Reaction to coaching hire

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Kybb79

GG had no clue what he was doing. That's why he was always looking at the monitors.

OK, so why do other coaches look at the monitors? Do none of them have a clue what they're doing?

[Toonage]

If there is something to challenge you have a look. If your assistants call attention to something you have a look. If you're just looking to see where a play broke down you can do that between periods. Whats done is done and GG rarely had his arms around a player explaining what they did wrong anyway.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I guess you're just assuming that the monitors are there for no reason, as clearly nobody needs any more information than they can see by watching the game as it is being played.

Its just a delegation of responsibility. You've got two assistants and Gelinas upstairs. Why does the HC have to spend his time checking it when he could be doing something more important.

How many of those 'ipad scrutinized' challenges actually worked? Not many.

Have the assistants look at it, if they think theres a case they can call it or bring it to his attention.

In the meantime, rally the troops.

At the same time though GG had all of the inspirational abilities of overcooked spinach.

[Kybb79]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

OK, so why do other coaches look at the monitors? Do none of them have a clue what they're doing?

Not as much as GG did. I see most coaches talking to the bench.

[Galakanokis]

I hate the replay monitors installed in the bench. They are not very big and are covered by thick plastic so the quality is not the greatest. Guys up above have better access to better equipment. But they are here to stay but i do feel the head coach should not be starring at and should focus on the players.

I watched an early Toronto-Boston game during the playoffs and as soon as the Leafs got scored on Babcock leaned over to an assistant and they had a brief conversation. The assistant talked to the defensemen coming off and Babcock addressed the players going on to the ice. A third coach gave Babcock a thumbs up after looking at the monitor assuming he meant good goal. It was a pretty obvious good goal on the ice. I was like yes, this is exactly how it should work.

Now Babcock doesn't always do this and does look at his monitors but more so than not you can see him interacting with the players. Headcoaches are there to get the players ready to play game by game and shift by shift not check past plays. Just my two cents.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its just a delegation of responsibility. You've got two assistants and Gelinas upstairs. Why does the HC have to spend his time checking it when he could be doing something more important.

Because it takes less time to look at the monitor himself than to listen to someone else describe what they saw, and there is less chance of error.

Again, Glen Gulutzan is not the only coach in the world that looks at monitors during stoppages in play. Every coach does it. You just seem to take it all out on him personally for some reason.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Locke

Get your assistants to do it!

I've ranted about this forever! The time staring at the screen should be spent talking to your players and getting them ready for their next shifts.

We gave up a ridiculous number of goals in short spans because our coach was too busy checking the ipad as opposed to prepping his next shift.

I know it sounds dumb, but it actually means a lot. After goals against players are down, its natural, get them ready to go.

Let your assistants check out the replay.

Its not even the pseudo-defeatist body language its the missed opportunity to rally your troops.

I understand why fans hated this, but it remains in my mind one of the most irrelevant complaints of a coach, and was absolutely NOT the reason why Glen Gulutzan was unsuccessful in Calgary.

For my money, I do not care whether or not Coach Peters consults the on-bench monitors after a goal allowed. I care whether or not he helps the Calgary Flames win hockey games.

[Strange Brew]

I don’t know about the looking at the monitors thing but it does seeem like Treliving is making a point of the coaching staff will be communicating more with the players. So whether it was after goals, intermission, after the game or all other times, seems like Tre saw a problem there.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its just a delegation of responsibility. You've got two assistants and Gelinas upstairs. Why does the HC have to spend his time checking it when he could be doing something more important.

How many of those 'ipad scrutinized' challenges actually worked? Not many.

Have the assistants look at it, if they think theres a case they can call it or bring it to his attention.

In the meantime, rally the troops.

At the same time though GG had all of the inspirational abilities of overcooked spinach.

I agree. It is usually a waste of time for the head coach. They should be relying on their intuition and experience most of the time to infer what happened on the play and use their time to make adjustments, corrections and motivate. The assistants can always look at the slo-mo replays to see if there was anything else going on that needs to be addressed.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Because it takes less time to look at the monitor himself than to listen to someone else describe what they saw, and there is less chance of error.

Again, Glen Gulutzan is not the only coach in the world that looks at monitors during stoppages in play. Every coach does it. You just seem to take it all out on him personally for some reason.

Because the Head Coach knows better than all of the assistants?

Gala just posted that Babcock delegates it and his assistants tell him whether its worth challenging or not.

Thats all I'm saying, whats the issue with that?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Sorry if I hit a nerve, Jiri. Don't think I'm whining. Don't think you are, either. Will leave it at that.

My reply was intended to be friendly and calm. Sorry if it didn’t come off that way. Was trying to just explain my POV and reaction and my opening line was intended to be a joke disagreeing with you saying we often agree. Didn’t land it!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree. It is usually a waste of time for the head coach. They should be relying on their intuition and experience most of the time to infer what happened on the play and use their time to make adjustments, corrections and motivate. The assistants can always look at the slo-mo replays to see if there was anything else going on that needs to be addressed.

