The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

What is the point of this comment, or was it a typo?

Anything can happen!

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

Have a feeling will be at least 5 coaches available with some surprises.

I think LA getting the results they have through changing coaches (promotion from within) showed teams just what a culture shift from a coaching point of view can do.

I think Vegas doing what they've done stresses the importance of strong leadership from the bench, and the results it can yield.

Does Chicago opt to copy LA? Kevin Dineen's name has been talked about around the league for ages - do the Hawks promote him? If that happens, alongside the rumoured end of AV with the Rangers...what sort of chain reaction does that start?

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I think LA getting the results they have through changing coaches (promotion from within) showed teams just what a culture shift from a coaching point of view can do.

I think Vegas doing what they've done stresses the importance of strong leadership from the bench, and the results it can yield.

Does Chicago opt to copy LA? Kevin Dineen's name has been talked about around the league for ages - do the Hawks promote him? If that happens, alongside the rumoured end of AV with the Rangers...what sort of chain reaction does that start?

Can see Kevin Dineen taking over the hawks. But Hawks would be stupid to let JQ go. If the Caps choke out Trotz probably will be available.

[Dan403]

I've been in favor of leaving the coach in place. All last year I supported GG, even this year I've held back. But its F'ing March now and we still look mediocre. If he has a system, the players don't get it, can't get it, or won't get it.

I'm ready for a new coach.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

If a new coach is hired, our GM is going to select the same type of coach because he will be checking off all the same boxes. The fundamental root of this team’s problems is the philosophy.

What’s the objective of hockey? To outscore your opponent. Well I didn’t like odds of that happening when Tre said in the summer that goal scoring was going to be the team’s biggest problem.

Face it people, this team has fundamental flaws that flow all the way up to top of the organization. If anyone looked at the best teams in the league and how they’ve been built, it’s definitely not the same as ours.

That wouldn't be my interpretation.

Teams have limited assets, limited cap space, and the market is limited to only x number of players that fit your needs and 30 other teams competing for them.

You can't fix the entire laundry list in one off season.

He went after goaltending and locking down the defense core, but he knew that he was relying on internal growth and some luck up front, was honest about it and said as much to Bob McKenzie.

The process shows that this wasn't a win now or else year from the owners or the management.

His recent quotes suggest he thought they'd be further along than they are, but he always knew scoring was the next area to tackle.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But I'm with you; loser organizations hire and fire GMs and coaches too frequently.

I disagree with this point. The Penguins fired Therrien in season and hired Bylsma and won the cup that year. A couple years later, after firing Bylsma, they hired Mike Johnson. A year and half into his term, they realized it was a mistake and fired him and hired Sullivan. And again won the cup the same year they'd fired a coach. LA also won the cup the year they fired Murray and hired Darryl. Back in the 90s and early 2000s Lou Lamoriello mowed through a ton of coaches while they won 3 cups with a different coach each time (and others in between the wins).

Stability is definitely an approach that a lot of good teams take, but so is replacing a guy when an upgrade is available, or when things just aren't working out.

[Monahan For Mayor]

Man would it be great to go from Glue Gun to Joel Quenneville.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Man would it be great to go from Glue Gun to John Quennville.

I'd rather have Joel Quenneville.

[Monahan For Mayor]

Originally Posted by Buff

I'd rather have Joel Quenneville.

Haha thanks. Just woke up from a long night of boozing.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Haha thanks. Just woke up from a long night of boozing.

Its 11am on a Thursday! Where was my invitation?

[Monahan For Mayor]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its 11am on a Thursday! Where was my invitation?

When you live in greaseville any night is a good night to drink.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I disagree with this point. The Penguins fired Therrien in season and hired Bylsma and won the cup that year. A couple years later, after firing Bylsma, they hired Mike Johnson. A year and half into his term, they realized it was a mistake and fired him and hired Sullivan. And again won the cup the same year they'd fired a coach. LA also won the cup the year they fired Murray and hired Darryl. Back in the 90s and early 2000s Lou Lamoriello mowed through a ton of coaches while they won 3 cups with a different coach each time (and others in between the wins).

Stability is definitely an approach that a lot of good teams take, but so is replacing a guy when an upgrade is available, or when things just aren't working out.

Yeah loser organizations also hang onto bad coaches and GM’s too long. Cincinnati Bengals anyone? Houston Texans?

What defines loser organizations is the inability to hire the right person.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

When you live in greaseville any night is a good night to drink.

