The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

The system is rigid and doesn't allow defensmen to pinch down and get involved for extended periods of time. I think if you look at number of times a flames dman is below the hashmarks with the puck you would find we are in the bottom third of the league. Which is a shame considering our d core can skate and shoot (for the most part)

Just because the top line thrives under gulutzan and no other line does doesn't mean it's on the other 9 guys. The top line thrived under ANY coach with the way Johnny has been going this year. A different coach could likely get more out of the rest of this forward group and utilize the skill on the back end a little better.

Everything good = on the players. Everything bad = on GG's rigid system. OK.

How is Hamilton getting all those goals?

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

It's not like our offence is stagnant on D ~ the top D point getter at this time is Klingberg with 7 goals and 47 assists 54 points.

Dougie ~ 14 G / 24 A / 38 Pts (9th) among D
Giordano ~ 9 G / 22 A / 31 Pts (25th) among D
Brodie ~ 4 G / 23 A / 27 Pts (41st) among D

Are they under performing? Sure they are ~ but the Flames have also been noticeably more dominant in 1 goal games this year than Hartley was in them; sure we had all those exciting comebacks that one year but past that the two seasons that saw us draft Monahan and Tkachuk were riddled with us not being able to go toe to toe in one goal games.

If the Flames have a better power play in the first half of this season GG looks a lot better than he does right now ~ we are like 4 wins off of being in a dominant spot at this point and I can think back to many loses this year that we should have won and played well enough to win.

This team isn't as far off as some think IMO.

This team also isn't as close as some think


They are a bubble team because they lack consistency night to night

[Harry Lime]

Finally moving Bennett up to the top line took long enough. If it takes more than a few games to discover that Johnny is comfortable on the right side, and Bennett on the left, I'll be a little annoyed.

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

This team also isn't as close as some think


They are a bubble team because they lack consistency night to night

Actually even strength we are one of the better teams in the league ~ the biggest thing that has killed us has been lacklustre home record and a PP that couldn't get going early enough. If we have even halfway better versions of those we are in a home playoff position at this time no doubt about it.

The fact that we are sitting 3 points back of a home playoff position and the one team we can't catch at this time is the who-would-have-guessed-it-absolutely-no-one Vegas Knights tells me that yea we are actually much closer to being legit than we are further away from it.

We have the 2nd leading scorer in the entire league
Amazing goaltending when Smith is back
Solid scoring ~ FOUR 20+ goal guys
top 5 road team

There is a lot and I mean ALOT to like about this roster and I don't think Coaching ~ outside of Cameron ~ hasn't been as terrible as some are making it out to be.

If the Flames are a bubble team right now that means that LA, Anaheim, San Jose, Minnesota, Dallas, and St. Louis are too this year and all of those teams sit AT MOST 7 points back and the majority with in 5 points of a home advantage playoff spot.

I think people really are being too critical about the team. They aren't as bad as some are making them out to be ~ not even close.

[djsFlames]

Oddly enough, despite some of the lackluster efforts in games and the recent 3 game skid, they are still 5-4-1 in the last 10.

The simple truth of it is the west is ultra competitive this season. and the crazier thing is that teams on the bubble like Anaheim, LA and St. Louis could all feasibly come out of the west if healthy. The west is a very different beast from the east, where a team with the Flames record would comfortably be looking ahead to playoffs rather than fighting tooth and nail. The Flames have pissed away some valuable points but they are right on pace for a typical playoff berth, though the level of competition has pushed that threshold higher. ####ing Vegas also threw things out of whack by wrapping up a spot that most thought would've been occupied by one of the other teams.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

The system is rigid and doesn't allow defensmen to pinch down and get involved for extended periods of time. I think if you look at number of times a flames dman is below the hashmarks with the puck you would find we are in the bottom third of the league. Which is a shame considering our d core can skate and shoot (for the most part)

Just because the top line thrives under gulutzan and no other line does doesn't mean it's on the other 9 guys. The top line thrived under ANY coach with the way Johnny has been going this year. A different coach could likely get more out of the rest of this forward group and utilize the skill on the back end a little better.

