[PGT] Flames 4 Caps 1

[Red]

Originally Posted by the2bears

So, according to getbak we won 4 of 5 40+ shots against games. Not sure what the "7" means. You're now talking about "bleeding shots", but are you still talking about goaltending winning us most of our games? You talk about games we lost, Detroit and Ottawa, so not sure at all now what point you're trying to make. You're all over the place here.

I counted 6 games with 40 plus and one at 39 shots. So I rounded it up to 7 games with ~40 SA. And other games that were over before the other teams broke a sweat.
For most part we won because the goalie stole games. So my point is that those are not positives. Not to me anyways.

You are more than welcome to feel that Smith did not steal many games for this team. I disagree, but whatever.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Red

I counted 6 games with 40 plus and one at 39 shots. So I rounded it up to 7 games with ~40 SA. And other games that were over before the other teams broke a sweat.
For most part we won because the goalie stole games. So my point is that those are not positives. Not to me anyways.

You are more than welcome to feel that Smith did not steal many games for this team. I disagree, but whatever.

4 of 12 wins were games with 40+ shots, 2 of which were in the first 3 games of the season. Not as bad as you suggest, but go ahead and include games we lost in your 40+ count?

The point is, it's not as bad as you think and suggest, and it's been improving since the first few games.

[Jiri Hrdina]

If memory serves one of the oddities about Smith is that he has good numbers with a lot of shots. Not saying it means you should proactively try and give up a lot of shots, but it does help explain why he's played well in those games.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

If memory serves one of the oddities about Smith is that he has good numbers with a lot of shots. Not saying it means you should proactively try and give up a lot of shots, but it does help explain why he's played well in those games.

Yeah, it's a bit interesting that they've lost more of the "< 30 shots" games, too.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

If memory serves one of the oddities about Smith is that he has good numbers with a lot of shots. Not saying it means you should proactively try and give up a lot of shots, but it does help explain why he's played well in those games.

That's why Chayka got rid of him. Defied advanced stats!

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

But... but... Corsi!

But.... but..... sample size!

[---Hatrick---]

Originally Posted by Red

He put a guy in that was a bad goal away from the end of his tenure on the team. Elimination game was just a cherry on top. It was dumb.

His other option was Johnson who finished the season no better than Elliot, man...

[---Hatrick---]

Originally Posted by Red

Been 7 out of 20. Hmm...One being a 39 shot game for those that are going to call me out on it.


Both red wings and ottawa didn't really shoot after they scored 4-5 goals so these two games are below 40 shots, but can we give the D any credit for them?

Yes, the Flames bleed shots and scoring chances. GG did not fix that.

Would be nice if this team was really good at something. PP, PK, good D or score a ton. Anything. They are pretty average to below average at everything except goaltending.

There you go, I backed it up. Now tell me specifically what makes GG a good coach? What does this team do really well?

Well they're 12-8 right now, have won 7 of their last 9, and are trending up in almost every aspect besides the PK which obviously still needs work.
What more do you want?

[Ryan Coke]

Putting Elliott in for game 4 was always a mistake. I was very vocal on here prior to the game, and the way it turned out was no surprise.

It’s true that Johnson hadn’t played well down the stretch, and putting him in for game 4 wasn’t a great option. But it was the only option.

After Elliot’s game 3, you could absolutely not go back to him.

While I do have some concerns with GG, he has earned some leash, and I am hopeful that he and the team do well. But it doesn’t change that Elliott being played in game 4 was a mistake. The teams only hope was putting Johnson in at that point.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Red does make some good points here, and it is something I continue to watch with this team.

Why was the Jack Adams coach fired and replaced, according to Treliving?

The two main reasons that I recall was that:

1. Hartley's system was not one made for possession hockey. That seems to be much better now (though, the talent level of this team has significantly increased too).
2. Treliving wanted more focus on defence. That hasn't seemed to be much improved. After 20 games, this team is sitting at a plus/minus of -1.

My argument here is not that Hartley should have or shouldn't have been fired. Gulutzan was brought in to get this team playing possession hockey and playing sound defensively. I would say that he has most assuredly accomplished the first task, but the 2nd task doesn't seem to be better under him, even though Gulutzan has a much better and consistent goalie, and the team's defence is much better. Also, the team up front is more talented, and they are also a bigger team that doesn't get man-handled along the boards like they used to.


