The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Big name coaches don't do squat for what they get paid. It's so overrated. A highly touted coach in Todd McLellan was a costly upgrade over Eakins and he's coached the Oilers who have McDavid to 2 actually noncompetitive years that could actually get a coach fired.

Mike Babcock didn't turn around the Leafs either. Adding a franchise center in Auston Matthews, wingers like Mitch Marner and William Nylander and a #1 goaltender in Frederick Anderson changed things around. Look at how many Jack Adams winners have ended up being fired shortly after winning.

Coaching in this league is basically all the same today. It's just same type of guy who shows you some video, asks you to play a style like all the other teams and relies on the top players to win them games. Changing a coach isn't going to fix the underlying problems with this team.

Also with Brodie, they have to play him on his left side. There's not other choice. That's the way this team was built. 3 lefties and 3 righties. You can't ask 2 defensemen to both play on their opposite sides, no coach does this and there's a reason why. with Brouwer, the guy has to play somewhere.

Fact is, we were down 3 regular right wingers in Frolik, Versteeg and Jagr. Of course Brouwer was going to play higher in the lineup and with more responsibilities. This team is not deep on forwards, that's not the coach's fault. There's a lot of scapegoating going around and not enough blame being spread around. All of the TEAM's problems do not rest on the shoulders of 1 guy.

If your beliefs are true then you know more than the people running lots of NHL teams. There is an incentive by owners to cheap out on coaches as they can make more money. What is the incentive to pay super expensive coaches? Really need a business loss to offset a sweet investment?

Coaching matters. I don't think it's going to turn a bottom team into a top team, but I sure thing it could take a middle of the pack team and move them up to the top 3rd of the league, which is what I think the Flames can be. I think the Flames can be a top 10 team, just not with GG. I think he doesn't adapt his system to the strengths of his team, and I think he is too stubborn. To admit his mistakes.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

If your beliefs are true then you know more than the people running lots of NHL teams. There is an incentive by owners to cheap out on coaches as they can make more money. What is the incentive to pay super expensive coaches? Really need a business loss to offset a sweet investment?

Coaching matters. I don't think it's going to turn a bottom team into a top team, but I sure thing it could take a middle of the pack team and move them up to the top 3rd of the league, which is what I think the Flames can be. I think the Flames can be a top 10 team, just not with GG. I think he doesn't adapt his system to the strengths of his team, and I think he is too stubborn. To admit his mistakes.

If you have the money like some teams do (i.e. Leafs, Rangers, etc) then why not out spend other teams to get the additional experience or brain trust. But that doesn’t mean Mike Babcock or whoever is 5 X better than someone else. It’s a copy cat league and when something works, everyone just steals or mimics what’s successful.

There’s no patent on ideas. How many teams do a 1-3-1 powerplay? Virtually every team has their own variation now. That’s why powerplay numbers have sky rocketed in recent times. Half the teams in the league are at 20%+ now when only a handful of elite teams were hitting those marks previously.

I’m not sure where the sudden outrageous expectations came from, but I didn’t view this team as Stanley Cup contender this season. I thought we could once again contend for a wild card playoff spot or maybe 3rd in the division, but no way did I set my expectations on one of the best teams in the league.

That seems to be the major problem here, sky high expectations. All I hear is this team is severely underachieving, we’re not hitting our potential, so it must be the coach and we must fire him. But not log ago we were rebuilding, we nabbed Tkachuk 1.5 years ago as the 26th placed team in the league. Now we’re a Cup contender?

It’s a process to become an elite team and we’re still in the middle of that process. We still have a lot young players who are still learning, we still have holes on this roster and we still have bad contracts to finish up before we can start moving towards elite status IMO.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

If you have the money like some teams do (i.e. Leafs, Rangers, etc) then why not out spend other teams to get the additional experience or brain trust. But that doesn’t mean Mike Babcock or whoever is 5 X better than someone else. It’s a copy cat league and when something works, everyone just steals or mimics what’s successful.

There’s no patent on ideas. How many teams do a 1-3-1 powerplay? Virtually every team has their own variation now. That’s why powerplay numbers have sky rocketed in recent times. Half the teams in the league are at 20%+ now when only a handful of elite teams were hitting those marks previously.

I’m not sure where the sudden outrageous expectations came from, but I didn’t view this team as Stanley Cup contender this season. I thought we could once again contend for a wild card playoff spot or maybe 3rd in the division, but no way did I set my expectations on one of the best teams in the league.