I've already made my points and shown my examples on defensemen pinching and etc. No one is going to convince me that the system they're currently playing is too rigid especially when considering pinching is mostly reading and reacting from individual to individual and varies based on the time and score of the game.

For your last point, Gulutzan hasn't pulled any reigns on the 1st line and not only are they thriving, but they're on pace to obliterate their career highs. Saying that the 1st line transcends the coaching and everyone else is stunted is just flat out fabrication.

It doesn't make sense at all since Bennett and Jankowski looked fantastic in December and was carrying the team at the time when the 1st line struggled. What happened since? Did the coach tell them to stop playing well? Backlund and his line were probably our best over line last season and under the same coach and systems, they're underperforming. Ditto for the 4th line, major underperformance.

[The Boy Wonder]

I guess we'll agree to disagree but any coach who puts his 4th line (and it is a terrible 4th line) out on the ice for the second shift of the game is doing things fundamentally wrong.

The eye test says that he's out of his depth, and that he gets out coached on in game adjustments and personnel decisions

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

I guess we'll agree to disagree but any coach who puts his 4th line (and it is a terrible 4th line) out on the ice for the second shift of the game is doing things fundamentally wrong.

The eye test says that he's out of his depth, and that he gets out coached on in game adjustments and personnel decisions

We definitely will have to agree to disagree.

But to be fair, It’s up to Treliving to build a team with functional lines as well. Can’t just have consistently terrible performing 3rd and 4th lines that can’t be trusted on the ice in critical situations. Like what exactly is stopping him from finding a couple good 4th liners. They’re dime a dozen. Good teams have players that can play in all and any situations at any time and be effective, that’s what I’ve learned in the last week from teams like Boston and Las Vegas.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

I guess we'll agree to disagree but any coach who puts his 4th line (and it is a terrible 4th line) out on the ice for the second shift of the game is doing things fundamentally wrong.

The eye test says that he's out of his depth, and that he gets out coached on in game adjustments and personnel decisions

How does the eye test say that?
Specifics please
It seems like the term eye test is starting to be used as a crutch for positions unsupported by facts

[automaton 3]

Not completely OT, but from Simmon's article about Canada's loss to Germany.

But on the way to defeat and the greatest victory in the not-memorable history of German hockey, Desjardins had much to answer for. He didn’t change lines. He didn’t change styles. He didn’t adjust to the Germans’ trapping ways. He didn’t shorten his bench when he needed to. He continued to use ineffective players.
And in a four-on-four situation late in the game, down a goal, the Canadian coach put fourth-liners Eric O’Dell and Maxim Lapierre on the ice.

Sounds all too familiar:
http://nationalpost.com/sports/olymp...oss-to-germany

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

How does the eye test say that?
Specifics please
It seems like the term eye test is starting to be used as a crutch for positions unsupported by facts

I can't begin to count how many games the opposition has either altered their strategy midway through a close game or while down and the flames haven't responded by doing anything differently.

I suppose it's not the easiest thing to imperically prove but you can see that the flames play the same structure and system of breakout and attack and coverage no matter what their opponent is throwing at them. Just watch when a team goes from being more passive onthe forecheck to actually sending two guys and hassling our breakout, GG doesn't change to adapt.

In terms of personnel it is absolutely on the gym to get the right players but it's also on a coach to adapt his system to utilize the strengths of his players. Babcock is a great example of a coach who can do this, he doesn't force square pegs into round holes.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

In terms of personnel it is absolutely on the gym to get the right players but it's also on a coach to adapt his system to utilize the strengths of his players. Babcock is a great example of a coach who can do this, he doesn't force square pegs into round holes.

I'm pretty sure under Babcock, you play the way he wants you to play or you gtfo.

Look at who got selected to play on his Olympics teams. A whole bunch of round pegs.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I'm pretty sure under Babcock, you play the way he wants you to play or you gtfo.

Look at who got selected to play on his Olympics teams. A whole bunch of round pegs.

Olympic teams are bad examples, as he gets to choose from hundreds of potential players and can take all the 'round pegs' that he wants. But in the NHL a team has to make use of both it's 'round pegs' and it's 'square pegs'.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

I can't begin to count how many games the opposition has either altered their strategy midway through a close game or while down and the flames haven't responded by doing anything differently.

