe. You could see them working on parts of the game and improving, even if results didn't work out. Sometimes in those losing streaks, they would run up against a hot-red goaltender and just lose because of it, while looking like they were dominating in all zones and actually looking like a dangerous team creating dangerous chances.



But this? What is this?


I don't know what I am watching. I have no idea what is wrong. However, it really, really seems to me like Ward doesn't know either, and that's why I want to see a coaching change. You listen to him have zero answers in the post-game briefings. You see this team play so disjointed in every zone.



On top of this, they are so boring to watch. I mean, it isn't usually fun to watch your favourite team lose, and it especially sucks watching them during a losing skid, but this is something different. It just seems like this team has become - overnight I may add - the most boring team in the NHL to watch.


I remember a few weeks ago, the talk was about this team's identity, and trying to figure out what it is. Well, so far:

• Easy team to play against. Less and less physical as the games pass. Even when they got blown out, they seemed to just accept it.
• Easy to neutralize and defend against.
• Easy to maintain zone time and break-down defensively.

That's the team identity right now - the "Boring and easy to play against team". It doesn't seem like they have any answers at all right now.

[Backstop]

I see merit in the arguments of the core carrying a proportionate deal of the blame with Ward for what we currently see on the ice.

Perhaps as hypothesized the players did want the 'easy going players coach', which more often than not leads to the inevitable conclusion in any team environment if no one is holding people to task, individuals will slack off.

That same person (in this case Ward) if they initially failed to hold people accountable will typically find a now fractured group divided between those that drive themselves and those that need to be driven so to speak - the Doers and the Floaters essentially.

The result overall would not do anything to build any form of cohesive team environment and setting out a stricter set of guidelines in that scenario would usually require a new manager and a turfing of the floaters.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by zamler

CP seems to be stuck in a loop when it comes to head coaches. We heard many of the same talking points defending the previous hires.

Because the organization keeps hiring bad coaches. I don't think Peters was a bad coach in regards to X & O's and such but the Babcockian bully approach no longer works in today's NHL. Gulutzan and Ward are just not NHL head coach material. Given there was no coaching change yesterday I assume the plan is to just stick with the status quo until the offseason.

[bubbsy]

Listening to versteeg on the fan,we are back in the gultzan, slow breakout, makes team look slow.

Keep having d going behind net for a controlled breakout.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

His history of coach hirings would indicate that he doesn't want an established coach who can push back on him.

These are not necessarily indicative of each other.
It is true he has not hired coaches with past head coaching experience other than Peters.
There is nothing to say or show there is no push back.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Listening to versteeg on the fan,we are back in the gultzan, slow breakout, makes team look slow.

Keep having d going behind net for a controlled breakout.

The fact they are back to this horrendous playing style is simply unacceptable. Ward needs to go and Treliving can follow him if he doesn’t think this team needs a major change in how they play.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Listening to versteeg on the fan,we are back in the gultzan, slow breakout, makes team look slow.

Keep having d going behind net for a controlled breakout.

Versteeg must not be watching games then.