Practice notes Mar 12: Tkachuk, Monahan, & Backlund absent "maintenance days" for all

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

Should fire 95% of our roster into the sun as well. They’re the ones that play the ****ing games but yes let’s continue to blame coaching for a decade of mediocrity.

Except you can't fire 95% of the roster. And if it looks like 95% of the roster is not getting it done, does that not fall on coaching? And management?

I get that a coaching change is a quick fix that doesn't guarantee better results. But there are a host of good reasons to fire Gulutzan. If you'd rather blame the roster, that's your prerogative I guess but it doesn't come across as rational to me.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by timbit

Still have to be curious as to why their road record is so remarkably good.

Same coaches and same players as at home.

Still haven’t got a response.

You often ask questions, but don’t provide much in the way of insight or opinion. Why is that?

I saw that your opinions should carry more weight due to your experience. I didn’t get a chance to ask then, but what is your experience?

If you have first hand insights I’d love to hear them, but you rarely seem to want to share them.

As for the question you posed, I too am curious why they aren’t much worse on the road. Based on their home performances it is very unusual.

[dieHARDflameZ]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Except you can't fire 95% of the roster. And if it looks like 95% of the roster is not getting it done, does that not fall on coaching? And management?

I get that a coaching change is a quick fix that doesn't guarantee better results. But there are a host of good reasons to fire Gulutzan. If you'd rather blame the roster, that's your prerogative I guess but it doesn't come across as rational to me.

I’m not saying at all that I’m a big fan of Gulutzan but I think it’s a pretty weak stance to say this is 100% on him.

The players are just as guilty, they’re the ones playing the games. No you can’t fire 23 players so I guess the obvious choice is him but I’d seriously consider moving a number of players as well if you got the right offer.

[Kipper_3434]

This roster has several players that display a significant give a crap level for today's game. Great OP. Tkachuk, Gio, Bennett and Lazar for example, give great effort. The latter two's progression are amongst my reasons for letting Gully go. Even Brodie, who's received heavy criticism, works his tail off. Gulutzan just has an awful record of player utilization and being out coached from game to game. I believe unlikely that this team would perform worse with a different coach. I'm not angry...it's just time, can't waste another year of Gio or Monahan and Gaudreau's contracts.

[dieHARDflameZ]

I guess my biggest thing is if you’re going to make a coaching change, it better be because someone is available that is clearly a better option. Quenneville, Vigneault, Darryl Sutter... Someone with a proven track record.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

I guess my biggest thing is if you’re going to make a coaching change, it better be because someone is available that is clearly a better option. Quenneville, Vigneault, Darryl Sutter... Someone with a proven track record.

Agree with you there. And agreed that there needs to be a few roster changes too. But I'd like to see what a proven coach can do with the core before Tre does anything too drastic.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by timbit

Still have to be curious as to why their road record is so remarkably good.

Same coaches and same players as at home.

Still haven’t got a response.

I guess Gulutzan tells them to play the system with high energy on the road, but at home, asks the team to sit back and wait for the teams to attack them?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

No chance. Their home record is a reflection of the building they play in which is awful. If they had a nicer rink their record would be far better.

Come on. This is a load of garbage.

Nicer showers and spoofy dressing rooms will make these guys play better? Or were you referring to sound acoustics? Not a chance because it'll still be quiet in there. It's not like there's noise happening that the Saddledome is muffling. There is no noise happening. The crowd is not cheering. The crowd is not cheering because the team has put them to sleep.

So what would a new rink change? Would it make them work harder?

Not seeing the connection one bit.

[Racki]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

I guess my biggest thing is if you’re going to make a coaching change, it better be because someone is available that is clearly a better option. Quenneville, Vigneault, Darryl Sutter... Someone with a proven track record.

I couldn’t agree more. I’m ready for an experienced head coach with a winning pedigree. At the very last one that has a few winning seasons in the NHL under his belt.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Locke

Whose stupid decisions? His or theirs?

You're talking like GG's system if played to perfection, is magic.

"Just do as I say and everything will be fine!"

There is no such thing as a perfect system.

I believe it was Abraham Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is coaching the same failed system over and over again, and expecting different results.

Perhaps, after two full seasons with lacklustre results, it's time to try a new system.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Come on. This is a load of garbage.

Nicer showers and spoofy dressing rooms will make these guys play better? Or were you referring to sound acoustics? Not a chance because it'll still be quiet in there. It's not like there's noise happening that the Saddledome is muffling. There is no noise happening. The crowd is not cheering. The crowd is not cheering because the team has put them to sleep.

So what would a new rink change? Would it make them work harder?

Not seeing the connection one bit.

Can people here tell when other people are joking?

I assumed he was.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Racki

I couldn’t agree more. I’m ready for an experienced head coach with a winning pedigree. At the very last one that has a few winning seasons in the NHL under his belt.

Yes, a cup winner like D Sutter or Q would be great after suffering through the revolving door of underachievers such as Keenan and Hartley. And especially D Sutter before he won the cup.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by timbit

Still have to be curious as to why their road record is so remarkably good.

