The impossible task, coaching and expectations

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Context is irrelevant when you're talking about success, unfortunately

Close only counts in horseshoes - 2nd and 3rd in the 2nd and the same number of 2nd round appearances as gulutzan who had Elliott as his goalie

Either way the excuses for why these teams all failed to achieve playoff success is not the point, but rather that the type of coach hasn't mattered in Calgary for a long, long time. Fans who aren't in the room and have no idea what the locker room dynamics are like calling for a hard ass coach is laughable because we have zero idea whata really going on. When people draw parallels to how their shop foreman runs a family owned business compared to how Glen gulutzan manages the flames it just makes me shake my head

Isn't that Gulutzan's Flames in a nutshell over two seasons? Close but not good enough? Lots of shots but no luck. Didn't get the bounces. Officiating didn't go their way. Special teams let them down. Lack of bottom six depth. We have heard excuse after excuse over the past few seasons and at the end of the day you are correct. Close only counts in horseshoes.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Isn't that Gulutzan's Flames in a nutshell over two seasons? Close but not good enough? Lots of shots but no luck. Didn't get the bounces. Officiating didn't go their way. Special teams let them down. Lack of bottom six depth. We have heard excuse after excuse over the past few seasons and at the end of the day you are correct. Close only counts in horseshoes.

dont get me wrong - gulutzan is not perfect. in particular, his deployment and special teams(which i know he's not in charge of, but he ultimately holds the hammer as head coach) is atrocious at times, but when this team is 'on' it is scary. how much of that is systems and how much of that is ignoring the system depends on your own personal preference

that said, no matter what coach is here, i dont believe they have the horses up front to make a splash. they just aren't consistent enough

[Gaskal]

I wish Gulutzan would ask Tortorella for advice more. (Or get replaced by his old boss, because it'd be funny)

The following tale is from a book called "Behind the Bench" by Craig Custance about some of the best bench bosses in the business, I highly recommend it.

Penguins had just lost Game 5 against the Sharks at home, with the chance to take the Cup at home squandered. Sullivan is worried about the massive momentum swing that San Jose was taking home to SAP Center.

He calls Torty, who matter of factly has no doubt.

Tortorella shared his advice with Sullivan during that phone conversation.

"When you get on that plane today, you'd better have your chest puffed out and be as confident as you can be," he said. "They're taking cues off you today. Is it going to be panic by the coaches? Or is it going to be, '#### it. Let's just go down there and get it down. We know we're better. We know we played better.'"

Tortorella closed the conversation with Sullivan by predicting the series was going to end in San Jose. He had no doubt.

"It wasn't even close," Tortorella said. "The score was close but it wasn't really close."

[Pointman]

FWIW Russian's WJC coach Bragin, particularly famous for the 5-3 Buffalo comeback win, said that coaching nowadays is largely about finding right line combos, it is essential for a coach to strongly understand, who can play with who and against who.

Also, a really good opening post by Captain.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Because I don't think it's Gallant that brought that out of them. I said that in the post in the bold part you highlighted and then topped up in the following statement.

That team was going to have that attitude this year anyways. It was a bunch of guys that were pissed off that they were cut by their teams and weren't wanted. It would have covered up for Gulutzan's weakness.

I doubt Gallant had to come in and get that group fired up with a big "nobody believes in you" speech in pre-season. Those guys were going to come out with that attitude anyways.

It's not like Gallant's teams in Florida played with that "chip" on their shoulder. They made the playoffs 1 out of 3 years, didn't win a playoff series, and he was fired on the back of a bad shooting run.

The neat thing about Vegas is that pretty much every game, they were playing against somebody’s old team. And were acutely aware of it.

Some good quotes in this article. I wish the Flames played like Vegas.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/ar...y-s-holy-grail

He doesn’t chase matchups the way so many coaches do, and there is rarely a day when the Golden Knights practice for more than 45 minutes. And while they use video as a tool, Gallant doesn’t believe in having his players sit through half-hour video sessions as a team. “I do a lot of my coaching on the bench,” Gallant said. “We don’t waste a lot of time. I tell my assistants, ‘Make sure when they come off the ice they know when they did something good and make sure they know when they did something bad.’ It’s a little reinforcement, but 80 percent of the time it’s positive reinforcement.”

