The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Locke

I mean, its not like these bunch of schlubs just flubbed the entire season.

This is the most painful part to me. They managed to screw up a season where there were a lot of things that did go right.

- Gaudreau would be top 10 in scoring
- Monahan would score 30+ and have 60+ points
- Ferland would score 20+ & have 40+ points
- Tkachuk would show continued growth (25 goals / 50 points)
- 3M would continue to be a good defensive match up line
- Hamilton would lead the league in d-man goals
- Giordano would have 10+ goals and have 40 points
- Smith acquisition was relatively a success
- Flames would have a top 5 road record in the league
- The team would be relatively healthy and only miss stars for a few games

And yet that team somehow misses the playoffs and doesn't have a draft pick in the first three rounds.

Just a complete choke job by this team+ coaching staff and 100% feels like a wasted season that could have been more.

Always find a way to lose games and really that is why the coaching staff has to go. They can do a lot right but in the end they don't know how to win games at the NHL level.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

This is the most painful part to me. They managed to screw up a season where there were a lot of things that did go right.

- Gaudreau would be top 10 in scoring
- Monahan would score 30+ and have 60+ points
- Ferland would score 20+ & have 40+ points
- Tkachuk would show continued growth (25 goals / 50 points)
- 3M would continue to be a good defensive match up line
- Hamilton would lead the league in d-man goals
- Giordano would have 10+ goals and have 40 points
- Smith acquisition was relatively a success
- Flames would have a top 5 road record in the league
- The team would be relatively healthy and only miss stars for a few games

And yet that team somehow misses the playoffs and doesn't have a draft pick in the first three rounds.

Just a complete choke job by this team+ coaching staff and 100% feels like a wasted season that could have been more.

Always find a way to lose games and really that is why the coaching staff has to go. They can do a lot right but in the end they don't know how to win games at the NHL level.

Exactly. Thats pretty much how I see it.

Glen Gulutzan and Co. perfected the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Locke

You know what, you arent wrong, its not all on him, but I'll tell you some things that really burn me and the guys on the Fan960 this morning were almost too scared to talk about them.

I dont know why.

But heres the thing, the coach really needs to help more than harm.

We arent talking about 30 points here. This team is going to miss out by the slimmest of margins.

Your 4th line isnt that good? Play them less when the game is tight.

Your defence isnt clicking? Switch them up a little?

Your goalie looks like hes having a bad night? Pull him. You have another.

Game is getting out of hand? Try motivating your players. Cant hurt right? Maybe call a timeout. If you still lose you lose.

How many games did Ol' Gul claim 'We Just Werent Ready?' A Half-Dozen? Be ready. Makes sense to me.

Your powerplay isnt good? Change it. Even just for the sake of variety.

It took 50+ games to get Dougie Hamilton on the PP and a broken face to get Brouwer off of it.

So when you think of these amazingly slim margins you think:

If the powerplay/pk was even middle-of-the-pack we're in the playoffs comfortably and laughing.

If we'd closed out a few tight games we're in the playoffs comfortably and laughing.

If we'd cut our number of 'Just Not Ready' games in half we're in the playoffs comfortably and laughing.

The Wheel did not require reinvention, just small, astute moves at key moments would likely have been sufficient.

So you're right. Its not 100% on Gulutzan, the players have to perform too.

But we're talking a career year from Johnny. A career year from Monahan. A career year from Tkchuk (<-albeit thats a bit disingenuous), a great year from Gio, a great year from Smith and just a good year (<-albeit his good years are pretty great) from Hamilton.

I mean, its not like these bunch of schlubs just flubbed the entire season.

Gulutzan pretty much reminds me of Rainman in the 'willingness to try something different' department.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Interesting coaching talk on 960 now...

Pinder mentioning how the Flames don't have a history of paying for coaching. Either they go green or get someone who has been out of the league for a while (paraphrasing).

Suggests that with the Flames just finishing paying out Hartley there may not be an appetite to pay GG if he's canned (and assuming he has another year left - my note)

Scolds the Flames for not even talking to Boudreau when Boomer asks if the Flames have tried to land a high profile candidate

Boomer suggests he doesn't want to talk about firing a guy but then accepts that GG is likely gone

My note - Love love love that media is finally talking about this team's lack of high profile coaching hires (and Flames coaches in general). This needs to be addressed

Pinder going through my post history.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Pinder going through my post history.

I can empathize. I've brought up the apparent internal budget and the Flames aversion to hiring coaches with a proven track record and was more or less told I was being dumb. It was refreshing to hear my thoughts (and yours, and others) finally brought up by Calgary media. Its a conversation that needs more attention. Ownership is willing to spend on players but seems to think anyone can coach the team. Why?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Someone tongue in cheek suggested getting rid of the POHO position and folding that salary into coaching- we should absolutely be doing this and not thinking twice about it.

