The Deal With Geoff Ward

[nik-]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

Ward was part of the Bruins team that won a championship but in his mind he orchestrated winning the championship.

In all my years as a fan, I don't think I've ever hated a coach as much as I do with Ward. Even his press conferences he thinks he's the king and can do no wrong.

I think that's what gets me the most about him, his seeming unwillingness to take being questioned. Someone with his track record should have to explain everything because no one knows why he does the things he does and he hasn't earned being just trusted because the results are terrible.

Totally unwarranted arrogance.

[Voodooman]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Appreciate the passion. But if you have $100 to give please direct that to a worthy cause.

I also don't think 1000000 would be enough for Boudreau. He's doing okay not working right now. Which I think is a bit of a factor for some guys. If you are still getting paid, why take a lesser paying job in this environment?

I don't know how long Wards contract is, and I'm not sure if there was a settlement with Peter's which is still being paid. But it might be at a point where it's either Brad himself or one of his assistants who would need to take over

Dude, at this point, I’d be happier if you were named interim coach.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I agree with GioforPM that there have been a lot of contradictory, and even flat out wrong takes, with respect to Ward's coaching and systems.

However, there have also been plenty of accurate takes. And there are some real sources of concern, that shouldn't simply be swept away, just because there are also issues that aren't the fault of the coaches.

Jiri mentioned that he thought Ward would be a good communicator, but it appears that he hasn't been. I agree with Jiri, and was likewise surprised by that. Of all the things that Ward might or might not be, I figured communication would be one his strengths. But it hasn't been.

Another major source of concern for me refers to the bolded above - that much of what Ward is preaching comes down to playing not to lose. Gulutzan called it 50/50 hockey and it permeated everything he did. Ward seems to be following the same script. It is all about individual battles, support and numbers, and positioning. Maintaining 50/50 hockey. Playing safe. However,

1) it is boring as #### (just like with Gulutzan), and
2) it doesn't suit the Flames' roster

Ward seems like a great guy. He has a solid resume as an assistant coach. But he seems to be in over his head right now, and he is deploying a strategy that has little chance of success with the horses that he is running with.

And he appears to be becoming more and more desparate.

My issue with Ward is mainly about getting his players to buy in. While one style or another may suit a particular player more, this team doesn’t really have one style of player. It’s not a team with horses to run and gun, but aside from that I think they could play any style. So I really don’t think any systems should inherently have more or less success (though I certainly don’t disagree he has a passive defensive system). I don’t think his offence is particularly exciting but that’s not his job.

But whatever his offensive and defensive systems are they would work better if the players executed them , and they are not - through focus, effort, unwillingness or whatever reason. Some have - I’d say Monahan has tried to change his play. Other’s haven’t - Tkachuk for example. And at the end of the day, while each player has a responsibility to do what he’s asked, the buck stops at Ward when they don’t.

I do think it’s funny when you get people calling for stretch passes when they hated them when Hartley was here, or saying Ward should be tough, but then say “I didn’t mean at Bennett”. Or when they complain the play is too conservative and then complain when passes up ice are blocked or intercepted.

[Goriders]

From what I’ve seen Geoff’s biggest problem is the team he inherited. How many coaches have rolled through here with similar results? The root problem is the super soft top 6 core forwards. They are coach killers.

I don’t honestly thing Boudeau or Gallant would want to come to Calgary after watching what this group of snowflakes has done to the last handful of coaches to roll through town.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I suggest you watch a game...Detroit was all over the Flames and Kipper stood on his head. As the years go by people seem to think the 04 Flames were some dominant team. Realistically if Bert doesn't lose his #### the Flames are out in round one.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Larry Robinson won a cup as a last minute replacement and then went to the Finals the next year. But then he sort of petered out as a head coach and became a long time AC. He’s the only guy in the modern era who was even close to Iginla’s level and became a successful coach that I can think of.

Carlyle was a good player. So were Ruff and Tocchet. But not elite.

The list of players who got HC gigs based a lot on their rep as a top player and who failed is longer. Gretzky, Roy (but he did a while in junior), Delvecchio, Ftorek. The list of great coaches who never played at all at the NHL level is way longer.

Jacques Lemaire is probably the best [modern-ish] player to be a top 25ish all-time coach?

As we all know, that bum Iginla wasn't even one of the 100 greatest players of all time. Scrolling through that list does lend credence to the idea that great players might be better executives. It's also still annoying to see the likes of Denis Savard, Lafontaine, D Keith, Toews, or even Sundin on that list ahead of Iggy.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Goriders

From what I’ve seen Geoff’s biggest problem is the team he inherited. How many coaches have rolled through here with similar results? The root problem is the super soft top 6 core forwards. They are coach killers.