But even Gallant downplayed the revenge factor early in the season until he couldn’t help but notice that guys on his roster playing against their former teams were coming up big. “I’ve been in that position before, and there’s no better feeling than scoring against your old team,” Neal said. “It’s a different player’s team every night. When you play your old team, you want to play well. You want to score and you want to do everything to win the game. Do we have a chip on our shoulders? Of course we do. When you’re left unprotected, you have something to prove.”

There are times when the Knights get the puck in their end and immediately move it up the ice to a forward speeding out of the zone. It creates a ton of pressure on opponents and has them on their heels just seconds after they’re on the attack. And it’s working to perfection in most cases. “We saw our forward group, and we thought with the Marchessaults and Smiths, they don’t want to be bumpin’ and bangin’, that’s not their style,” Gallant said. “So let’s get the puck up to them with a good, fast transition game. Every team does it, but it seemed to work well with our group. Let’s face it, 90 percent of the systems are the same, and the biggest thing is how your players execute and how you manage your players. I haven’t done anything different as a coach with this group. I can’t say there’s anything special about what is going on. Some nights I try to figure it out myself.”

Edit: one more quote I liked

When it comes to coaching, Gallant most closely resembles the man who coached him in his best years in Detroit, Jacques Demers, with a little Pat Quinn and Pat Burns mixed in for good measure. “I played my best hockey for Jacques,” Gallant said. “Because he left me alone.”

[Travis Munroe]

GG isn't a terrible coach but he is the equivalent of a 3rd line player who appears to have no ability to move up the line. Had he stepped in or made the fans aware that he was aware the PP was costing them games and showed signs of forcing Cameron to change it then it would show me he has the leadership needed. Had he not put our 4th line on the ice in multuple situations with less than 3 minutes to go during a tie game or up by 1 only to lose the game then perhaps I could see him learning from his mistakes. Had he not been so afraid to mix up the lines or leave them as is at the right times, then I could see he is trying everything possible to make it work.

At the end of the day, many of these mistakes can be ignored if we have 6-8 more points in the standings and with a half decent PP, we would have those 6-8 points. While I don't think he is the right coach to take the flames to the next step, it is somewhat unfortunate that the PP, something he doesnt manage much of is going to cost him his job.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Coaching is undervalued by today's NHL fans, not over valued.

Everyone at the top level of anything has coaches and mentors that get the best out of them.
I don't know why a bunch of very young adults in pro sports leagues would be any different.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I wonder if they just axe Cameron? I'm guessing Gulutzan gives full autonomy over special teams to his assistants.

I heard Cameron post game on the radio preaching sticking to it when the PP was sputtering. Considering the changes (Gio, Hamilton, Tkachuk) were an improvement, how many points were lost to this reluctance to change?

[mikeecho]

Gulutzan and co. seem so committed to the system and their type of game philosophy that there's no room for flexibility.

The PP example is a great one. Cameron always preaching (as noted above) to stick with the system for half the year and things only improved when they made significant lineup changes to it.

The other one for me is the 50/50 hockey concept I've heard Gulutzan and the assistant coaches refer to. Be aggressive on pucks that are clearly yours, retreat on pucks that clearly aren't yours and battle for the ones where you have a 50/50 shot. Not a unique approach at all, but the players (especially early in games when they don't have a good read for the game) seem so wound up about playing the system perfect that they treat 50/50 plays like 30/70 plays and back off way more than they should. For me, all the slow starts and early goals against have nothing to do with being motivated or ready to play. They come from being afraid to make a mistake so they start out very passive, which gets them on their heels defensively and leads to mistake riddled hockey. Once they get behind by a few, they open it up and turn it into 70/30 hockey and start to dominate.

It was pretty telling for me today in his expletive filled rant that he was having to talk about going for it or making a play, almost as if these guys needed to get clarity around what a 50/50 play was.

I'd love to see a game where they came out and played 70/30 hockey right off the opening faceoff, but I don't think Gulutzan would be comfortable with that since it requires being aggressive and taking some risks when you don't necessarily need to.

[Lanny_McDonald]

The most important facet of coaching is using the resources available to you in the most efficient manner. A good coach has a vision and a plan, but builds that plan to exploit the strengths of the resources at his disposal. Here is where Gulutzan face plants. He does not use his players worth a damn. He does not use the strength of his defensemen. He does not look at his players and see obvious similarities in style and play that would make for solid lines. He continues to do the same stupid things over and over, game-in-game-out, and expects to see different outcomes. Coaching is about making adjustments and getting the most out of your players. It is about preparation and giving those players the information that will become a tactical advantage, motivate them when they need it, and keep them calm when panic sets in. Gulutzan fails at all of the above. He has a plan, but he doesn't recognize that he needs to make adjustments to suit the talent at his disposal.

