The Deal With Geoff Ward

[timbit]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I'm sure timbit does, but I have an addendum question:

Would the 2010 Blackhawks have won the Stanley Cup had they kept Denis Savard?

Would the 2012 Kings have won the Stanley Cup had they kept Terry Murray?

Would the 2015 Lightning have made the Stanley Cup Final had they kept Guy Boucher?

Would the 2016 Penguins have won the Stanley Cup had they kept Mike Johnston?

Would the 2017 Senators have made the ECF had they kept Dave Cameron?

Would the 2019 Blues have won the Stanley Cup had they kept Mike Yeo?

My addendum question is:

Was the success of all these teams, among others, uncorrelated to their head coach?

No, of course not.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I'm sure timbit does, but I have an addendum question:

Would the 2010 Blackhawks have won the Stanley Cup had they kept Denis Savard?

Would the 2012 Kings have won the Stanley Cup had they kept Terry Murray?

Would the 2015 Lightning have made the Stanley Cup Final had they kept Guy Boucher?

Would the 2016 Penguins have won the Stanley Cup had they kept Mike Johnston?

Would the 2017 Senators have made the ECF had they kept Dave Cameron?

Would the 2019 Blues have won the Stanley Cup had they kept Mike Yeo?

My addendum question is:

Was the success of all these teams, among others, uncorrelated to their head coach?

Would the Calgary Flames have won in 1989 had they kept Bob Johnson?

[GioforPM]

Did anyone else see the whack interview with Babcock just now?

Dude still refers to himself in the 3rd person, and, while he gives lip services to “did I do anything wrong - sure” doesn’t cop to any specific accusations or say he’s sorry. And he acknowledged they tanked for Matthews.

[mile]

lol at this Mike "How can I be an a-hole if I have a wife and kids" Babcock interview

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Would the Calgary Flames have won in 1989 had they kept Bob Johnson?

I wasn't even born when Bob Johnson was Flames coach so uh I have no idea

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by timbit

Yes, coaches know stuff.

They know that it is an act and react game. The team that makes the best decisions usually wins.

Eye contact, Receiving angles, width and depth, close support, somebody takes your ice you take theirs, staying underneath the puck, on ice talk etc...which are all taught in junior and younger ages, supposing that it is a good program determine breakout success The teams who are skilled enough , smart enough, who understand and thrive on these concepts and principles, are capable of ...and excel at breaking out of their own end at the NHL level.


The coaches, of course, reinforce these concepts and principles.

The defending team will 4v , aggressively, if it is possible to limit time . (2-1-2, 2-2-1) with D actively pinching. Oft times you will see the pressured D use a bump pass to the front of the net(support net D or C)

Passively, to take away space, if they are unable to be aggressive .(1-3-1, 1-2-2)

The players may , at times, use the stretch pass to back off pinching and or unaware D.

With the speed of the game, players need to work to be available and have awareness of where there teammates are....

The players without the puck make a huge impact on the success or failure of breakout situations.

It’s not Xs and Os....it’s simple concepts and principles and making sure you’ve done the preparatory work before the game to assure you are mentally ready, sharp and committed to do things right...with speed.

Rarely is the game static. Smart movement by skilled players with superior execution allows clean and good to great OZ exits.


Yes, there are very infrequent controlled breakouts....on shift changes ...as well as PP breakouts.

Great stuff timbit, and always appreciated. Some questions on your observations and thoughts on the coaching we've seen to date.

A big part of coaching is also game planning and preparation, yes? Does this team look like it is prepared to deal with the systems or strategies the other teams employ? If there is one weakness its that this team looks like a collective herd of deer in headlights the second the puck is dropped and not prepared for the defensive or offensive habits the other team relies upon. I appreciate individual preparation to execute their assigned responsibilities, but this team looks like they have not been given any game plan or expectations of what the other team may or may not do.

Systems are also the purview of the coaching staff, yes? Players are not given the latitude to sway from the system and freelance as they cause breakdowns and leave their team mates hanging. The players follow the system or they are disciplined. So when the players are getting their heads caved in and checked into submission using the same break out, should the coaching staff not have them prepared to use a different scheme? Should the coaching staff not make immediate adjustments when the team is hemmed into their own end for multiple shifts?