This is something I can get behind.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Someone tongue in cheek suggested getting rid of the POHO position and folding that salary into coaching- we should absolutely be doing this and not thinking twice about it.

Burke did his job here when the Flames just entered a rebuild but now he does absolutely nothing from what I can see and is just eating salary when they could utilize it to improve the on ice product.

I'm all in for that.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Toonage

I can empathize. I've brought up the apparent internal budget and the Flames aversion to hiring coaches with a proven track record and was more or less told I was being dumb. It was refreshing to hear my thoughts (and yours, and others) finally brought up by Calgary media. Its a conversation that needs more attention. Ownership is willing to spend on players but seems to think anyone can coach the team. Why?

Well I don't think you're dumb at all, but I don't think it's accurate.

Sutter, Keenan, B. Sutter, and Hartley were all proven coaches.

[Flash Walken]

Let's keep in mind the role of the GM here as it pertains to coaching.

No Janko on the opening night roster, Bennett floundering at centre. Tanner Glass, Freddie Hamilton, Versteeg, Jagr, Brouwer.

Treliving basically revamped the entire bottom of the roster over the course of the year, not because he's an amazing proactive GM, but because he had to address critical mistakes made in the makeup of the roster.

Since opening night the Flames have added:

Janko
Hathway
Shore
Stewart
Kulak
Lazar (I include him but understand if some wouldn't)

The Flames have basically shipped out:

Jagr
Glass
Freddie Hamilton
Bartkowski
Versteeg (I know it was injury but I'm suggesting he would've been in the pressbox most nights based on the start of the season).

You can throw Eddie Lack and his .813 save percentage in there as well.

In my opinion, considering the bottom part of the roster has been by far the biggest weakness on the team, Gulutzan has largely turned chicken #### into chicken salad. He's not the best coach in the league but this is NOT a contending roster. That is absolutely nuts to think considering the organization is 2 years removed from finishing 26th in the league.

I can hold both ideas in my head that GG is not a great coach for this roster and that this roster is not a great roster to coach.

Before GG arrived the Flames had made the playoffs only one time in 7 years.

What on earth compelled the management of this team to be as deluded as a fanbase full of homers?

This organization is terrible. Some fans think it's the coaches fault that in a year where the team's best players nearly all have career years that he can't squeeze NHL quality play out of a group of guys who aren't NHLers.

You give this roster to Bruce Boudreau and this team misses the playoffs. You give it to gerard gallant and this team misses the playoffs.

You simply cannot outplay more talented teams over an 82 game schedule if half your roster aren't NHL quality players.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Well I don't think you're dumb at all, but I don't think it's accurate.

Sutter, Keenan, B. Sutter, and Hartley were all proven coaches.

1. Thank you
2. I should have added "or who weren't reclamation projects" as that adds some clarity

I won't go through all the coaches, as thats rehashing the argument and we've all been down that road. This summer will be telling. If they move on from GG, and they don't secure the services of a coach with a track record of recent NHL successes I think we'll have our answer.

[Scroopy Noopers]

I don't really remember an opportunity to get a coach like that either. A coach either makes himself a legend on your team (definitely option A), or he has to have a recent record mediocre enough to get canned. And for your own teams coaching timeline to lineup with that of high calibre coach getting fired is almost pure luck.

The only example I can really think of is Boudreau... but I personally took a sigh of relief when he signed with Minny. Looking back, would he have been a better option? Probably.

[belsarius]

What is really sad is that since D.Sutter coached, no other head coach of the Flames has gotten another NHL head coaching job, and as much as I've tried to look positively on GG, I don't see this trend stopping anytime soon.

Heck if you go back 20 years the only 2 head coaches that have gone on to another NHL gig are Brian and Darryl Sutter.

That doesn't bode well for an organization.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Let's keep in mind the role of the GM here as it pertains to coaching.

No Janko on the opening night roster, Bennett floundering at centre. Tanner Glass, Freddie Hamilton, Versteeg, Jagr, Brouwer.

Treliving basically revamped the entire bottom of the roster over the course of the year, not because he's an amazing proactive GM, but because he had to address critical mistakes made in the makeup of the roster.

Since opening night the Flames have added:

Janko
Hathway
Shore
Stewart
Kulak
Lazar (I include him but understand if some wouldn't)

The Flames have basically shipped out:

Jagr
Glass
Freddie Hamilton
Bartkowski
Versteeg (I know it was injury but I'm suggesting he would've been in the pressbox most nights based on the start of the season).

You can throw Eddie Lack and his .813 save percentage in there as well.

