The Deal With Geoff Ward

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by t0rrent98

Ward's only signed to a 2 year deal right? I'd say let him finish both years than let him walk or if they are off to a bad start than let him go before his 2 years are done.

Who goes first if the team fails to do well this/next season, Tre or ward?

They miss both are gone and we see a whole new team/culture next season

[TheSquatch]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yeah. I remember it as a team not quitting on the coach on ice.

The overall record of 35-40-7 was a bit worse than anybody would have liked, but it was October, and the post Ramo injury slump that torpedoed them.

I mentioned that Dougie Hamilton that year took a while to settle in. By Oct 26 he had played 9 games, had 1 point, and was -11

Anyways, I reject the narrative that the team quit on Hartley

They preferred a friendlier coach, and he had a shelf life, but it wasn’t that simple of a story

Wasn't Johnny's contract year and Hartley's last year the same year? I kinda wondered how big a factor it was - if JG was basically not gonna sign here if Hartley was coaching. Speculation on my part but the timing was really interesting.

[TheSquatch]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

They miss both are gone and we see a whole new team/culture next season

Because of Covid, and basically no other reason (eg that money is tight and things are weird and difficult) I think it's the opposite, status quo this year. Hope I'm wrong.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Why this team hasn't put the 3M line back together, boggles the mind (the third M being Mangiapane).

That line is/was dominant.

3M line together
Bennett with the bubble line
Lindholm to the top line

Those lines work

I get they want Lindholm at C, but if that’s the case make a trade and rebalance the roster

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by TheSquatch

Wasn't Johnny's contract year and Hartley's last year the same year? I kinda wondered how big a factor it was - if JG was basically not gonna sign here if Hartley was coaching. Speculation on my part but the timing was really interesting.

I'm skeptical this would be the case. Didn't Johnny invite Hartley to some hockey camp he runs that same summer (or vice versa)? Why would a player refuse to sign if a coach is coaching, and then invite that (fired) coach to his summer camp?

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

https://twitter.com/user/status/1365465010139357188

What a surprise! Not.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Okay, since you brought it up... let’s talk a bit more about what *really* happened that year.

October and into November, yes they sucked, and dug themselves a hole they couldn’t get out of. New Dougie Hamilton took a while settling in, Brodie was injured, Gio just coming back from his injury. Hartley couldn’t run a normal practice with 3 goalies, and yeah, they were horrid out of the gates.

All of the goalies were in the .800s for sv% in October. Tre at one point late Oct sent Ramo down

But do you remember how Ramo did in his last 20 games before getting hurt?

Starting Dec 8, through his injury Feb 11 - over those 20 games, his stats were 2.25, .919. Pretty darn good! Very stabilizing.

Now the next 11 games after Ramo’s injury, they were 1-9-1, giving up 5 goals 3 times, and giving up 6 goals 3 times.

Oh, you mentioned “taking a ton of penalties”.

This tells me you really don’t remember that season, so let me remind you.

On Jan 27, 2016 was the Wideman hit on Henderson. So the Flames took a step change up in penalties, almost like they were facing 2 teams some nights

In the first 47 games, prior to Wideman’s crosscheck on Henderson — the Flames averaged 2.62 minors per game. In the 34 games after the incident, they averaged 3.88. That was a 48 per cent jump, for the same Flames team, with the same roster.

Young team with no confidence in goaltending, down a veteran defenseman who also contributed on the PP, and suddenly facing 2 teams?


You go ahead and create the narrative they quit on the coach, but they were a bad young roster, who overcame trash goaltending and D early, had settled things down when Ramo stabilized things, and then when he went down, they were stuck with Hiller and Ortio and a new level of time on the PK, and the confidence vanished

I do remember the PP was abysmal that year.

I agree they reportedly didn’t like the hardass coaching. At the same time, both Darryl Sutter and Hartley had in common that unity / loyalty to their players when the media was on them

Anyways, that’s it for this little stroll down memory lane.

I didn’t bring it up, I responded. First, the penalties aren’t a major factor and yeah, the Wideman thing was egregious. But Ramo, despite being good save% wise, was still losing games. All year log, except for one 2 week streak in December. Other than that he was .500. Why? The Flames were just not a good team in front of him. Win one, lose two, win two, lose two or three. Only one three game streak and one 7 gamer I mentioned. But several 3 and 4 game losing streaks. And the players hated playing for Hartley and wouldn’t do it any more. In Gaudreau’s home stretch from March to the end of the season he got points in only 10 games out of 18. Compared to being on fire in December (Ramo’s streak).