No man! No! Its irrelevant!

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Locke

Because the Head Coach knows better than all of the assistants?

Because seeing something for yourself is more reliable than having it described to you second-hand.

Gala just posted that Babcock delegates it and his assistants tell him whether its worth challenging or not.

And if the only thing a coach is interested in is whether to challenge the goal, that's fine. And he may just be a fool for not caring about any other information he could get by watching the replay from an angle that he could not see from the bench.

[GioforPM]

GG should have never looked at his tablet or a monitor (even if others do it). He should constantly call “momentum “ time outs (even though other coaches hardly ever do).

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

GG should have never looked at his tablet or a monitor (even if others do it). He should constantly call “momentum “ time outs (even though other coaches hardly ever do).

Really?

If you do not think there were at least 5 situations where GG should have taken a timeout and didn't then I don't know if GG could do anything to bother you.

You are right other coaches hardly do it but hardly doesn't mean never and given the flames season of being bad but not blow out bad, they had more opportunities for such time outs.

I will never forget watching the puck drop at center ice after Frolik scored on his own net and seeing a group of players who needed a timeout more than anything. Guys had their heads down, Frolik wasn't even paying attention for the puck drop and GG is watching the ipad. 5 seconds later another one is in the back of our net and we lose.

You also understand that visor cleanings, goalie equiptment coming lose, broken sticks, etc are not always to give guys a rest after an icing, right? Its a players to have everyone regroup or as you call it, a "momentum timeout".

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Really?

If you do not think there were at least 5 situations where GG should have taken a timeout and didn't then I don't know if GG could do anything to bother you.

You are right other coaches hardly do it but hardly doesn't mean never and given the flames season of being bad but not blow out bad, they had more opportunities for such time outs.

I will never forget watching the puck drop at center ice after Frolik scored on his own net and seeing a group of players who needed a timeout more than anything. Guys had their heads down, Frolik wasn't even paying attention for the puck drop and GG is watching the ipad. 5 seconds later another one is in the back of our net and we lose.

You also understand that visor cleanings, goalie equiptment coming lose, broken sticks, etc are not always to give guys a rest after an icing, right? Its a players to have everyone regroup or as you call it, a "momentum timeout".

No man, all that is irrelevant. Didnt you hear? Whatever is on the ipad is the most important thing.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I understand why fans hated this, but it remains in my mind one of the most irrelevant complaints of a coach, and was absolutely NOT the reason why Glen Gulutzan was unsuccessful in Calgary.

For my money, I do not care whether or not Coach Peters consults the on-bench monitors after a goal allowed. I care whether or not he helps the Calgary Flames win hockey games.

I agree there were larger issues, and unfortunately a lot were strategy related.

I don’t see the issue as looking at the monitor, I see it as prioritization of limited time.

I do agree with the folks that think the head coach should use the time immediately after goals to address the team, being decisive and in control.

Give a guy crap if you need to, reinforce the plan for the next play. Take a quick look if you need to, but ignoring the team and watching TV is not in my mind coaching.

Definitely Gelinas can radio down and advise to challenge if required, they could get a couple if eyes on it and gain consensus pretty quickly. Most goals don’t require a challenge.

Especially in light of the fact that the team was recognized as mentally fragile, and victimized far too often by a quick second goal, I think the best use of the coach’s time is focused on the next 30 seconds, not the previous.

Just my opinion

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Locke

No man, all that is irrelevant. Didnt you hear? Whatever is on the ipad is the most important thing.

But what he would watch on the ipad just a worse view of what just happened right in front of him moments ago. Others are paid to watch the ipad in the press booth for you. Sure every now and then you might want to double check whether a stick really hit a guy or if there was contact in the crease but Glen was a whole new level!

[Jay Random]

You know what all this reminds me of?

I remember when people ridiculed Roger Neilson for using video of games in his coaching. I also remember when the same sort of people ridiculed Bob Johnson for writing things down in notebooks in between plays. Those people assumed that a coach should always be able to get all the information he needs in real time, from one angle (viewing at ice level from behind the bench), and retain it perfectly in memory, and that any coach who can't do that is a fool and a laughingstock. In other words, those people were idiots.

There are many things Glen Gulutzan did wrong, and some that he deserves to be mocked for. Watching the iPad isn't one of them.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Hey....hey everyone.....Glen Gulutzan no longer coaches the Calgary Flames. It's time to stop worrying about what he did or didn't do. It's time to move on. These debates went nowhere when he was here, and it's not going to get any better now that he's gone, but at least it's completely irrelevant to the fate of the Flames now.

This is just a wish of mine. I spent the last year avoiding conversations around here because of the vitriolic stance most fans had on our coach. I would dearly love to have conversations on what this team can do to improve moving forward. Can we try to leave the Gulutzan stuff behind us? K thanx.