Gulutzan's problems are not being a failure. We are all failures. It is human nature to fail because we are imperfect animals. Smart people learn quickly from their failures and alter their behaviors. Gulutzan doesn't recognize that his continued failures are a result of his own inaction. Failure is a part of future success, but only if you recognize the err in your ways and correct the things that are leading to failure. There's the rub. Gulutzan doesn't learn and doesn't adjust. He's a failure because he doesn't lean from each of his failures. He continues to do the same things and expect different outcomes. That is not a high performer. It is not someone who is going to lead a team to future success. It is time to move on and look for someone that does learn from their mistakes and knows how to use resources at their disposal.

[Toonage]

Listening to the Fan 960 right now and I'm a little miffed. The suggestion this morning is more or less, "is this team full of idiots" brought forward by the way they play at home and their breakdown when it comes to simple system play.

My thoughts:

1) This isn't a team full of morons who can't play basic hockey, but there is obviously a gap between the coaches and the players as to what is expected
2) They say the coach is just as confused as anyone why the team doesn't play well at home. Too bad. That's the coaches job to figure this out.

[Resolute 14]

The strange thing about the home/road split under Gulutzan is that, while this year is an extreme, last year was the same story. We were above average on the road (T-8) and below average at home (T-18). It speaks to a coach who struggles to prepare a team in the face of distractions.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The strange thing about the home/road split under Gulutzan is that, while this year is an extreme, last year was the same story. We were above average on the road (T-8) and below average at home (T-18). It speaks to a coach who struggles to prepare a team in the face of distractions.

Or players who are distracted when everything around them isn't controlled.

For me its the lack of adjustments and experimentation by GG that bothers me. PP not working, leave it the same is probably the biggest offense. But also in mid and late game we don't seem to be able to change momentum. Now momentum isn't really a thing but what I mean is that he isn't able to identify why the team is struggling or what the other team is doing that allows them to gain an advantage and make an adjustment to how the flames play.

The game plan game to game appears static and the play within the game seems static. It seems like a dogmatic belief in his system. Now my judgement could be being clouded by the results but it really seems like the flames have one way to play hockey no matter the opponent.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Listening to the Fan 960 right now and I'm a little miffed. The suggestion this morning is more or less, "is this team full of idiots" brought forward by the way they play at home and their breakdown when it comes to simple system play.

My thoughts:

1) This isn't a team full of morons who can't play basic hockey, but there is obviously a gap between the coaches and the players as to what is expected
2) They say the coach is just as confused as anyone why the team doesn't play well at home. Too bad. That's the coaches job to figure this out.

It is an interesting one.

Looking at some of the underlying stats in all scenarios (ES / PP / PK) and a big problem at home is they aren't getting saves and the puck just won't go in. The underlying numbers are pretty consistent and it's only shooting percentage and save percentage that have wild swings.

Home
GF: 91 (27TH)
GA: 106 (26TH)

Shots For: 34.6 (5TH)
Shots Against: 29.6 (8TH)
Shooting %: 7.65% (29TH)
Save %: .895 (30TH)

Corsi For: 67.54 (2ND)
Corsi Against: 53.99 (6TH)
Corsi %: 55.57% (2ND)
Corsi Shooting %: 3.92% (29TH)

Scoring Chance For: 32.22 (9TH)
Scoring Chance Against: 26.31 (10TH)
Scoring Chance %: 55.13% (5TH)

Road
GF: 104 (6TH)
GA: 95 (5TH)

Shots For: 31.8 (8TH)
Shots Against: 32.9 (21ST)
Shooting %: 8.94% (14TH)
Save %: .921 (4TH)

Corsi For: 61.18 (2ND)
Corsi Against: 60.28 (19TH)
Corsi %: 50.37% (9TH)
Corsi Shooting %: 4.64% (19TH)

Scoring Chance For: 31.15 (2ND)
Scoring Chance Against: 29.89 (14TH)
Scoring Chance %: 51.03% (5TH)

So according to this they actually do a better job of creating scoring chances and limiting scoring chances at home. The big difference is that on the road the puck goes in the net at an average rate, and we get way above average goaltending.

