Lets Talk About the flames Style of Play - Gully v Peters

[Red]

Peters is "in the game". He is very active, lots of communication with the bench, line shuffles etc.
GG was silent and un-involved. Autopilot coaching from a template.

As for style, seems like they attack the middle more. This is hard to defend against so they end up generating much better chances. And the pinching D. We have one of the best offensive blue line in the NHL. Peters is embracing that. GG grounded it.

[Otto-matic]

Also. I don't think I've ever heard Peters say in his post game pressers. "We just weren't ready tonight"

[tvp2003]

I'll leave systems to the hockey experts, which I am not. But part of me wonders whether the transition from Hartley to Gulutzan was much steeper than Gulutzan to Peters, i.e. the Gulutzan years weren't a total waste but helped bridge the gap to where Peters has taken them today. I guess that's my half glass full view.

What I can say is that I agree Peters is more of a leader and motivator that is what this team needed after Gully. Of course, winning solves a lot of problems, but this team plays more confident and is more resilient (especially in "big" games) and I think that stems from the coach. Also, there is the direct impact of his lineup decisions, from better forward lines and d-pairings, managing the goalie situation, and shortening the bench in the third. All three facets were weaknesses of Gulutzan, and have now become strengths with Peters.

[twocents]

Better 'style' has come from having a better coach. Peters has been able to read the pulse of this team from the get-go. From his benching of Frolik early season, to his persistent faith in our 4th line that is now dominating games, he seems to push the right buttons at the right times.

Every player is playing with confidence and that is resulting in an up-tempo, attractive style of hockey that has been missing for too long.

Gully threw sticks, Peters takes pucks in the face for his team. I am looking forward to the playoffs.

[Bunk]

I am very happy with Peters. We did struggle early with play, but that historically has proven to be quite normal for the first 20 games or so, I recall reading. Lots of new faces, lots of GG stink to get off, etc.

I agree with everything said about his pulse on the team, and also how good his in game decisions are. He seems to know when the right moments to pull out the line blender, and when to stick with consistent line combos to maximum effect.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by twocents

Gully threw sticks, Peters takes pucks in the face for his team. I am looking forward to the playoffs.

Haha, there are a few gems in this thread but this one is gold.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

One system catered to statisticians in the hope it would generate wins. The other caters to the players actual skill and abilities.

This. GG seemed to be coaching for Corsi. I get everyone loves advanced stats these days, and I agree they have a place, but in hockey, nothing beats hard work and the eye test. As much as people want it to be baseball, it isn't.

Also, the players shift around and cover each other pretty seamlessly now. It makes adjustments on the ice easier and the play more flexible. If the defense jumps in to the play, you see a forward go back to cover them. GG's system seemed more rigid where every player was on rails and was expect to stay there. It took our offense from the defense right out of the game. A lot of the time the players just looked confused on the ice.

I still remember the 'appeal to authority' crowd saying the issues were that GG had to undo what Hartley taught them... yeah right. GG isn't qualified to wash Hartley's jock.

[Ashasx]

Beyond what has already been said, Peters isn't afraid to shorten the bench. Gulutzan rolled four lines all game which was infuriating.

Peters seems hyper-focused during the game and gets a really good read as to which players are feeling it and which aren't.

[The Fonz]

Gulutzan's system was too slow - the other team was never caught flat-footed, never caught by surprise, and I think you could attribute the majority of team's awful shooting% to this lack of pace. The opponent & opposing goaltender was always set and in position, and pucks don't typically go in the net in the NHL in those circumstances.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Gulutzan's system was too slow - the other team was never caught flat-footed, never caught by surprise, and I think you could attribute the majority of team's awful shooting% to this lack of pace. The opponent & opposing goaltender was always set and in position, and pucks don't typically go in the net in the NHL in those circumstances.

Yeah because they were always passing it back to the D in the D zone, and then goind D to D before moving up ice. Excruciating.

[Toonage]

I swear they also gave up choice shot opportunities to shoot where they were told to on certain goaltenders.

Which I suppose speaks to creativity being sapped out of their game

[Rando]

Glen Gulutzan



Bill Peters

[Igottago]

Gulutzan's system just reeked of analysis paralysis and rigidity. No one enjoyed it, you could tell the players didn't and the fans got to witness some of the most boring hockey in franchise history. Ultimately hockey is supposed to be creative and fun and the players need enough structure to align them as a group but also enough room for their creative abilities to flourish. Peter's has nailed it.

[GranteedEV]

Answer the following questions for which basic strategy better suits our defensive core and/or roster

Short Pass
vs
Stretch Pass

Stationary/Grinding
vs
Skating/Racing

Point Shooting + 3 forwards down low systemically
vs
Rovers + a forward covering up high fluidly

Gulutzan managed to pick the wrong answer on every one in an attempt to be the anti-Hartley. The problem was that while Hartley had flaws, he still understood the strengths of his roster. As Peters does. What Peters also adds is a bit more emphasis on in your face aggressive play that the more conservative Hartley was too obstinate to implement.