In my opinion, considering the bottom part of the roster has been by far the biggest weakness on the team, Gulutzan has largely turned chicken #### into chicken salad. He's not the best coach in the league but this is NOT a contending roster. That is absolutely nuts to think considering the organization is 2 years removed from finishing 26th in the league.

I can hold both ideas in my head that GG is not a great coach for this roster and that this roster is not a great roster to coach.

Before GG arrived the Flames had made the playoffs only one time in 7 years.

What on earth compelled the management of this team to be as deluded as a fanbase full of homers?

This organization is terrible. Some fans think it's the coaches fault that in a year where the team's best players nearly all have career years that he can't squeeze NHL quality play out of a group of guys who aren't NHLers.

You give this roster to Bruce Boudreau and this team misses the playoffs. You give it to gerard gallant and this team misses the playoffs.

You simply cannot outplay more talented teams over an 82 game schedule if half your roster aren't NHL quality players.

Every team in the league has weaknesses in their lineup outside of the absolute top contenders. Colorado's going to make the playoffs with Blake Comeau and Matt Nieto playing in their top 6. LA is going to make the playoffs despite their entire bottom 6 getting out-shot, out-chanced, and out-scored. San Jose gets outscored when their top players are on the ice. Dallas gets absolutely lit up when Mattias Janmark and Devin Shore are on the ice, and they play the 4th and 5th most minutes on the team.

That's our direct competition, and they're finding a way to win despite having glaring flaws throughout their lineups. But we're going to say our roster can't compete because a couple of our depth players are -5 over an 82 game season? There's no way we can overcome that?

Or are you calling Backlund and Frolik not NHL quality? Because they're the ones who are actually deep in the red this year (-15 for Backlund, -12 for Frolik).

If you need a roster where all 18 skaters are going to outplay the average NHLer to compete, there's something wrong because nobody in the league has that kind of roster.

You can only have so much talent under a salary cap in the best of times and it's on the coach to get the most out of the talent you do have.

Why isn't our best-shooting defenceman playing on our top PP unit when it's built around D taking shots?
Why do we have a D-core built around great puck-moving and skating abilities dumping the puck up the boards and standing at the blueline in the offensive zone?
Why are our statistically worst PKers the first ones over the boards when shorthanded?
Why is a line combo that's -13 on the year playing 80% of their ice time together?

Do you honestly think none of those decisions can have any impact on a team's results? If each of those decisions could be worth a single point in the standings, we're still in the race today.

Every team has flaws, but we shouldn't be plummeting out of the playoffs because our roster isn't perfect.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I don't really remember an opportunity to get a coach like that either. A coach either makes himself a legend on your team (definitely option A), or he has to have a recent record mediocre enough to get canned. And for your own teams coaching timeline to lineup with that of high calibre coach getting fired is almost pure luck.

The only example I can really think of is Boudreau... but I personally took a sigh of relief when he signed with Minny. Looking back, would he have been a better option? Probably.

Quennville left Colorado in May 2008 and was hired by Chicago in September of that year as a pro scout. They fired Savard a month later and promoted Quennville into the spot of Coach.

Some teams are proactive, other teams hire the Godfather of the GMs son to coach.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Let's keep in mind the role of the GM here as it pertains to coaching.

No Janko on the opening night roster, Bennett floundering at centre. Tanner Glass, Freddie Hamilton, Versteeg, Jagr, Brouwer.

Treliving basically revamped the entire bottom of the roster over the course of the year, not because he's an amazing proactive GM, but because he had to address critical mistakes made in the makeup of the roster.

Since opening night the Flames have added:

Janko
Hathway
Shore
Stewart
Kulak
Lazar (I include him but understand if some wouldn't)

The Flames have basically shipped out:

Jagr
Glass
Freddie Hamilton
Bartkowski
Versteeg (I know it was injury but I'm suggesting he would've been in the pressbox most nights based on the start of the season).

You can throw Eddie Lack and his .813 save percentage in there as well.

In my opinion, considering the bottom part of the roster has been by far the biggest weakness on the team, Gulutzan has largely turned chicken #### into chicken salad. He's not the best coach in the league but this is NOT a contending roster. That is absolutely nuts to think considering the organization is 2 years removed from finishing 26th in the league.

I can hold both ideas in my head that GG is not a great coach for this roster and that this roster is not a great roster to coach.

Before GG arrived the Flames had made the playoffs only one time in 7 years.

What on earth compelled the management of this team to be as deluded as a fanbase full of homers?

This organization is terrible. Some fans think it's the coaches fault that in a year where the team's best players nearly all have career years that he can't squeeze NHL quality play out of a group of guys who aren't NHLers.

You give this roster to Bruce Boudreau and this team misses the playoffs. You give it to gerard gallant and this team misses the playoffs.