Sticking with the idea of systemic play, the players move the puck in ways that follow the system as everyone is on that same page, yes? So when the team displays certain behaviors in a very consistent way are we not to assume this is part of the overall systemic approach the coaching staff have drilled the players to employ?

You stated the players are supposed to do things at speed and that Ward believes in quick transition. I believe the players believe in this too, but it appears the first move of the puck is always against the grain and is designed to slow the play down. The defense will routinely pass back and forth between themselves to slow the play to snail's pace and give the opposition a chance to set up their defensive structure. This seems counter to the transition game. Now, this is a consistent behavior which is usually indicative of a team complying with the system, no? Is this not playing to the weakness of the Flames and to the strength of the opposition?

I do like how you explained that players are to use the open ice created by [layer and puck movement. Do you see this as the way the Flames are playing? Do you see this as part of their system? It seems to me they are content to allow the opposition to clog the neutral zone, stand up at the blueline, and force the Flames to use the open ice, which they obviously are not doing. This is consistent from line-to-line. So it this not another example of a systemic approach and a failure of that system?

I'll happily pin it on players when they make stupid plays, like skating into coverage or moving into the same space as one of their team mates, but it appears they are being told to attack in a given manner and there is little freedom to stray from that flawed plan. The solution seems to be for them to just work harder rather than working smarter and trying to create open ice. It seems the freedom to create is not there?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think it mostly makes a difference on the motivation level. Match-up and line construction as well.

I agree with Classic_Sniper though. The strategies and methods are old and well rehearsed. If the players can't apply them and don't know when to use them, I see that more of a personnel issue. A coach shouldn't have to tell players to skate fast to gain zone entry. It's not Ward telling them to not do that.

This team is SLOOOOOOW though. Some things just don't work with an overall slow team. It's easy to look at teams that have fast players and say "do that", but if they are unable or unwilling, that is an issue.

They are dangerous once they are in the offensive zone and maintaining pressure, but getting there is the issue. They are forced to dump it in more than optimal and lack the grittiness for effective retrieval down the line-up. Basically they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I also tend to agree with those who said that playing the same teams over and over has exposed the weaknesses. Things that worked before for certain players aren't anymore. The players are predictable and we have a few one-trick ponies. I think Ward is well aware of this, hence why he has blended lines so often, which is a normal strategy for a coach.

This has gone around and around, but I'll say it again: they aren't sloooooow, they play slow.

They weren't slow under Hartley's transitional style.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by mile

lol at this Mike "How can I be an a-hole if I have a wife and kids" Babcock interview

Lol, I think I've encountered more jerks with families than without.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by New Era

Great stuff timbit, and always appreciated. Some questions on your observations and thoughts on the coaching we've seen to date.

A big part of coaching is also game planning and preparation, yes? Does this team look like it is prepared to deal with the systems or strategies the other teams employ? If there is one weakness its that this team looks like a collective herd of deer in headlights the second the puck is dropped and not prepared for the defensive or offensive habits the other team relies upon. I appreciate individual preparation to execute their assigned responsibilities, but this team looks like they have not been given any game plan or expectations of what the other team may or may not do.

Systems are also the purview of the coaching staff, yes? Players are not given the latitude to sway from the system and freelance as they cause breakdowns and leave their team mates hanging. The players follow the system or they are disciplined. So when the players are getting their heads caved in and checked into submission using the same break out, should the coaching staff not have them prepared to use a different scheme? Should the coaching staff not make immediate adjustments when the team is hemmed into their own end for multiple shifts?

Sticking with the idea of systemic play, the players move the puck in ways that follow the system as everyone is on that same page, yes? So when the team displays certain behaviors in a very consistent way are we not to assume this is part of the overall systemic approach the coaching staff have drilled the players to employ?

You stated the players are supposed to do things at speed and that Ward believes in quick transition. I believe the players believe in this too, but it appears the first move of the puck is always against the grain and is designed to slow the play down. The defense will routinely pass back and forth between themselves to slow the play to snail's pace and give the opposition a chance to set up their defensive structure. This seems counter to the transition game. Now, this is a consistent behavior which is usually indicative of a team complying with the system, no? Is this not playing to the weakness of the Flames and to the strength of the opposition?

I do like how you explained that players are to use the open ice created by [layer and puck movement. Do you see this as the way the Flames are playing? Do you see this as part of their system? It seems to me they are content to allow the opposition to clog the neutral zone, stand up at the blueline, and force the Flames to use the open ice, which they obviously are not doing. This is consistent from line-to-line. So it this not another example of a systemic approach and a failure of that system?