Basically we play a style that really isn't far off from what we played under Hartley, but we rely less on shotblocking and collapsing the lanes and more on trusting our goaltending while we pressure. It's not even that our x's and o's are even "better" - they're just more liberal.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

Also. I don't think I've ever heard Peters say in his post game pressers. "We just weren't ready tonight"

Gulutzan's quote was often ''we're just weren't ready''. With Peters, it's ''we'll be ready, play hard, work hard, etc''. And he doesn't say it like he is trying to tell the media what they want to hear. He genuinely knows his team will be ready to play hard all night, and he's right. You can count on one hand the number of times this season the Flames weren't ready to play from puck drop. The past couple of seasons it was a 50/50 coin toss if the team would show up.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

I think also Peters has a big presence in the locker room. I remember back in 17 when they clinched and dropped that video and Gully said something along the lines of "I don't come in here often" in the locker room.

Yes, I remember that Gulutzan also didn't talk to the team in between periods, which, given their propensity last year for collapsing at the first sign of adversity, seemed like a strange choice...

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Gulutzan's system was too slow - the other team was never caught flat-footed, never caught by surprise, and I think you could attribute the majority of team's awful shooting% to this lack of pace. The opponent & opposing goaltender was always set and in position, and pucks don't typically go in the net in the NHL in those circumstances.

Unlike Peters, Gulutzan did not as a rule deploy our speedy, skilled forwards to look for rush opportunities, nor get our mobile defense to provide the second wave as trailing options. Their transition game looks a lot more dynamic this year with defenders driving up to create more passing lanes. The best part is they can still break out as a 5 man unit when the situation calls for it (I remember a clinic in puck possession and passing late in the third from the monahan line and gio/brodie to completely neuter ottawa forechecking pressure last night). They have a lot more different looks this year, which makes containing them more difficult.

Peters has the forwards applying back pressure and the F3 (and if needed the strong side defender) pinching to force turnovers as the other team tries exit the zone. When successful, which given the talent on our team should be more often than not, this produces turnovers in a very dangerous part of the ice, creating 3 on 2s and 2 on 1s down low instead of 3 on 5s if you get the puck further down the ice. The Backlund goal last night was a textbook execution of this plan.

As a whole, there seems to be a lot more rotation and movement when they have control in the offensive zone, much more exciting than Gulutzan's static point shot based attacking scheme. It didn't help that Gulutzan would roll 4 lines and 3 d pairings no matter how badly the 4th line or the 3rd pairing performed. I don't think I'll ever forget Bartkowski and Engelland bleeding goals and shots against (bartkowski was 3rd last in goals against per 60 and last in corsi against per 60 for players in the playoffs that year) every game in 2017 against Anaheim and getting shifts when we were trailing in the third. Feel like puking just thinking about bartkowski in a flames jersey.

On that note, I thought after listening to Peters talk after the game last night that a telling difference between Peters and GG is that Peters vouches for guys like Lindholm and Ryan while GG vouched for guys like Bartkowski, Grossmann, and Vey...

[Imported_Aussie]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Gulutzan's system blows and Peters' system is awesome.

One system catered to statisticians in the hope it would generate wins. The other caters to the players actual skill and abilities.

One system makes it seem like if you want to win, you have to play a certain way. The other system has the team believing in themselves no matter the score.

One system was boring as hell to watch. The other leaves you shaking your head at some of the skilled plays.

One system had a coach that was timid and seemed like he was in over his head. The other system employs a true leader and leaves no doubt who the true boss is.

One system leads to being a bubble team. The other gets your 2nd overall.

Great summation - one other point to note though:

One system was not adjusted in game - play through it. One system is tinkered with, bench shortened, game managed by a coach reading the game and making the necessary adjustments

[bubbsy]

Peter's has the team playing a quick transition game, which i think is the key in the current brand of nhl hockey.

I might get slammed for saying this, but it looks a lot like the alain Vigneault nuck team that went to finals. Quick transition, limited d to d passes to start the breakout.

Gulutzans slow, d to d, controlling breakouts have no place in today's nhl as we saw

[getoverit]

Peters doesn't sit on the bench staring at an ipad
Peters trusts oyr babies unlike GG who rode our veterans
Peters knows what a time out is
Peters communicates on the bench
Peters makes adjustments throughout game, has a great feel for the game
Peters not scared to bench players
Peters readily gives credit where credit is due
Peters animated vs no expression GG
Peters enjoyable to listen to after a game and providing feedback
O M G the differences are so vast and wide and lopsided, not even funny

[Enoch Root]

Lots of great points in this thread.

Just want to address comparisons to Hartley... I think there are similarities on the offensive side, especially a quick-paced transition game, and I am so happy that the D is pinching again, but I think they are polar opposites defensively. Hartley wanted the team to collapse, block lanes, and (above all) block shots. Peters has tighter gaps, better back-side pressure in the neutral zone, is more aggressive with defensive zone coverage, and is more concerned with breaking the cycle than blocking shots.

Hartley was likable, but there were aspects of his game that were difficult to get on board with. Peters does all the things I thought Gulutzan was going to do. It is such a refreshing and wonderful change.