I don’t honestly thing Boudeau or Gallant would want to come to Calgary after watching what this group of snowflakes has done to the last handful of coaches to roll through town.

It’s hard to disagree when every coach has had the team tune them out (including Hartley and Peters).

I’d say, if you bring in a coach you probably need a guy with a big enough name where even the star players know he’s not going to be the next guy to go - they are.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Jacques Lemaire is probably the best [modern-ish] player to be a top 25ish all-time coach?

As we all know, that bum Iginla wasn't even one of the 100 greatest players of all time. Scrolling through that list does lend credence to the idea that great players might be better executives. It's also still annoying to see the likes of Denis Savard, Lafontaine, D Keith, Toews, or even Sundin on that list ahead of Iggy.

Lemaire was good, but overshadowed by both his wingers. Funny - he was on the offensive line on a run and gun team and he ended up inventing a supremely defensive style.

[TheSquatch]

Originally Posted by Goriders

From what I’ve seen Geoff’s biggest problem is the team he inherited. How many coaches have rolled through here with similar results? The root problem is the super soft top 6 core forwards. They are coach killers.

I don’t honestly thing Boudeau or Gallant would want to come to Calgary after watching what this group of snowflakes has done to the last handful of coaches to roll through town.

Same criticism you see in Edmonton - the team is awful, has gone through 5 coaches in 6 years or whatever... and you can say "Okay these weren't top tier coaches (except maybe McClellan)" but at some point, the players, the build of the team, has to be in question.

Long overdue with this team.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

My issue with Ward is mainly about getting his players to buy in. While one style or another may suit a particular player more, this team doesn’t really have one style of player. It’s not a team with horses to run and gun, but aside from that I think they could play any style. So I really don’t think any systems should inherently have more or less success (though I certainly don’t disagree he has a passive defensive system). I don’t think his offence is particularly exciting but that’s not his job.

But whatever his offensive and defensive systems are they would work better if the players executed them , and they are not - through focus, effort, unwillingness or whatever reason. Some have - I’d say Monahan has tried to change his play. Other’s haven’t - Tkachuk for example. And at the end of the day, while each player has a responsibility to do what he’s asked, the buck stops at Ward when they don’t.

I do think it’s funny when you get people calling for stretch passes when they hated them when Hartley was here, or saying Ward should be tough, but then say “I didn’t mean at Bennett”. Or when they complain the play is too conservative and then complain when passes up ice are blocked or intercepted.

No team has one style of player. However, most teams (or at least, many) have more success with, and are more comfortable with, one style over another.

Every team has to be able to play in all types of situations, but the idea is to impose your style on the game as much as you can.

And this iteration of the Flames have the most success with up-tempo, transitional hockey, and the least amount of success with tactical, 50/50 hockey.

Again, no team can dictate the style all of the time, and it doesn't mean you don't have to be able to play other styles. The NHL is VERY competitive, and the difference between winning and losing is very small. A 60% success rate puts you among the contending teams.

One of the more common complaints about Ward is the constant chipping it out and chipping it in. No coach is ever going to tell their team to do that all the time. Fast transition, and puck possession, are always preferred, if possible. The difference, from team to team, is: where is the line? How quick are you to pull back, and play defensively? How much are you focusing on playing safe?

And while none of us are in the room (or are NHL coaches), there is mounting evidence to support the view that this team looks for the safe play much of the time. It was how they played against Colorado, and it has permeated their play consistently ever since.

The more they struggle, the more they pull back to safe hockey. Which completely contradicts their makeup. From Hartley to Gulutzan to Peters to Ward, they have shown they are at their best with an uptempo game, and struggle the most with board battles, structure, and 50/50 hockey. Yet we see more and more of the latter. and the inevitable struggles with it are followed by the predictable calls for "attention to detail", "working harder", "better execution", and so on.

Ward seems incapable of pulling the right levers.

But I think it goes deeper than that. I have been a big supporter of Treliving for a long time - he does a lot of things the right way. But there seems to be a disconnect between the way the team is being built, and the way it is being run. I think the coach is a big problem here, but when the coach continues to be a big problem, it begs the next question.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Goriders

From what I’ve seen Geoff’s biggest problem is the team he inherited. How many coaches have rolled through here with similar results? The root problem is the super soft top 6 core forwards. They are coach killers.

I don’t honestly thing Boudeau or Gallant would want to come to Calgary after watching what this group of snowflakes has done to the last handful of coaches to roll through town.

Boudreau might. At 66 years old, he might not have many more chances to be a head coach. Most teams would want someone younger.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Boudreau might. At 66 years old, he might not have many more chances to be a head coach. Most teams would want someone younger.