In that case every night is a good night to drink.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I disagree with this point. The Penguins fired Therrien in season and hired Bylsma and won the cup that year. A couple years later, after firing Bylsma, they hired Mike Johnson. A year and half into his term, they realized it was a mistake and fired him and hired Sullivan. And again won the cup the same year they'd fired a coach. LA also won the cup the year they fired Murray and hired Darryl. Back in the 90s and early 2000s Lou Lamoriello mowed through a ton of coaches while they won 3 cups with a different coach each time (and others in between the wins).

Stability is definitely an approach that a lot of good teams take, but so is replacing a guy when an upgrade is available, or when things just aren't working out.

I'm kinda with you on this one. There needs to be some semblance of consistency with the coaching staff but you definitely have to have the right coach in place. Changing the coach works if you don't have the right coach in place.

The GM is where you need consistency and patience. Every time a GM comes in he changes the look of the team. One GM values a certain type of player more than his predecessor or successor and many player personnel changes happen. Sometimes it is good for that change but GMs plans need more time to develop so flipping a GM every three, four or so years will keep setting back your team.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Toonage

We don't know that and have to hope that, as part of his own learning process, Treliving recognizes and corrects the mistakes he made in the first hire. He strikes me as someone who will do this.

HA! Hope? The naivety. He fired Bob Hartley not necessarily for his performance but for clash in style they both had. If he was to fire Gulutzan, it would be for performance only.

Treliving is an advanced statistics and analytics guy and he hired an advanced statistics and analytics coach. He will hire another clone of Gulutzan because what you're asking is for Treliving to completely change and alter his personal philosophy of the game and that's not going to happen if the team just misses the playoffs by a point or 2.

Tre wasn't just born yesterday here. He created a checklist of things a coach must have in order to be hired. That wasn't a mistake, that was well thought out and the new coach will exhibit plenty of the same traits.

[bubbsy]

I've been a pretty big anti-Gulutzan guy, but you definitely can't blame the entire season on him.

1. It's not his fault that the roster has only 2 forwards that have the ability generate offense. Gaudreau is our predominant offensive cog, and tkachuk is showing that he can consistently use his style of play (along the boards, in front of the net, behind the net) to create chances. Not enough skill, no real right handers or one-timer type players to create different PP looks.

2. The second pairing was greatly overrated. That pairing doesn't defend very well, doesn't seem to breakout very well, and don't generate much as far as offense and scoring from the point.

3. Leadership void. The captain is similar type captain to Iginla, quiet, show ur leadership on the ice and how you carry yourself. Monahan's appears to be a quiet personality. Brouwer is useless, giving useless players a letter is never a great idea unless the guy is just loved in the room. They have a few players who definitely appear physically upset and angry at losing (gaudreau, tkachuk) but those guys are young, and i'm not sure they are necessarily leader material, at least not yet.

4. Roughly 2/3rds of the league is in a similar position. The salary cap, the parity, means that outside of the top5 teams of league, every team has holes in their lineup and lack depth. we're following this team daily, so the ups & downs of an average lineup seem so detrimental, but given that the flames are just outside a playoff spot shows that there are other teams just like ours.

Now, in spite of these points, I am still quite disappointed with the coach is the way he has mismanaged things that he does have control of.

- We're a top heavy team, outside the playoff picture. We have zero scoring potential outside the top 6. Why are we rolling 4 lines regardless of the game situation (up a goal, down a goal, tied)?? As we get into the toughest part of the year, where offense and scoring is hardest and games are tightest, why aren't we seeing a shortening of the bench?!?

- Player utilization. Brodie on the top PP when he's a terrible offensive dman in a halfcourt offense (no shot, no real vision to make plays from the point). Gio/Hamilton only becoming the top pair after half a season of being a bottom PP team. Throwing stajan/brouwer over the boards on the PK when any and all underlying PK stats show they are among the league's worst.

- identity. The top line is your scoring line with the best player on it. The second line is your best 2-way line that hopefully can chip in offensively. Then there's a massive drop off. Yet, in spite of the lack of talent in those lines, I just see these lines go out there and really have no actual mission or metric of success. We all know they aren't likely to score, so what should they be hoping to achieve in order to be successful?!? You'd think if they aren't scoring, you want your bottom 2 lines to be able to either be able to forecheck using their speed, hit guys to get into the other team's head a bit, and try to cycle the puck a bit to spend more of their shift in the opposition zone rather than their own. Yet, instead of yanking stajan/brouwer, who have been useless in these areas, they have been given consistent time on that line. Why the hell does lazar come out of the line up instead of stajan last night? it's just stupid.