I suppose it's not the easiest thing to imperically prove but you can see that the flames play the same structure and system of breakout and attack and coverage no matter what their opponent is throwing at them. Just watch when a team goes from being more passive onthe forecheck to actually sending two guys and hassling our breakout, GG doesn't change to adapt.

In terms of personnel it is absolutely on the gym to get the right players but it's also on a coach to adapt his system to utilize the strengths of his players. Babcock is a great example of a coach who can do this, he doesn't force square pegs into round holes.

You mean like double shifting Johnny, or moving a Ferland down mid-game, or something like that?

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You mean like double shifting Johnny, or moving a Ferland down mid-game, or something like that?

I honestly just don't think gully does it as much as he could or should. Obviously he does some personnel movement but on a scale of NHL coaches I really don't think he is anywhere near progressive in terms of hanging things up. Or at least in making the smart changes like Dougie to pp1.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Not completely OT, but from Simmon's article about Canada's loss to Germany.

But on the way to defeat and the greatest victory in the not-memorable history of German hockey, Desjardins had much to answer for. He didn’t change lines. He didn’t change styles. He didn’t adjust to the Germans’ trapping ways. He didn’t shorten his bench when he needed to. He continued to use ineffective players.
And in a four-on-four situation late in the game, down a goal, the Canadian coach put fourth-liners Eric O’Dell and Maxim Lapierre on the ice.

Sounds all too familiar:
http://nationalpost.com/sports/olymp...oss-to-germany

Except Gulutzan does match lines to ensure the Backlund line is always out against the opposition’s best line. He likes to match the 1st line against the opposition’s top 6 line so that they can force them to defend instead. He really shortened the bench in the Nashville game by playing our best shutdown line for 2.5 straight minutes because it’s the only line he trusts 100% to finish the game with the win. He also double shifts Gaudreau all the time when we need a goal.

The style also changes when we have a lead going inro the 3rd which is a lead to something like a 52-0-3 record when leading affer 2. He also changed lines a lot last season before he found established lines with chemistry this season.

The bottom 6 are the only lines who’ve needed to be changed around this season because of ineffectiveness and it’s basically been a revolving door of changes. Also we’ve beaten all kinds of teams this season, ones who trap, ones who can skate, mixed teams, it’s not like we’ve been thoroughly dominated by a lot of teams this season.

So not sure I buy your take that Desjardin = Gulutzan

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

I honestly just don't think gully does it as much as he could or should. Obviously he does some personnel movement but on a scale of NHL coaches I really don't think he is anywhere near progressive in terms of hanging things up. Or at least in making the smart changes like Dougie to pp1.

He started out with Dougie on PP number one last season, and people complained (Brodie was being stifled). I think he never should have changed that. He played Bennett on the wing and people complained (Bennett needed to play centre in order to be in a position to succeed).

Look, I get that people think he sticks with status quo too long. Maybe he does. But believe me, I see the same exact complaint about almost every coach. "Why doesn't he try X?" "Same old coach X, never change". "He plays X too much/on the power play/on line X". I've seen these same complaints about Quenneville and Babcock.

[monkeyman]

GG isn't going anywhere this year. I just hope BT doesn't make a bunch of rash bad trades trying to fix something that's systemic.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I'm pretty sure under Babcock, you play the way he wants you to play or you gtfo.

Look at who got selected to play on his Olympics teams. A whole bunch of round pegs.

Babcock is great at utilizing the players he has to play how he wants though, he doesn't try and force players into a style that doesn't suit them. it's one reason Hyman is on the top line instead of a guy like Marner. Hyman is there to drive the corners and dig out the puck.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Babcock is great at utilizing the players he has to play how he wants though, he doesn't try and force players into a style that doesn't suit them. it's one reason Hyman is on the top line instead of a guy like Marner. Hyman is there to drive the corners and dig out the puck.

Lots, probably all coaches do stuff like that, and when the team isn't winning, fans complain that the coach is playing a no talent plug on the first line instead of player X.