You are so secure in your opinion you never would conceive someone might have more info, right?

[Gaskal]

Lol it's funny how the metrics match what a lot of us are seeing on the ice. Yeah good job you got your defensive hockey in place Wardo, got that GA count down! But.... at what cost....

Looks like ol' Torts could really get our defencemen going both sides of the ice after I had a check:

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Lol it's funny how the metrics match what a lot of us are seeing on the ice. Yeah good job you got your defensive hockey in place Wardo, got that GA count down! But.... at what cost....

Looks like ol' Torts could really get our defencemen going both sides of the ice after I had a check:

Tortorella is one of the guys I think moves the needle for a team. Not always enough, and not the Canucks, but he’s one of the few that do.

[GioforPM]

At the end of the day a hard ass coach like Hartley has a life span, and when you are two faced about it like him, it’s shorter than a guy like Sutter. Hartley had 4 years, that’s pretty par for coaches like him. 4 and a half in Colorado despite greater success, 4 years and 6 games in Atlanta where he got nowhere, and 4 years in Calgary.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I'm skeptical this would be the case. Didn't Johnny invite Hartley to some hockey camp he runs that same summer (or vice versa)? Why would a player refuse to sign if a coach is coaching, and then invite that (fired) coach to his summer camp?

It was Bob’s camp and Johnny went there as a guest counselor after Bob was turfed

https://www.si.com/nhl/2016/07/21/bo...calgary-flames

“You can see how passionate he is about helping the kids,” says Johnny Gaudreau, Hartley’s former player in Calgary who has attended camp as a guest counselor for the three years now. “He’s always on the ice, always running around. There’s 260 kids here each week and he knows everyone’s name.”

As everyone knows, GMs like to have their guy. Tre was a rookie and let him continue what he started under Feaster. He couldn’t fire him after the Jack Adams year, but did so the next year, when there were plenty of valid reasons why they faced adversity, plus being ready to pick his guy

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Here's the thing - the system wasn't great last year down the stretch either. This passive, low event, collapse in front of the net system that Ward played wasn't that great down the stretch, and wasn't that great against Dallas.

We had success down the stretch last year because we got hot goaltending and our PP was good but our play at 5v5 was really poor. Then the only reason it worked against Winnipeg is that they were riddled by injury and had no d-men that could take advantage of the time and space they were being given in the offensive zone. That quickly changed against Dallas though with Heiskanen and Klingberg eating us alive.

It's no different this year. If our PP is good and we get goaltending we have a chance to win. However it's a slim margin for error and if either of those things are bad we will lose, and if both of them are bad then we're getting blown out.

Even if this coaching staff isn't fired - what I don't get is why the GM wouldn't make the phone call down and say "Lets go back to what worked as a system in 18-19, enough of this crap".

This team started playing a different system going into 19-20 season that was meant to be better defensively and more tailored for playoff hockey but it just hasn't worked. If anything we've been worse defensively and useless offensively.



Go Back to what worked as a system in 18-19 and forget about what happened against Colorado in the playoffs. That 18-19 system and playstyle, with Markstrom holding down the fort behind him would likely work really well.

Last year down the stretch the Flames were on fire goal scoring wise. They were definitely not playing low event hockey as they were either the top team in scoring or second in GF down the stretch. Goaltending I don't remember being very good either as it was Rittich struggling once again in the second half and Talbot getting more starts because of Rittich's drop off.

Sure, Winnipeg being injury riddled was a factor. But then you'd have to go the other way by saying the Flames not having Tkachuk for most of the Dallas series was a factor. The Flames were already in for a tough series anyway, then you take out one of your best players on your top shutdown line and that's gonna hurt anyway you slice it. Also, Dallas went to the finals, so getting beat by the eventual Stanley Cup finalists doesn't sting as much.

Lastly, the GM doesn't need to make a call because they're playing the exact SAME system. Ward was hired to work in coherence with Bill Peters, so the two had to have shared the same or extremely similar philosophies and based on what I've seen, it is indeed identical. Both believe in a very aggressive, very heavy based checking system. They both also believe in a very passive defensive scheme so you give up the low percentage shot from the point which I assume is to protect the high danger chances from the middle.