That seems to be the major problem here, sky high expectations. All I hear is this team is severely underachieving, we’re not hitting our potential, so it must be the coach and we must fire him. But not log ago we were rebuilding, we nabbed Tkachuk 1.5 years ago as the 26th placed team in the league. Now we’re a Cup contender?

It’s a process to become an elite team and we’re still in the middle of that process. We still have a lot young players who are still learning, we still have holes on this roster and we still have bad contracts to finish up before we can start moving towards elite status IMO.

Please show me where I said we are a cup contender. I expect this to be a top third team, and we are not. The GM also clearly thought this was a better team than they are showing as he traded away an unprotected first round pick.

Teams pay good coaches big money, and it's not for fun. You don't outbid other teams on an asset that isn't worth anything.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

It’s a process to become an elite team and we’re still in the middle of that process. We still have a lot young players who are still learning, we still have holes on this roster and we still have bad contracts to finish up before we can start moving towards elite status IMO.

We don't have a lot of young players. We have a fairly normal amount of young players for a top level team. Only one player on our top six and one defensemans is on their ELC, and the rest are all at about their prime. We're also a cap team that's traded away a significant portion of their draft picks to be competitive now.

There's not likely to be the kind of internal growth that's going to push this team to a higher level, and we don't have more resources to spend.

Saying that this team isn't designed to go for it now is to say this team will never go for it.

The only significant upgrade options are
a) completely fleecing another team on a hockey trade
b) superlucky drafting
c) coaching change.

The rest is tinkering and hoping for a good run at the right time. That's not to say that tinkering and patience are terrible options, that's really the basic status of most teams.

But if you don't think that Gulutzan is a top coach, then I think it's fairly obvious we should try to upgrade, because not trying to find the best possible coach for the team would be throwing away a chance to be better.

I think it's fairly obvious Gulutzan is not a top coach on the NHL level. It's debatable whether he's a bad coach (my opinion, he's pretty bad) or a mediocre coach. If he's bad not getting rid of him is just stupid, because bad coaches can have longterm detrimental effects on the development of a team.

If he's a mediocre coach it really only comes down to the question of whether an upgrade can be found.

But really I don't see any reason to let a mediocre coach wait out his contract in the situation we're in, which IMO is clearly a team that's supposed to be going for it.

[Strange Brew]

Good post Itse. For the reasons you outlined, I think it's also why many people want to believe the team is simply better than their record, which does seem to be supported by some of the advanced stats.

As I've said, I would love to have a candid conversation with the GM as to how he sees this team improving over next 3 years.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Please show me where I said we are a cup contender. I expect this to be a top third team, and we are not. The GM also clearly thought this was a better team than they are showing as he traded away an unprotected first round pick.

Teams pay good coaches big money, and it's not for fun. You don't outbid other teams on an asset that isn't worth anything.

You’re comment that a different coach could make our current middling team into a “top 3rd of the league” team was what I was responding to.

At the end of the day organizations will outbid other organizations for anything that’ll give them a perceived edge. But it doesn’t mean it correlates with instant success. Take Troy Brouwer for example, we paid him $18 million over 4 years because we thought he’d make a big time impact for our team as his prior history would’ve indicated. But he’s turned out to be a dud. Paying a guy big money doesn’t guarantee anything whether it’s players, coaches or whatever.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Itse

We don't have a lot of young players. We have a fairly normal amount of young players for a top level team. Only one player on our top six and one defensemans is on their ELC, and the rest are all at about their prime. We're also a cap team that's traded away a significant portion of their draft picks to be competitive now.

There's not likely to be the kind of internal growth that's going to push this team to a higher level, and we don't have more resources to spend.

Saying that this team isn't designed to go for it now is to say this team will never go for it.

The only significant upgrade options are
a) completely fleecing another team on a hockey trade
b) superlucky drafting
c) coaching change.

The rest is tinkering and hoping for a good run at the right time. That's not to say that tinkering and patience are terrible options, that's really the basic status of most teams.

But if you don't think that Gulutzan is a top coach, then I think it's fairly obvious we should try to upgrade, because not trying to find the best possible coach for the team would be throwing away a chance to be better.

I think it's fairly obvious Gulutzan is not a top coach on the NHL level. It's debatable whether he's a bad coach (my opinion, he's pretty bad) or a mediocre coach. If he's bad not getting rid of him is just stupid, because bad coaches can have longterm detrimental effects on the development of a team.