The only question for me is "Can Gulutzan get this team to play sound defensive, playoff-type of hockey consistently without completely neutering the offence?".



I think you see moments where they can. However, you also saw moments of it with the Flames. They played a lot of tight games. Tonnes of 1 goal games, setting a record, IIRC, and it wasn't like they were all 5-4 games either. I don't see an improvement in that regard from one coach to another. I still see too many high-danger chances per game.



Now, am I saying that Gulutzan needs to be removed as coach of the Flames and should be replaced? No, I do think some of his work thus far has been good, and the Flames are playing fairly well otherwise. I also don't think this team is 'peaking' yet (it seems few teams - especially cup champs - peak later in the year and really start trying to play 'playoff-hockey' as they ramp up for the post-season).



I think Gulutzan has done enough now that not only does he not deserve to get fired, but he has earned the right to coach this team for the rest of the season (barring some hideous turn-around).



Also, someone posted above that the Flames were lucky under Hartley that they matched up against Vancouver in the playoffs. While that may be true, the results of that match-up might have been different if Hartley wasn't so good at managing his goalies. I felt he had both Hiller and Ramo playing at their best and knew when to make that swap either in-game or before the game. Gulutzan didn't seem to have his finger on that pulse as much last season, and this season that has yet to be really tested as the schedule thus far has allowed for Smith to play this much (and Lack needed 'fixing' as well, which has probably tied Gulutzan's hands anyways).


Thus far, I haven't seen a great coach here, and I haven't seen a terrible coach either. The truth is somewhere in the middle. I do think that there are other coaches out there that can probably get this team to play better, but there are also coaches out there that would get less out of this team as well. Sutter, Babcock, Quenneville - probably can all squeeze out more from this team. Bylsma, Cooper, MacLellan - would probably get this team looking fantastic for a few games, and then fall flat on their faces. That's why I am personally neither married to Gulutzan, nor do I think he should (or even deserves) to get replaced.


I do find the revisionist history about Hartley really disappointing, however. He squeezed blood out of a stone here, made what should have been a painful rebuild fricken fun and exciting, and experienced more success than anyone in their right minds could have predicted. It wasn't pond hockey. It wasn't 5-4 games every day. It wasn't with an irresponsible outlook on defence. It wasn't a 'barely a system' (his system was fairly complex and he demanded players be accountable, and spent hours and hours on ice teaching players individually). Maybe it was time to make a chance, maybe Treliving just wanted his own guy (which is fair, since his own job is directly tied to the team's success as well). Either way, Hartley gave this team a much more successful and enjoyable time during a rebuild, and shouldn't just be tossed under the bus at every opportunity. He still remains only the 2nd coach (the other being Darryl Sutter) to win a damn playoff round in 20+ years, and he did so with a team that most had pegged to draft top 5 that year. That's a damn good coach in my opinion, and 'sustainable' or not, the Flames did incredibly well for 1.5 seasons. I think if you go by their talent level, there would not have been any system that would have made their success 'sustainable'.


Anyways, my two cents into this discussion. Gulutzan's contract runs out this year, right? Flames seem to re-sign (or fire) coaches mostly in the off-season, so it will be interesting what happens there. I do think that if Gulutzan patches up those high-danger chances a bit more, and and lowers the goals against somewhat, he will be re-signed. It will be interesting if other teams move on from their coaches in the off-season as well, with maybe Darryl Sutter still being available, perhaps a Trotz and Quenneville available. If Treliving isn't happy with the success of the season, we know he will replace the coach, especially when there is availability of highly respected and experienced coaches that seem to share in his philosophy of puck-possession and defence.


I just don't see a coach that deserves to get fired at this point, and I argue that things have to go particularly bad for Gulutzan to not finish this season off. I do think things have to go very well for him to get renewed (if indeed his contract is up at the end of the year - not sure if it was a 2 year deal, or 3 year deal, but I am guessing a 2 year deal).

[Sandman]

If Quenneville is available at year’s end, I hope BT is all over that.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Putting Elliott in for game 4 was always a mistake. I was very vocal on here prior to the game, and the way it turned out was no surprise.

It’s true that Johnson hadn’t played well down the stretch, and putting him in for game 4 wasn’t a great option. But it was the only option.

After Elliot’s game 3, you could absolutely not go back to him.