I don't understand where you got this "started playing a different system" thing. I think I've seen you post it a couple times now and I have no idea where you heard it from. Like did this come out of Bill Peter's mouth because I for sure didn't hear it. The only remark I heard from Peters after the playoffs ended was that he thought they needed to be faster and that's likely because Colorado's speed ate them alive through the neutral zone. With that said, that's actually the biggest gripe I have with this system. It's a very taxing system that requires hard work and players constantly paying attention to the details in order to be "connected." But if your team is lacking confidence and don't seem to care about the details, it's your own worst enemy because you then leave yourself extremely vulnerable to counter attacks. I think that's where Geoff Ward is facing his biggest dilemma, how do you get these 23 players to reach deep down and actually give a damn about their tasks and assignments. Maybe a firing would work in the short term, but it'll be extremely short lived because Treliving will still end up hiring a coach based on his analytics friendly vision who will likely deploy the exact same system that has the exact same pitfalls for this roster.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

At the end of the day a hard ass coach like Hartley has a life span, and when you are two faced about it like him, it’s shorter than a guy like Sutter. Hartley had 4 years, that’s pretty par for coaches like him. 4 and a half in Colorado despite greater success, 4 years and 6 games in Atlanta where he got nowhere, and 4 years in Calgary.

Dude. He took Atlanta from 74 points in his first half season to 97 points in his 4th year and first place in the division, and their first ever playoff berth. That’s not really ‘getting nowhere’.

Then got 6 games in to the next season and got turfed. But it was 4 straight years of better results.

And being demanding isn’t being two faced. Both him and Darryl were protective of their players externally, which is admirable. It’s way lousier and counterproductive to publicize issues you have with particular players

[Roof-Daddy]

So.

Geoff Ward is still the head coach of the Calgary Flames.

Yay

[Pickle Juice]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

So.

Geoff Ward is still the head coach of the Calgary Flames.

Yay

It’s actually crazy! This team is about to be torn apart because of this coach. This team has so much promise and in my opinion is easily the second best on paper in the Canadian devision. I have been and continue to be a BT fan but I fear this decision will cost him his job.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Pickle Juice

I have been and continue to be a BT fan but I fear this decision will cost him his job.

I think he sealed his fate the moment he made that decision.

Even if he decides to replace Ward with a better coach unless the team has a really strong finish I would be shocked if he doesn't get fired for deciding to give Ward the job in the first place when there were numerus upgrades available.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

To some extent, you're correct. All three of Treliving's hires do follow and preach a lot of the same basic principles. Things like moving in tightly-packed 5 man units, boxing out in front of the net instead of fronting, little things like that are pretty consistent, especially when contrasted with Bob Hartley's systems, where the forwards were essentially a different entity altogether from the defensemen, and the defensemen were asked to do very different things in the defensive zone.

I will say however, that all coaches have things they want to preach. Maybe "systems" isn't even the right word for it, but areas-of-focus. One coach might really dislike plays right up the middle of the ice, another coach might be willing to take that risk. One coach might want his defensemen to be more engaged and active offensively, the other coach might see his defensemen as a point shot source and nothing more.

Here's what I believe I have seen based on what I've watched of these three coaches:

Glen Gulutzan disliked the stretch pass. He had a really firm grasp on playing a tight neutral zone game. Offensively, he really emphasized cycle play and we generated most of our offense off of the cycle. Defensively, he played a very aggressive style - the kind that sometimes got you burned but more often got you out of the zone quickly. I mentioned Hartley above saw the forwards and defensemen as separate entities in the defensive zone... well Gulutzan saw the forwards and defensemen as separate entities in the offensive zone. He wanted three forwards to score on teams of five most of the time, with the defensemen simply firing blind pucks at the net from the boards.