He has to want to come here too though. If I were 66 and probably didn’t have to coach again I sure wouldn’t pick the Flames to sign on with. Not when there are 30 other teams to choose from.

Pretty sure this is why all we get is Albertan retreads and newbies. The flames are the only one giving them offers.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Goriders

He has to want to come here too though. If I were 66 and probably didn’t have to coach again I sure wouldn’t pick the Flames to sign on with. Not when there are 30 other teams to choose from.

Pretty sure this is why all we get is Albertan retreads and newbies. The flames are the only one giving them offers.

That’s a falsehood. There are ZERO teams to choose from, at this point.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s hard to disagree when every coach has had the team tune them out (including Hartley and Peters).

I’d say, if you bring in a coach you probably need a guy with a big enough name where even the star players know he’s not going to be the next guy to go - they are.

We call them coach killers but we should have gotten the coach hire right the first time. The coach and players not being on the same page is concerning.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

We call them coach killers but we should have gotten the coach hire right the first time. The coach and players not being on the same page is concerning.

Easy to say. You tell me who the right coach is that this group won’t tune out eventually. They’ve done it to literally every coach they had - experienced or not. Hard-ass or good guy. Run and gun or collapsing.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Easy to say. You tell me who the right coach is that this group won’t tune out eventually. They’ve done it to literally every coach they had - experienced or not. Hard-ass or good guy. Run and gun or collapsing.

I am not convinced they tuned out Hartley. They seemed to enjoy playing for him even in that final year.

I don't even know if they tuned out Gulutzan. Those 40+ shot nights that ended in losses... it seemed they were doing what Gully asked of them. Some might even argue that injuries to Tkachuk, Brodie, and Monahan, and awful luck were the reasons Gulutzan's team faded towards the end, though I had my own issues with him.

Maybe not even Peters was tuned out though he did get exposed during the Avs series. They had better analytics under Peters than under Ward, but poor luck stats.

And have they tuned out Ward? Or is Ward's system simply not working?

I think it's too easy to make a sweeping claim of "tuning out" coaches.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I am not convinced they tuned out Hartley. They seemed to enjoy playing for him even in that final year.

I don't even know if they tuned out Gulutzan. Those 40+ shot nights that ended in losses... it seemed they were doing what Gully asked of them. Some might even argue that injuries to Tkachuk, Brodie, and Monahan, and awful luck were the reasons Gulutzan's team faded towards the end, though I had my own issues with him.

Maybe not even Peters was tuned out though he did get exposed during the Avs series. They had better analytics under Peters than under Ward, but poor luck stats.

And have they tuned out Ward? Or is Ward's system simply not working?

I think it's too easy to make a sweeping claim of "tuning out" coaches.

Look at each of those coach’s record with practically the same group in their second year. It’s remarkable. New coach comes in and they take a step forward. Second year, same coach, they go right back to where they were. Hartley dropped 20 points with the same group. GG dropped 10. Peters was on pace to miss the POs and was on a big losing streak.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Look at each of those coach’s record with practically the same group in their second year. It’s remarkable. New coach comes in and they take a step forward. Second year, same coach, they go right back to where they were. Hartley dropped 20 points with the same group. GG dropped 10. Peters was on pace to miss the POs and was on a big losing streak.

Can't out-coach league worst goaltending

[AustinL_NHL]

There have been a loooooot of horrible Flames coaches over the years, but the fact Ward is sooooo clearly the worst is honestly kind of impressive.

He's already at the point that every fan despises him to the highest degree except for the ones he pays off to stick up for him here and there

[Petert]

Every coach eventually gets tuned out by their players.
Obviously, the bad coaches are going to get tuned out a lot sooner than later, as in, the majority of Calgary's coaches.
It's not a coincident every single one of them never get to head coach again with the exception of Darryl.
You paid for what you get.
We keep bargain hunting for coaches, and we keep getting these below average coaching.

Most of the players probably have realized how pathetic Ward is at this point.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Look at each of those coach’s record with practically the same group in their second year. It’s remarkable. New coach comes in and they take a step forward. Second year, same coach, they go right back to where they were. Hartley dropped 20 points with the same group. GG dropped 10. Peters was on pace to miss the POs and was on a big losing streak.

Ward was never good. There was a 7 game win streak right after Peters was yanked. After that, now that we have implemented his system, we are a .500 team.

And maybe what makes a good NHL coach is one who continually is able to keep his team functioning at a high level.

Maybe the good years are in spite if terrible coaching.

Its like continually buying Lada's and complaining when they breakdown after a year...and blaming the roads and gasoline...Geoff Ward is a Lada.