I'll happily pin it on players when they make stupid plays, like skating into coverage or moving into the same space as one of their team mates, but it appears they are being told to attack in a given manner and there is little freedom to stray from that flawed plan. The solution seems to be for them to just work harder rather than working smarter and trying to create open ice. It seems the freedom to create is not there?

That’s a lot of questions. Bear with me.

The receivers decide how good a play the puck carrier will make, frequently. Are they working to use speed and get available? A lot of times they make the D-D pass inevitable.
You have to work to be available and be a receiver.
Play slows down when receivers aren’t committed to getting available.
Obviously, the D have to be quick , also, in recovering and reading.

A good player is able to make good reads approaching the opposition BL on the rush....can I skate it in and maintain possession?....make a play( pass) to a teammate and maintain puck possession with speed ? Or chip to a place where a teammate or I can retain or regain possession.?

Individual confidence, IQ, skill and ability , not primarily coaching, IMO, decide the decision more times than not . A BL turnover can lead to countering an odd man rush against... Those can be trouble.
On the positive side, the right decision can lead to a quality scoring chance for..

I can guarantee there a very few to zero restrictions re when the Flames have the puck.

Players are playing in the NHL because they make good decisions .
Coaches are responsible for explaining what they should expect from the opposition.


The more times you make smart decisions the more confidence you acquire. Also , the harder you work to GET available, the easier decision you make re execution for yourself and/ or your teammate.

The players are responsible for making a lot more good decisions than mediocre or bad ones. Too many of the latter, you watch. Rightly so..

Confidence is tough to acquire...easy to lose. You build layers of confidence by doing things right. The more layers you have, the tougher it is to lose.

Are their defensive systems ?

For sure.

Go back to the offensive concepts and principles...as well as individual and team tactics.
Reverse them and you have the defensive side of it...
Limit time and/or space, protect mid ice corridor, D side positioning...etc.

I want to concentrate on the game.

Answered the best I could.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This has gone around and around, but I'll say it again: they aren't sloooooow, they play slow.

They weren't slow under Hartley's transitional style.

Which Hartley team? The one that had the never say die plucky attitude from 2013 to 2015, or the one that got him fired in 2015/16?

When Hartley took over, he had Cammalleri, Glencross, Stajan, Stempniak, Tanguay, Hudler and Iginla in the top 9. He had players like Byron, Galiardi, Bouma and Comeau in the bottom 3. That is a lot faster than the team now. The defense was decently quick as well (I think we are missing Brodie more than I thought we would).

When he left in his last season, the current core pieces were in place. It's also fair to say players often slow down when they get older. I would wager that 28-31 Giordano, 18-21 year old Monahan, and 23-26 year old Backlund were faster than their current version of themselves.

We now have Lucic slowing things down. Tkachuk, who is great at a lot of things, but speed isn't one of them. Lindholm, Monahan, and Gaudreau aren't slow, but they don't have the speed that most of the other teams in this division have on their top lines.

[JurassicTunga12]

Please put this misery to an end. Such a boring system and team to watch right now. No speed, intensity in our game, no good breakout, no adjustments. Sick of relying so heavily on our goaltending to even a get a sniff of winning most games. Ward isn't get nearly enough out of this team. He is not pushing any of the right buttons to raise the team to a level that we've seen these guys play before.

[Roof-Daddy]

Come on Treliving.

Get rid of Ward and bring in Bruce Boudreau for #### sakes.

If Boudreau can't get this team playing at an elite level then the team you built isn't elite.

[Manhattanboy]

I’ve got some Flames letterhead and am going to forge a termination letter to Ward.

[AustinL_NHL]

Boredom and Death: name of Geoff Ward's system

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by timbit

That’s a lot of questions. Bear with me.

The receivers decide how good a play the puck carrier will make, frequently. Are they working to use speed and get available? A lot of times they make the D-D pass inevitable.
You have to work to be available and be a receiver.
Play slows down when receivers aren’t committed to getting available.
Obviously, the D have to be quick , also, in recovering and reading.

A good player is able to make good reads approaching the opposition BL on the rush....can I skate it in and maintain possession?....make a play( pass) to a teammate and maintain puck possession with speed ? Or chip to a place where a teammate or I can retain or regain possession.?