Bill Peters was more open to the stretch pass, although he had much more aggressive approach than Hartley's collapse defense. Early on he was more open to taking some chances and driving the middle of the ice as well - when the Flames would use the middle of the ice, they had a ton of rush scoring opportunties. In the playoffs however, all that aggressiveness that was characteristic of the team seemed to disappear. If I had to guess, this was due to the Hanifin - Hamonic defense pairing losing all confidence in their gap control (the other two pairings Giordano-Brodie and Valimaki-Andersson seemed to be decent) but the result was easy zone entries against. Maybe it was a small sample size, but it really felt like the team was not playing the style that originally made Peters successful. They defaulted to safe glass and out breakouts and gave up way too much room on zone entries against. Their forecheck, which was pretty effective in game 1, was adjusted to by Bednar and Peters had no real answer. I think I'm digressing here though. My point is this - Out of Treliving's three coaches, at least when the team appeared to be winning, they had a lot of VARIETY in their attack. If they need to break out with a textbook D-W-C, they could. If they need a stretch pass, they could. If they needed Brodie or Hanifin or Ryan or Backlund to simply skate the puck into open ice... they could. They gave themselves options. This to me was apparently one mark of a well-coached team - I'm sure they preached a lot of their principles, but they usually had multiple strategies, and never got too stuck doing things one way on breakouts or on offense. On offense, they also had their defensemen more involved in the play than Gulutzan's teams. The D weren't just guys posted along the wall to shovel a puck at the net, they had a green light that they NEEDED!

Geoff Ward hockey is, to my eyes, a style that is allergic to the middle of the ice when the team has control of the puck. His preference appears to be have defensemen rim the puck along the boards on the breakout, and the stationary wingers along the boards then have two options

Option A) Chip the puck past the opposing defensemen to the neutral zone
Option B) Chip the puck to the nearby center

The problem isn't that this is a BAD breakout strategy. The problem is that this feels like the ONLY breakout strategy. Going back to Hartley's stretch pass obsession, we've come around to the exact opposite end of the spectrum. Every play is so predictible under Ward. Maybe he's not actively preaching this as the only way they need to play, but his failure to preach variety in breakout styles, one way or the other, gives his teams an identity that we describe as his system. Where are the defensemen skating the puck into open ice? Where are the stretch passes? I just don't see any of those things, and it's not as if guys like Hanifin or Andersson are not capable of those things. So what we end up with are breakouts that force the stationary wingers to the two above options. And the accuracy of option B drops considerably because the other team is so well-prepared for that short area pass.

Additionally, I believe Ward implements a more passive defensive strategy in general. Teams under him play much more compact to the center of the ice - a collapse defense if you will. This is also true of our neutral zone play under Ward... just loose gaps - our whole team plays like that Hanifin - Hamonic pairing did in that Avs series right now. If this is not being coached, then I don't know why they're not being coached to play tighter. A top end coach would not be satisfied with our neutral zone play under Ward - if the players aren't executing then you tell them to go take more risks.

Ultimately though, Geoff Ward hockey is risk-averse. And by being risk-averse, they spend a lot of time in their own zone, and when they are able to break the puck out, they don't have the multitude of options presented to them that a well-constructed system would encourage.

I don't believe this is a case of "Geoff tells them NEVER to stretch pass or use the middle of the ice". I think this is a case of "Geoff overlooks the importance of practicing different breakout situations, because he favours risk averse strategies like the ones outlined above". Them not using the middle of the ice, is thus a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. But because that symptom manifests, the breakout strategies that should be second nature are so well-covered by opponents that the players play with panic. Because the game is very fast.

I saw a play, maybe two nights ago against the Leafs, where Hanifin has the puck around the left circle with a clear lane to simple skate the puck out of the zone. Instead he passes the puck to his stationary winger along the walls. Why would someone make such a stupid play? Because that's the sort of play that gets preached in practice, and their instincts are to do what they practice.

I know this isn't an in-depth look at systems in terms of 1-2-2 or 1-1-3 or 2-1-2. I do think that there are some differences there as well but that would be worth its own thread and you'd really need video evidence to back it up. And I'm not smart enough to be the guy doing that because I don't even have the attention span to do video work in general.




The Flames played an even series against the Jets, who were missing their #1 AND #2 centres. And the Jets were not even a playoff team - this was a team who had finished the season 9th in the standings before the pandemic. I would not read a ton into it. A system designed to stop a team with no offensive talent (which is a valid description of the team we faced) is not the same as a system designed to stop an NHL playoff team with NHL star forwards.

The Flames were outplayed by the Stars.