You simply cannot outplay more talented teams over an 82 game schedule if half your roster aren't NHL quality players.

I agree with this (well, mostly, I don't think Versteeg would have been in the press box). When it comes down to it, talented rosters typically make the playoffs and have positive goal differentials. We don't have enough impact players on the roster, plain and simple. We need more players who can put the puck in the net consistently.

I think the majority of fans overestimate the impact of coaching and underestimate the impact of the actual roster. As you mentioned, our players for the most part all played up to, or exceeded their potential. Where were the rest of the goals supposed to come from? I don't believe that GG is the problem - or maybe a better way of putting it is, I don't think we know if GG is a good coach or not because our roster isn't good enough to be a contender, even with a Babcock calibre coach... it likely wouldn't make a difference.

We constantly outshoot the opponents, yet we're plagued by poor shooting %. Well, IMO the most likely reason is because we have ####ty shooters. Outside of Monahan, Gaudreau, Ferland (1st half), and Tkachuk, all of whom are having great years statistically, who are we expecting to score? Backlund occasionally? Certainly it is not coming from Lazar, Stajan, Frolik, Brouwer or Hathway (no amount of coaching would change that)... Bennett and Janko have potential, but are still trying to put it together. Add another 20 goal scorer to this roster and we'd likely be comfortably in a playoff spot.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Quennville left Colorado in May 2008 and was hired by Chicago in September of that year as a pro scout. They fired Savard a month later and promoted Quennville into the spot of Coach.

Some teams are proactive, other teams hire the Godfather of the GMs son to coach.

Okay so I missed the third option where a great coach walks away from an organization (which I guess would include Babcock)...

My point is that the flames aren't the only team that have to experiment with coaching. You can't just easily pick up a great coach with a recent winning record. They just aren't available, for obvious reasons.

That doesn't excuse continuing with a coach that should be relieved of duty... like Gulutzan.

[Red]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I agree with this (well, mostly, I don't think Versteeg would have been in the press box). When it comes down to it, talented rosters typically make the playoffs and have positive goal differentials. We don't have enough impact players on the roster, plain and simple. We need more players who can put the puck in the net consistently.

I think the majority of fans overestimate the impact of coaching and underestimate the impact of the actual roster. As you mentioned, our players for the most part all played up to, or exceeded their potential. Where were the rest of the goals supposed to come from? I don't believe that GG is the problem - or maybe a better way of putting it is, I don't think we know if GG is a good coach or not because our roster isn't good enough to be a contender, even with a Babcock calibre coach... it likely wouldn't make a difference.

We constantly outshoot the opponents, yet we're plagued by poor shooting %. Well, IMO the most likely reason is because we have ####ty shooters. Outside of Monahan, Gaudreau, Ferland (1st half), and Tkachuk, all of whom are having great years statistically, who are we expecting to score? Backlund occasionally? Certainly it is not coming from Lazar, Stajan, Frolik, Brouwer or Hathway (no amount of coaching would change that)... Bennett and Janko have potential, but are still trying to put it together. Add another 20 goal scorer to this roster and we'd likely be comfortably in a playoff spot.

1. People underestimate how a game plan can make otherwise average players look great. An average player put in the right spot can have success. Our coach chooses Brouwer on the top PP. Maybe we should change that seeing that the guy has what, 1 PP goal all year?
Maybe we could have more offense with more active D? Seemed to work in the past, no?

2. Stop already. It is so irrelevant and been discussed to death. Not all shots are equal.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Gulutzan pretty much reminds me of Rainman in the 'willingness to try something different' department.

Even Rain Man eventually came to the realization that Kmart sucks.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Red

1. People underestimate how a game plan can make otherwise average players look great. An average player put in the right spot can have success. Our coach chooses Brouwer on the top PP. Maybe we should change that seeing that the guy has what, 1 PP goal all year?
Maybe we could have more offense with more active D? Seemed to work in the past, no?

2. Stop already. It is so irrelevant and been discussed to death. Not all shots are equal.

How are shots irrelevant? Yeah, I pretty much said not all shots are equal. A shot by Monahan is likely different than a shot by Stajan in the same location. It may be partially true that our high danger shots aren't as dangerous as other team's high danger shots. I'd also argue that the quality of our shooters might be worse and lead to our low shooting percentage.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by VilleN

How are shots irrelevant? Yeah, I pretty much said not all shots are equal. A shot by Monahan is likely different than a shot by Stajan in the same location. It may be partially true that our high danger shots aren't as dangerous as other team's high danger shots. I'd also argue that the quality of our shooters might be worse and lead to our low shooting percentage.

The problem is our high danger shots aren't as plentiful as other teams high danger shots.