Individual confidence, IQ, skill and ability , not primarily coaching, IMO, decide the decision more times than not . A BL turnover can lead to countering an odd man rush against... Those can be trouble.
On the positive side, the right decision can lead to a quality scoring chance for..

I can guarantee there a very few to zero restrictions re when the Flames have the puck.

Players are playing in the NHL because they make good decisions .
Coaches are responsible for explaining what they should expect from the opposition.


The more times you make smart decisions the more confidence you acquire. Also , the harder you work to GET available, the easier decision you make re execution for yourself and/ or your teammate.

The players are responsible for making a lot more good decisions than mediocre or bad ones. Too many of the latter, you watch. Rightly so..

Confidence is tough to acquire...easy to lose. You build layers of confidence by doing things right. The more layers you have, the tougher it is to lose.

Are their defensive systems ?

For sure.

Go back to the offensive concepts and principles...as well as individual and team tactics.
Reverse them and you have the defensive side of it...
Limit time and/or space, protect mid ice corridor, D side positioning...etc.

I want to concentrate on the game.

Answered the best I could.

Thanks for the effort and answer. What I'm getting out of this, as you didn't directly answer the questions, is the players are to blame for lack of execution. It seems that coaches don't do a #### of a lot in the NHL and the players are really just out there doing what they want when they want. Players have been taught to do certain things during the junior and minor league careers and once they get to the NHL there isn't much coaching left to be done, the coaches' jobs are to stay out the way and call time outs here and there. The coaches don't have much responsibility for anything that goes on and really don't have much of an impact on the game. The players know what they are doing and coaches only provide minor inputs. The NHL must be the only league where coaches have such little control?

I appreciate the technical aspects of the answer but I think the avoidance of the core questions is telling. Coaches do have a great deal of control in what happens out on the ice. They ARE responsible for team preparation before the game. They ARE responsible for setting lines. They ARE responsible for establishing systems and enforcing how they are played. The ARE able to force players to stick to the game plan (welcome to the bench or the pressbox). They ARE able to influence the game by making in-game adjustments to the systems being used.

Coaches are supposed to be amplifiers of talent, not inhibitors. Good coaches coach to the strengths of the players at their disposal. THEY adjust to players, not the other way around. All the technical aspects in the world don't mean a hill of beans if the guys don't understand the base function of the coach, which is to help the players achieve optimum performance. That to me is the core problem with Brad Treliving and his selection of coaches. The coaches don't make the players better, them make them worse because they do not take their games to a different level. The coaching staff has inadvertently sabotaged the team by not using the player's talents in the best ways possible.

How can a team with much of the same lineup (a better lineup right now) be the second best team in the NHL for 3/4 of a season and then hit the skids so hard? We know how because we can pinpoint the moment in time and the events that precipitated the fall. There was an observable change in playing style and systems the team employed. The team floundered because they were cast into a system that relied on their weaknesses instead of strengths. Was execution part of the problem? You bet. But when you take Eddie Van Halen, hand him the tuba and say make music, the outcome is predictable. This is the type of coach the Flames have hired over the years. The only coach they have had any success with went out and remade the team in his own image, building the club to meet his style of play. This team needs to find a coach that can work with the talent and be the amplifier of that talent, not the inhibitor by expecting the players to excel in systems that do not allow them to use their skills.

[Johnhitbox]

This isn't the coach, it's management. Ward wasn't meant to be the head coach at all. Tre, makes the decisions around here and he's making some poor ones these days.

Sent from my SM-N986W using Tapatalk

[Tkachukwagon]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I’ve got some Flames letterhead and am going to forge a termination letter to Ward.

This is legit one of the funniest things I’ve read on CP

[Rick M.]

When you play rope-a-dope hockey, you wind up punchy.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Rick M.

When you play rope-a-dope hockey, you wind up punchy.

Shouldn't that be rope-a-Ward hockey? Same thing, but more accurate?

The best thing about Ward hockey is you don't need to wind down after watching a game. Geoff Ward hockey is the cure to insomnia... or care about the Flames to any significant level.

[Poe969]

Maybe Treliving doesn't want to bring in an elite coach because I doubt an elite coach could make this team a winner. If it isn't the coach's fault the blame will fall on the players and Treliving for building a bad team.

Tre knows he has a bad team so as long as he has a bad coach he has a scapegoat.