And that was not Sam Bennett's best hockey. If you want the best playoff hockey of Bennett's career, look to his series in 2017 centering Versteeg and Chiasson. He had better linemates last year, but wasn't playing to his peak level.

Ok, just to preface my post, I didn't read all of yours because it looks like a novel and I'm exhausted from the day I just had. But I skimmed through and I can see that you're trying to distinguish the differences between Gulutzan, Peters and Ward. Now yes, there's probably some "areas of focus" as you said that each coach emphasizes more so than others.

But I think you're over thinking it. Like, dissecting plays as if you can definitively tell that it's a coached decision rather than a player decision is extremely difficult. How can anyone really know anyway? I mean, players have to read and react at an insanely quick pace these days because forecheckers are just too fast and the last thing a player wants to do is turn the puck over that'll lead directly to a goal. So they have to make really quick decisions and teammates have to read and react to the play just as quickly. So as easy as it is to say that's on the coach for not creating the proper system to make it happen, I'd say it's more so on the players to make the right play or the best play to beat or relieve the other team's pressure.

All I can really say is that Brad Treliving built this team; he picks the head coach and he makes the decisions on which players he believes will best carry out his on ice vision. Tre probably goes into most of his interviews knowing exactly what he wants to hear and will select a coach based on how much that coach aligns with that same vision. Now this makes sense to me because based on what I've seen, all 3 of Treliving's coaches play a virtually identical style. They're all aggressive on offensive side and relatively passive on the defensive side. So to me, It's not about Geoff Ward being "allergic to the middle of the ice" as you said. It's the opposition team applying pressure or dropping back and etc that forces how the Flames can transition to the offensive zone. Bill Peters saw first hand how good gaps and clogging the middle could completely neutralize the Flames in the playoffs. Now Geoff Ward is seeing the same problem arise.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Last year down the stretch the Flames were on fire goal scoring wise. They were definitely not playing low event hockey as they were either the top team in scoring or second in GF down the stretch. Goaltending I don't remember being very good either as it was Rittich struggling once again in the second half and Talbot getting more starts because of Rittich's drop off.

Lastly, the GM doesn't need to make a call because they're playing the exact SAME system. Ward was hired to work in coherence with Bill Peters, so the two had to have shared the same or extremely similar philosophies and based on what I've seen, it is indeed identical. Both believe in a very aggressive, very heavy based checking system. They both also believe in a very passive defensive scheme so you give up the low percentage shot from the point which I assume is to protect the high danger chances from the middle.

I don't understand where you got this "started playing a different system" thing. I think I've seen you post it a couple times now and I have no idea where you heard it from. Like did this come out of Bill Peter's mouth because I for sure didn't hear it.

The chart above shows their stats. They were 27th in shots against down the stretch but had the 9th best save percentage in the league, Talbot was great to end that season before Covid struck.

And a couple of things:

1) Peters said in the lead up to 19-20 that they were going to try to play a bit of a heavier style that they thought was more suited to success in the playoffs, so not making it up.

2) Its very clear from watching the games that the structure they play, especially in the defensive zone in how they collapse in front of their net and their breakout is a lot different to 18-19.

and to your last post - this team is not aggressive in the offensive zone at all and plays very passive under Ward in all three zones.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The one number that jumps off the page is the team going from 1st in Goals/Game in the latter part of 18'-19', to 30th in the early part of '19-'20. Clearly, this kind of fluctuation doesn't happen spontaneously and must have been (at least partially) the result of them doing something different in response to the Colorado series.

I think what we can take away from it is that this core can only be at its best when it's playing the system it played in '18-'19. Whether that best is good enough to compete with the top teams in the NHL in the playoffs, is another conversation. However, going back to the '18-'19 style is probably the only hope this team has of salvaging this season.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Dude. He took Atlanta from 74 points in his first half season to 97 points in his 4th year and first place in the division, and their first ever playoff berth. That’s not really ‘getting nowhere’.

Then got 6 games in to the next season and got turfed. But it was 4 straight years of better results.

And being demanding isn’t being two faced. Both him and Darryl were protective of their players externally, which is admirable. It’s way lousier and counterproductive to publicize issues you have with particular players

Being demanding isn’t what I’m talking about. I made that clear. Hartley is unlike Sutter.

There’s a reason he got turfed after what you figure are good results. 3 times.