Same coaches and same players as at home.

Still haven’t got a response.

I think their style of play lends itself more to a road game than a home game. On the road, you want to take the crowd out of it, slow it down, play a strong systems game. Unfortunately they play like that in front of our crowd too, rather than creating and drawing on energy and emotion from the crowd.

[colbym72]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

I think their style of play lends itself more to a road game than a home game. On the road, you want to take the crowd out of it, slow it down, play a strong systems game. Unfortunately they play like that in front of our crowd too, rather than creating and drawing on energy and emotion from the crowd.

This isn't the first team in NHL history to play a slower style. Other teams have done it and had great home records

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by timbit

Still have to be curious as to why their road record is so remarkably good.

Same coaches and same players as at home.

Still haven’t got a response.

I think the Flames have to be very careful with how they look at this season.

There are concerns, but there are also some pretty good signs that it's coming together.

A team that's great on the road and brutal at home is certainly something that should give them pause, especially when the underlying numbers suggest they're actually better at home.

Personally I think it's a tightness issue that has them get down on home ice too often and then dominate against teams that are sitting on leads, but it's hard to argue against the fact that they're out playing teams for most of each night on home ice.

(The team's score adjusted numbers tend to move towards 7-10th league wide at home, but stay top three on road, adding some weight to this)

So the system is fine in my mind, the depth is spotty, but the big issue is being ready on home ice and handling that pressure.

If it's leadership then Gulutzan is in trouble because it's easier to fire a coach and bring in a task master who wills them to be ready than to add leadership to the roster.

But firing for the sake of firing would be foolish given the inconsistency of the direction the information is pointing.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Personally I think it's a tightness issue that has them get down on home ice too often and then dominate against teams that are sitting on leads, but it's hard to argue against the fact that they're out shooting teams for most of each night on home ice.

FYP

Every time I see Smith holding the puck behind the net, Gio stationary in the far left corner and Hamilton stationary in the right corner, it does not look like they are intending on actually outplaying anyone.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bingo

A team that's great on the road and brutal at home is certainly something that should give them pause, especially when the underlying numbers suggest they're actually better at home.

I don't really have a horse in the Analytics argument, but this type of statement always leaves me puzzled. If the underlying number say they are good, but they still consistently lose and look awful doing it, then aren't those underlying numbers relatively meaningless in the big scheme of things?

On the road, this team is consistent, looks composed, and wins games. At home, this team has awful starts, looks scared, and loses games. I think we can argue why that is, but to suggest this team is better at home because of underlying numbers to me feels like missing the big picture. Basic stats, like wins and goals, will always more importance because frankly, that's what leads to the results that actually matter.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

FYP

Every time I see Smith holding the puck behind the net, Gio stationary in the far left corner and Hamilton stationary in the right corner, it does not look like they are intending on actually outplaying anyone.

Please don't fix my posts.

As your fix actually takes away from my point, and adds nothing.

If you don't agree I'm happy to to discuss any points with you, but leave my thoughts alone thanks.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I don't really have a horse in the Analytics argument, but this type of statement always leaves me puzzled. If the underlying number say they are good, but they still consistently lose and look awful doing it, then aren't those underlying numbers relatively meaningless in the big scheme of things?

On the road, this team is consistent, looks composed, and wins games. At home, this team has awful starts, looks scared, and loses games. I think we can argue why that is, but to suggest this team is better at home because of underlying numbers to me feels like missing the big picture. Basic stats, like wins and goals, will always more importance because frankly, that's what leads to the results that actually matter.

Believe I went into that.

Said they have better numbers at home, but that's expected because they get down often and have to come back, pushing the play.

When you look at score adjusted stats they're actually better on the road.

Up to you if you like underlying numbers, but that's what they say.

This season may be lost on some bad bounces early in the season at home creating a team that is too tight to start games when wearing red. If that's the fact firing the coach could be bad idea or a great idea if you think the only way to adjust said tightness is a more forceful voice behind the bench.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by timbit

Still have to be curious as to why their road record is so remarkably good.

Same coaches and same players as at home.

Still haven’t got a response.

There could be a number of reasons I suppose, and not all the same for each player.

There could be a lot of varied distractions at home - family issues, girlfriend issues, partying with buddies issues, that don't exist or are more distant on the road. At the very elasy, it's easier to be more businesslike in the approach to the game on the road, where it's travel, sleep, eat, practice, play and that's about it. Even when they go out on the road, it's with teammates.

There could be more nerves at home - more press scrutiny, pressure of performing for the fans, the local owners are present more often, etc.

Some of it is just happenstance. I don't think the Flames played a worse game last time out than on the road, for example, agaionst Ottawa and Pittsburgh. They go no results against a goalie who played well and a team that has underperformed this year but still has quality players. I can think of at least 6 games where they deserved a win at home but didn't get it. Usually that evens out but I can't think of any home games where they won but didn't deserve it.