While I do have some concerns with GG, he has earned some leash, and I am hopeful that he and the team do well. But it doesn’t change that Elliott being played in game 4 was a mistake. The teams only hope was putting Johnson in at that point.

With your season on the line, you have to go with the tender who got you there. That was Elliott. You give him a chance at redemption since he [should be] very motivated. He ultimately failed, but the only choice was Elliott at that point.

He was on an extremely short leash, and the minute he let in that softie in game 4, he was rightfully yanked.

[stone hands]

I think the loudest cheering in the dome during last years playoffs was elliot skating to the bench after getting pulled

[GioforPM]

C4L, there's plenty I agree with and disagree with in your post. One thing though, I think GG is on a 3 year contract, so he has an additional year. however, I don't think one year makes a difference.

I think Hartley was good at managing his goalies in the PO year. But the next year, with the same goalies, we suddenly wasn't. Maybe they both got worse and that was unrecoverable. GG kind of did the same in-season - he rode each one while they were hot, but both goalies got really cold at the end of the year.

I'm interested to know how you know so much about Hartley's practices and his system.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

C4L, there's plenty I agree with and disagree with in your post. One thing though, I think GG is on a 3 year contract, so he has an additional year. however, I don't think one year makes a difference.

I think Hartley was good at managing his goalies in the PO year. But the next year, with the same goalies, we suddenly wasn't. Maybe they both got worse and that was unrecoverable. GG kind of did the same in-season - he rode each one while they were hot, but both goalies got really cold at the end of the year.

I'm interested to know how you know so much about Hartley's practices and his system.

He had an additional goalie for far too long the next year.

And there were other factors, notably on D, in the first quarter of that season .

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

He had an additional goalie for far too long the next year.

And there were other factors, notably on D, in the first quarter of that season .

Was that the coach or GM? I'd say that was the GM.

[Itse]

Excellent post Calgary4LIfe

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I do find the revisionist history about Hartley really disappointing, however. He squeezed blood out of a stone here, made what should have been a painful rebuild fricken fun and exciting, and experienced more success than anyone in their right minds could have predicted.

So much this. I was okay with Hartley being replaced, but I also love the fact that he was here. He was absolutely the right coach for those years.

I do think that if Gulutzan patches up those high-danger chances a bit more, and and lowers the goals against somewhat, he will be re-signed. It will be interesting if other teams move on from their coaches in the off-season as well, with maybe Darryl Sutter still being available, perhaps a Trotz and Quenneville available. If Treliving isn't happy with the success of the season, we know he will replace the coach, especially when there is availability of highly respected and experienced coaches that seem to share in his philosophy of puck-possession and defence.

I think if the Flames don't make it past the first round Gulutzans job is in danger, but that would also have a lot to do with how it happens. Gulutzan shortcomings are bench management and in-game adjustments. Especially the latter can be a real issue in a playoff series, where the opposing team has so much time to really dig into our weak spots. Win or lose, he can't get clearly outcoached.

I would however claim that he seems to be aware of where he should improve, and trying to do something about it. I believe Gulutzans line-mixing frenzy especially to start the season was in large part about teaching players to play with different combinations so he has more to work with when trying to find the right matchups. I also think there have been a few games where this has worked pretty well.

I would also say he's had a lot of problems to solve with his players. Out of the 10 or so player who have played in the bottom 6 only Jankowski and Jagr can be fairly called brights spots. A good coach will find ways for his players to succeed and shelter them when they're having problems, but there's only so many problems you can hide at a time.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

C4L, there's plenty I agree with and disagree with in your post. One thing though, I think GG is on a 3 year contract, so he has an additional year. however, I don't think one year makes a difference.

I think Hartley was good at managing his goalies in the PO year. But the next year, with the same goalies, we suddenly wasn't. Maybe they both got worse and that was unrecoverable. GG kind of did the same in-season - he rode each one while they were hot, but both goalies got really cold at the end of the year.

I'm interested to know how you know so much about Hartley's practices and his system.

Thanks for clarifying Gulutzan's contract. I thought it was only a 2 year, but definitely wasn't positive.

The goalies in Hartley's last year - there wasn't too much he could do there. Treliving was trying to move a goalie, and felt that any of the ones on the team would get claimed. When Ramo started doing well after his recall, I think Hartley rode him pretty hard, then the injury hit. After that, not much to pick from, so not much to manage. I won't disagree with your assertion that Hartley didn't manage his goalies well that year, however. I guess it is how you see it.