If he's a mediocre coach it really only comes down to the question of whether an upgrade can be found.

But really I don't see any reason to let a mediocre coach wait out his contract in the situation we're in, which IMO is clearly a team that's supposed to be going for it.

I’m not saying this team isn’t going for it now. What I am saying is this team has too many holes right now to be a truly elite team. I thought this team was a going be competing for a lower tier playoff spot coming into this season and that’s exactly where we are. My expectations weren’t through the roof like so many others which is why I’m also not in full panic mode either. We still have a good chance to make the playoffs and possibly make some noise especially with the goaltender we have.

Your last point is also predicated on your opinion that Gulutzan is a bad coach at this level and I don’t think he’s shown me any indication that he’s worse than anyone else either. What drives me really crazy around here is the notion that if Gulutzan was fired now or before Christmas from what I’ve read, that whoever would be able to come in and make this team instantly better and all the holes and all the problems to this team would be solved. I’m not buying it. All the other available coaches out there were all fired because of underperformance too. What makes those guys guaranteed improvements?

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I’m not saying this team isn’t going for it now. What I am saying is this team has too many holes right now to be a truly elite team. I thought this team was a going be competing for a lower tier playoff spot coming into this season and that’s exactly where we are. My expectations weren’t through the roof like so many others which is why I’m also not in full panic mode either. We still have a good chance to make the playoffs and possibly make some noise especially with the goaltender we have.

Your last point is also predicated on your opinion that Gulutzan is a bad coach at this level and I don’t think he’s shown me any indication that he’s worse than anyone else either. What drives me really crazy around here is the notion that if Gulutzan was fired now or before Christmas from what I’ve read, that whoever would be able to come in and make this team instantly better and all the holes and all the problems to this team would be solved. I’m not buying it. All the other available coaches out there were all fired because of underperformance too. What makes those guys guaranteed improvements?

Do you actually believe that Darryl Sutter isn't an instant improvement? That's the guy most want. Maybe they asked and he said no, that is certainly possible.

How about Ralph Krueger? I think he'd be an instant upgrade as well. It seems like he still has interest in hockey, but I have no idea what his contract situation is in the Premier League.

Tippet would also be an upgrade in my opinion, but I know a lot don't want him. Mostly because his style is too boring... but I don't think it's any more boring than GG's. He at least let OEL freelance from the blueline and seemed like he could tailor his game plans to fit his personnel.

I'm also completely fine with trying out Huska as an interm and seeing what happens. Hope for a really good coach to be available in the summer, or that Huska gets them to catch fire.

Would any of these guys fix every problem and fill every hole? Of course not. In the cap era no team is without holes. But I am fully confident that D Sutter or Krueger could absolutely minimize the problems and get this team going. Tippet probably could, and Huska would be a long shot, but worth a try.

Sputtering along as is makes no sense to me, even though I'm resigned to that being what happens.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

You’re comment that a different coach could make our current middling team into a “top 3rd of the league” team was what I was responding to.

At the end of the day organizations will outbid other organizations for anything that’ll give them a perceived edge. But it doesn’t mean it correlates with instant success. Take Troy Brouwer for example, we paid him $18 million over 4 years because we thought he’d make a big time impact for our team as his prior history would’ve indicated. But he’s turned out to be a dud. Paying a guy big money doesn’t guarantee anything whether it’s players, coaches or whatever.

Eh, that's a pretty significant goalpost move there.

Yeah, paying a coach a lot of money doesn't make them great, but that has nothing to do with the fact that coaches can make a really significant impact on a team, good or bad. Claiming otherwise is IMO quite ridiculous.

I mean, when you look at the coaches in the finals, it's quite often the same guys. Laviolette has been there with 3 teams, Sutter with 2 teams, Babcock with 2 teams, Vigneault with 2 teams, DeBoer with 2 teams. In the last decade, if there was a new head coach in the finals, they were probably coaching Crosby

[dino7c]

And Babcock dead last when his team sucked balls

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Your last point is also predicated on your opinion that Gulutzan is a bad coach at this level and I don’t think he’s shown me any indication that he’s worse than anyone else either.

No, it's based on the pretty commonly accepted fact that he's at best mediocre. Whether he's mediocre or bad is a matter of taste, but I don't see anyone suggesting he's great. He also has no previous championships coaching, unlike pretty much all coaches that have won the Stanley cup.

What drives me really crazy around here is the notion that if Gulutzan was fired now or before Christmas from what I’ve read, that whoever would be able to come in and make this team instantly better and all the holes and all the problems to this team would be solved.