I think that matches the eye test too. I feel like at home every game this year starts with some type of soft or "unlucky" goal that bounces in off of our own guy. Then they spend all game peppering the other team and nothing goes in while every chance the other team gets ends up in the Flames net.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GGG

Or players who are distracted when everything around them isn't controlled.

No doubt. Still the coach's responsibility to focus them.

Edit: and in reply to your edit, I agree completely. Gulutzan having a dogmatic approach is something I have been arguing for months. It also goes back to why he was fired in Dallas: His ability to read the flow of the game is extremely poor, and it cripples his ability to adjust.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by GGG

Or players who are distracted when everything around them isn't controlled.

It's funny because I remember when the team was great at home and bad on the road under Playfair it was the opposite argument.

"Coaches have to do less at home"
"Easier to get matchups"
"Tougher to coach on the road when you have to gameplan for the other team getting last change"

Now that it's GG and the story is reversed it's all about how on the road it's easier because they have no distractions, and that he's so bad at match ups at home that we lose...

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It's funny because I remember when the team was great at home and bad on the road under Playfair it was the opposite argument.

"Coaches have to do less at home"
"Easier to get matchups"
"Tougher to coach on the road when you have to gameplan for the other team getting last change"

Now that it's GG and the story is reversed it's all about how on the road it's easier because they have no distractions, and that he's so bad at match ups at home that we lose...

The only similarity is that neither of them should be NHL coaches.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Listening to the Fan 960 right now and I'm a little miffed. The suggestion this morning is more or less, "is this team full of idiots" brought forward by the way they play at home and their breakdown when it comes to simple system play.

My thoughts:

1) This isn't a team full of morons who can't play basic hockey, but there is obviously a gap between the coaches and the players as to what is expected
2) They say the coach is just as confused as anyone why the team doesn't play well at home. Too bad. That's the coaches job to figure this out.

I thought their points were valid. If, at this stage of the season, the coach is having to remind players not to try and beat guys 1:1 at the end of a shift, but to rather get the puck deep, VERY basic stuff, is that the coach's fault or the players' fault?
And moreover, the premise was that not enough of these players are willing to pay the price.
How many guys on the team can you say HATE to lose? The guys they named were Gio, Smith, Tkachuk and Johnny (in his own way - their words not mine).

I would probably add Hamonic to that list.

The rest of the team? They don't seem committed enough.

Why isn't everyone willing to block shots? Sidney Crosby will do ANYTHING to win. He is above nothing.

So why are our best players not like that?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I thought their points were valid. If, at this stage of the season, the coach is having to remind players not to try and beat guys 1:1 at the end of a shift, but to rather get the puck deep, VERY basic stuff, is that the coach's fault or the players' fault?
And moreover, the premise was that not enough of these players are willing to pay the price.
How many guys on the team can you say HATE to lose? The guys they named were Gio, Smith, Tkachuk and Johnny (in his own way - their words not mine).

I would probably add Hamonic to that list.

The rest of the team? They don't seem committed enough.

Why isn't everyone willing to block shots? Sidney Crosby will do ANYTHING to win. He is above nothing.

So why are our best players not like that?

Under pressure you sink to the level of your preparation.

Players who make what appear to be stupid mistakes are apparently not crystal clear on what is expected of them in the situation where they find themselves.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I thought their points were valid. If, at this stage of the season, the coach is having to remind players not to try and beat guys 1:1 at the end of a shift, but to rather get the puck deep, VERY basic stuff, is that the coach's fault or the players' fault?
And moreover, the premise was that not enough of these players are willing to pay the price.
How many guys on the team can you say HATE to lose? The guys they named were Gio, Smith, Tkachuk and Johnny (in his own way - their words not mine).

I would probably add Hamonic to that list.

The rest of the team? They don't seem committed enough.

Why isn't everyone willing to block shots? Sidney Crosby will do ANYTHING to win. He is above nothing.

So why are our best players not like that?

The team led the league in blocked shots when Hartley coached and we complained they blocked too many shots instead of being in position. A lot of Kings forwards are having much better seasons under a new coach. Was Sutter telling guys like Brown and Kopitar not to score? Of course not but it goes to show that a lot can change from coach to coach. This team did not have confidence issues under Hartley nor did they have commitment issues as they competed to the last seconds of games. Not advocating that Hartley should be coaching the team but these confidence and commitment issues came with Gulutzan.