As for his practices and systems - I guess I got it from just following the team? I was particularly interested in Hartley's system because I felt the Flames suffered from a poor system from Brent. Brent's system may not have been a poor system, but it was a poor fit for the Flames. I felt that Hartley's system fit the Flames identity more, and that the 'unsustainability' of it probably had a lot to do with the lack of talent/experience on the Flames. There were a number of outlets that broke down the system now and then (good analysis by some of the media talking heads), other coaches discussing it, etc. Sportsnet did a couple of articles on it that I felt were very thorough as well, though it may have been more about the PK than anything.

As for his practice habits, it was hard NOT to notice. So many articles showered Hartley with praise for having his practices being run so hard, and for always teaching. That was what Hartley did on the ice a lot during practices - teaching teaching teaching. If you watched the away game's broadcasters, they were often extremely complimentary of even the game day skates, and how they saw it as more of an up-tempo practice session and a lot of on-ice instruction/teaching by Hartley. Did you not remember Shane O'Brien saying that out of all the clubs he played for, Calgary had the most difficult practices?

Originally Posted by Itse

Excellent post Calgary4LIfe

So much this. I was okay with Hartley being replaced, but I also love the fact that he was here. He was absolutely the right coach for those years.


I think if the Flames don't make it past the first round Gulutzans job is in danger, but that would also have a lot to do with how it happens. Gulutzan shortcomings are bench management and in-game adjustments. Especially the latter can be a real issue in a playoff series, where the opposing team has so much time to really dig into our weak spots. Win or lose, he can't get clearly outcoached.

I would however claim that he seems to be aware of where he should improve, and trying to do something about it. I believe Gulutzans line-mixing frenzy especially to start the season was in large part about teaching players to play with different combinations so he has more to work with when trying to find the right matchups. I also think there have been a few games where this has worked pretty well.

I would also say he's had a lot of problems to solve with his players. Out of the 10 or so player who have played in the bottom 6 only Jankowski and Jagr can be fairly called brights spots. A good coach will find ways for his players to succeed and shelter them when they're having problems, but there's only so many problems you can hide at a time.

I also think Hartley was the perfect coach for the rebuild, even if it was just for the constant teaching element from his repertoire. I do think that he made the rebuild a lot more exciting.

That's a good point - it really depends on HOW it happens if the the Flames don't make it out of the first round. Injuries, sudden goalie issues, etc., where the Flames are otherwise playing well, but lose, may mean he remains the coach. Running into the Stanley Cup champs in the first round (or the finalist), while giving them a heck of a series, is probably also a satisfactory rationale as to retain Gulutzan. I definitely agree that being out-coached consistently in the playoffs will cost him his job.

As for too many players performing poorly at the same time, I am not sure what to think of that. I have often felt that if a team has a few players under-performing, then that is usually on the players (either for them doing poorly, or losing their spot to a better player, then having to get forced into a slot that they don't excel at). When you have a lot of players under-performing at the same time, I usually assume the coach.

With that being said, the top line has been amazing, the 3M line seems like they are rounding into form nicely, the Jankowski line seems like they are playing great hockey now but just not getting the bounces, and I don't really have a problem with the bottom line either. Brouwer - who I developed a huge dislike for last season - has been decent. He needs to provide some depth scoring, but I do think he has been mostly decent (interspersed with a few bad games). Versteeg started the season awful, but he is turning it around. I like that Gulutzan is at least playing around with the center on that line trying to find something that works.

I don't have much to complain about Gulutzan at the moment. I do wish the defence would tighten up a bit, but without constricting the offence too much. Some happy balance. The Flames have been winning, and therefore more difficult to criticize, but I feel that regardless of how many games they win, they won't get far in the playoffs until they tighten up their defence.

I don't even need to see them in the top 5 GA, or top 5 in shots against, or anything like that. Just reduce it. The Flames' defensive strength isn't on preventing goals as much as it is in their transition/offensive ability anyway. If it was a team full of defensive defencemen, I would be much more alarmed with the goals against.

[Frank MetaMusil]

^^^

The Hartley coached teams also repeatedly smoked the Oilers. I really want GG to get a win vs. those clowns. It's a near fireable offense, especially with how bad they are this season.