No one's saying that. We're just saying that better is better. We don't need to be a lot better to make the playoffs, just a few more points here and there. Nobody thinks coaching solves everything, but better is better, and in a league of small margins you want every edge you can find.

All the other available coaches out there were all fired because of underperformance too. What makes those guys guaranteed improvements?

Sutter won 2 championships after being fired by the Flames. Vigneault took the Rangers to the finals after being fired by the Canucks. DeBoer took the Sharks to the finals after being fired by the Devils. Laviolette was fired by the Hurricanes, then took the Flyers to the finals, got fired again and then took the Predators to the finals. Julien was fired by the Canadiens and the Devils before taking the Bruins into the finals. Etc.

Unless you're Mike Babcock, you're likely to get fired at some point in your career. It means pretty much nothing.

[Classic_Sniper]

I think it’s pretty obvious by now I won’t be changing around too many opinions any time soon as I think everyone here has already made up their minds and it’ll be way too much of an uphill battle. So for everyone here we’ll just have to agree to disagree. It honestly doesn’t matter to me who coaches this team, everyone just wants to see this team win. So for me I’ll just let the season unfold and whatever happens happens.

Maybe we fire Gulutzan and Sutter jumps in and wins us the cup or maybe Gulutzan’s story unfolds like Paul Maurice and the Jets. Who knows, but I’m looking forward to final stretch here to see how everything turns out.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

You’re comment that a different coach could make our current middling team into a “top 3rd of the league” team was what I was responding to.

At the end of the day organizations will outbid other organizations for anything that’ll give them a perceived edge. But it doesn’t mean it correlates with instant success. Take Troy Brouwer for example, we paid him $18 million over 4 years because we thought he’d make a big time impact for our team as his prior history would’ve indicated. But he’s turned out to be a dud. Paying a guy big money doesn’t guarantee anything whether it’s players, coaches or whatever.

Edit: saw your previous post and we can just agree to disagree.

[rhino]

Not sure if this was covered in this thread but maybe the guy can’t match lines very well. Seems like his home nhl coaching record is right around 500. Could explain why the team is better on the road?

[Robbob]

He gets the 3m line against the other teams best line all the time at home. No complaints there. I think the team being young they lose focus and get away from the system at home as they are dialed in on the road. I think they may be trying to hard to impress the home crowd.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by rhino

Not sure if this was covered in this thread but maybe the guy can’t match lines very well. Seems like his home nhl coaching record is right around 500. Could explain why the team is better on the road?

Originally Posted by Robbob

He gets the 3m line against the other teams best line all the time at home. No complaints there. I think the team being young they lose focus and get away from the system at home as they are dialed in on the road. I think they may be trying to hard to impress the home crowd.

One issue with line matching at home is that Backlund's one big flaw is his faceoff ability. He loses or gets waived a fair bit. So GG can put the 3M line out against the top line but as soon as they lose the faceoff, the opposition can change. Now that can have the effect of limiting their time, so that's a good thing.

[bubbsy]

How long is Gulutzan signed for?

This offseason, we could be looking at guys like Quennville, Vignault popping up as available coaches.

I'm wondering what the threshold of success measure is (or perhaps more clearly, the line of failure) before this management team would considering making a move if one of these guys did become available? Is it making it to the playoffs? Being competitive in the 1st round? Winning a round?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

How long is Gulutzan signed for?

This offseason, we could be looking at guys like Quennville, Vignault popping up as available coaches.

I'm wondering what the threshold of success measure is (or perhaps more clearly, the line of failure) before this management team would considering making a move if one of these guys did become available? Is it making it to the playoffs? Being competitive in the 1st round? Winning a round?

I think winning a playoff round guarantees he's back.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I think winning a playoff round guarantees he's back.

If they Flames make the playoffs and win a round I think he should be back. That puts you in the top 8 teams in the league, and at that point anything can happen. And I don't like him as a coach, but that's a positive result and shows progression from last year.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

How long is Gulutzan signed for?

This offseason, we could be looking at guys like Quennville, Vignault popping up as available coaches.

I'm wondering what the threshold of success measure is (or perhaps more clearly, the line of failure) before this management team would considering making a move if one of these guys did become available? Is it making it to the playoffs? Being competitive in the 1st round? Winning a round?

It's reported as a three year contract. Next year would be the last. One year remaining is a pretty common time for coaches to be fired, if it's going to happen at all.