- "puck moving defenceman". The flames have good 5 defencemen that are solid skaters, and have the skills to move the puck either on their stick or by making a few strides out of trouble and making a pass. The system deployed has absolutely zero value in having a defensive group made up of such skillset. Quick transition, which seems to be the fundamental key to success in the current day NHL is meaningless to the flames. Slow it down, let's make a few d to d passes and have a controlled breakout, and if it ain't there just flip the puck over and give up possession to the opposition in their own zone (the NHL version of a PUNT). Hartley's defensive system was garbage, but his offense was decent as his style of play was heavy on quick transition. Team's started to adjust, diminishing Hartley's system's success, however, the new regime has all but abandoned the concept, which has been, in my opinion, also stupid.

in summary, the flames are a mediocre team, because they have a mediocre roster. The problem is even more apparent due to having a sub-par coaching staff who have no clue on how to get the most out of what they have been given as far as players.

This team, like many teams, will remain a bubble/mediocre team. They don't have enough offensive game breakers to be a top tier team in the current NHL. Now, are they a team that is a playoff team vs not, will depend on the coaching staff. If gulutzan is back next year, i expect very much of the same, with the team fighting tooth and nail but probably a safe bet for 9th.

Replacing the coach does not mean that we can expect a better team, as the same issues as stated above likely exist (barring any major changes made by the GM). But if the rationale for removing hartley was "he's taken this team as far as he can take them", well I think everyone's seen enough of gulutzan over the past 2 years to say the same. Our window is the next 3-4 years. I would rather try betting on another coach than wasting more time on a coach i've seen enough of.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I disagree with this point. The Penguins fired Therrien in season and hired Bylsma and won the cup that year. A couple years later, after firing Bylsma, they hired Mike Johnson. A year and half into his term, they realized it was a mistake and fired him and hired Sullivan. And again won the cup the same year they'd fired a coach. LA also won the cup the year they fired Murray and hired Darryl. Back in the 90s and early 2000s Lou Lamoriello mowed through a ton of coaches while they won 3 cups with a different coach each time (and others in between the wins).

Stability is definitely an approach that a lot of good teams take, but so is replacing a guy when an upgrade is available, or when things just aren't working out.

Agreed. I think Bingo's got the causality backwards in that post. Stability doesn't lead to success as much as success leads to stability. Joel Quenneville won a cup 1.5 seasons after being hired by Chicago. Darryl Sutter won a cup the same season he was hired. Mike Sullivan won a cup the same season he was hired. Even looking beyond cup winners: Peter Laviolette has made the playoffs all three years and the team's gone deeper all 3 years so far. Jon Cooper made the finals in year 2 and the east finals in year 3.

I honestly can't find an example of a coach of a bubble team turning them into a contender after years of mediocrity. Nashville kept Barry Trotz for 15 years and never became anything more until they hired Laviolette. Paul Maurice is maybe the best example in first go-around with Carolina, but even then he had the one miracle run behind some hot goaltending, then he missed the playoffs the next year. Maybe Winnipeg becomes a counter-example this year. Ken Hitchcock's first pass with Dallas they were a top team by his first full season and had playoff success by year 2. His time in St. Louis they started as a good team that's a level below contender, and finished a good team that's a level below when he was fired 6 years later.

Point is, teams generally don't have significant year-over-year improvements without some kind of change but they do regularly take a leap forward by replacing the coach. Obviously you can't just hire whoever, but changing nothing is probably going to lead to similar results.

[Toonage]

Sniper: Treliving wasn't born yesterday, you're right. For that reason I doubt he would base his decision off the team being 2 points out at the end of this season. If he's as analytical as you suggest he'll see the big picture and Gulutzan will be removed.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

HA! Hope? The naivety. He fired Bob Hartley not necessarily for his performance but for clash in style they both had. If he was to fire Gulutzan, it would be for performance only.

You didn't see an issue with Bob Hartley's performance?

Terrible underlying numbers, terrible standing in the league, and then a year end press conference suggesting they needed to block more shots.

[Azhouse]

Originally Posted by Buff

I'd rather have Joel Quenneville.

I'd even take John Quenneville over Gulutzan.