The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

I'd prefer Hamilton/gio manning the point on the first unit, Brodie/stone on the second.

Only a single point man in both situations - both who can take shots worth a damn. No more useless shooters on the point.

[Infinit47]

For me it comes down to progression. I just don't see any progression from this team, despite being improved on paper. GG is not getting it done. Period.

[mikephoen]

I'm 100% sure Gaskal would be a better PP coach than Dave Cameron.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

I was just saying this the other day. Even the wins are uninspired boring wins that are always down to the final seconds.

Would you find it more exciting if the wins were 5-1 snoozefests that were out of reach after the first period, and the team just played keep-away till the clock ran out?

I don't know about you, but when the outcome of a game is up for grabs in the final seconds, I generally fail to find that boring.

[shadowlord]

There was a post game interview on Fan 960 after the Sharks game with Paul Gerrard, where Loubo was asking about the poor PP. I think the response was that too many times the players are looking for the easy tap ins or a pretty goal, instead of getting pucks on net and hunt for rebounds/garbage goals. It typically results in one too many passes.

Seems like an accurate description to me. The coaching staff seem to know the problem, I wish they'd go and fix it instead of being stubborn about player deployments. Whatever they're doing now is not working, 32 games in is sufficient patience, time for a change. Wasn't Dave Cameron previously known in Ottawa for a terrible power play success rate?


As for Gio, I've noticed this season is that he's slower with the puck inside the offensive blue line (not necessarily on the PP). He gets it, but either takes too long to pass it off, or tries to make a move to avoid the incoming defender and usually ends up losing the puck or making a pass to a teammate who can't do anything with it.

This observation seems to contradict someone's earlier post that everyone handles the puck like a live grenade. I now start wishing he would get rid of the puck sooner.

[indes]

Its bizzare that we don't have our #1 offensive Dman on the 1PP. Hamilton has a rocket of a wrister and is RH. Why would you not have him playing the point? Is there another team that doesn't have their best offensive Dman on their top PP?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by indes

Its bizzare that we don't have our #1 offensive Dman on the 1PP. Hamilton has a rocket of a wrister and is RH. Why would you not have him playing the point? Is there another team that doesn't have their best offensive Dman on their top PP?

Exactly.

If you look at the Flames roster, the guys that stand out as obvious choices for the PP, in order (IMO) are:

Gaudreau (right side wall)
Monahan (slot)
Hamilton (high, or left wall because he is a right shot)

after that, you look for guys that fit the requirements of the remaining positions:

Down low: Tkachuk, Bennett or Ferland

Opposite wall to Gaudreau: Giordano, Jagr, Bennett , Backlund

My first unit would be:

Tkachuk
Jagr - Monahan - Gaudreau
Hamilton

I really like Brodie as a player, but I have two problems with him on the #1PP: he never leads the zone entry (always turns back to Gaudreau, making it incredibly easy to defend), and; he never shoots, eliminating the high guy as a threat, and making it easy for the PK to collapse down low and defend Johnny's two primary options - Monahan, and the cross-ice pass.

And as many have said, the PP needs to be more mobile, and pass the puck quicker. Those two things freeze the defenders, allowing the PP to set up and run their set plays.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I just watched Gulutzan's off day press conference. He stated in the latest stretch of game (4-5?) they have outchanced opponent 67-45 (something like that) 5v5. I wonder what the goals were for that stretch.

The Toronto game was illustrative to me. I know mine is a minority opinion but I didn't think CGY had many dangerous chances..I thought Andersson wasn't really called on to make great saves, he was just solid.

The SJ game was IMO a very winnable game, I didn't think they were great.

Bottom line I'd like to see a more up tempo game in all facets from the Flames.

[Samonadreau]

It seems like the flames have issues with allowing players to be between the D and the goalie. For a lot of goals against it is this player that gets a tip or a rebound. Shouldn't that be priority number one when playing D zone coverage without the puck is to clear the front of the net or at least cover anyone between you and the crease? Just seems to be an issue with the Flames more so then other teams both 5v5 and on the PK.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I just watched Gulutzan's off day press conference. He stated in the latest stretch of game (4-5?) they have outchanced opponent 67-45 (something like that) 5v5. I wonder what the goals were for that stretch.

The Toronto game was illustrative to me. I know mine is a minority opinion but I didn't think CGY had many dangerous chances..I thought Andersson wasn't really called on to make great saves, he was just solid.

The SJ game was IMO a very winnable game, I didn't think they were great.

Bottom line I'd like to see a more up tempo game in all facets from the Flames.

I totally agree. But don't go telling that to the stats people. They will tell you the shots are coming from closer in now so they are more dangerous...that it is just bad luck...and things will turn around.

Shots are not high intensity, pucks are bobbled, no one is there for rebounds, no one is screening, and all too often it looks like a flurry of intensity when it is basically just like chickens flopping around with their heads cut off.

[Tinordi]

I agree that if GG swapped Brodie for Hedman, Brouwer for Killorn, Ferland for Namestikov and if Gaudreau and Monahan developed one timers like Stamkos and Kucherov then our PP would be much better.

Get on it Feaster.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Did some research in the name of fixing our godawful PP, and the Lightning(#1 team right now, #1 PP unit overall too) also just happen to run a shooting, rebound based 1-3-1. Only they're actually successful at it. Here's one play that is a textbook description of how that kind of 1-3-1 generates scoring chances.

Hedman as the lone Dman is more than happy to shoot. In fact, this whole scoring sequence started off with Hedman cranking it from the point (despite what GG may foolishly think of point shots on the PP), something Brodie seems completely terrified to do.



The 1-3-1 formation is set up to corral any rebounds most efficiently. In the above play, everyone except Killorn got to touch the puck, and any one of them are a threat to finish.

So why do the Coyotes collapse like that? Because the essence of TB’s 1-3-1 isn’t just having strong shooters at all positions - it’s rapid, deceptive puck movement. This is to discombobulate whatever PK they’re up against, as well as throw the goalie’s positioning off and make him work much harder. This GIF below is what happens when you just let them throw the puck freely around to each other.



The Flames do not have this kind of rapid puck movement. They are slow & predictable, and those PP’s are easy-peasy to defend. I don't care how good Brodie's skating or puck handling might be, we need someone in that spot who isn't afraid to drop point bombs. It's not some complicated formula. Shot from the point, traffic in front, goal/rebound. That isn't to say that it's the play to look for every time, but when PKers take away the low options like the Coyotes did above, then it's the easiest option. It's how we scored our last PP goal.



Flames need to actually utilize both half boards guys as shooting threats and not just someone to bounce the puck elsewhere through. The Lightning do this by having Kucherov and Stamkos be on their opposite wing, going right to the circle, when the puck moves either direction.



This way they are on their one-timer side and the shot comes off the blade closer to the net, while forcing rapid lateral movement from the goalie. Either one can set up plays off the half wall. Shot fakes are pretty damn effective when you have 3 one-timer options up high.



The Flames elect to use those two roles more as setup guys, having them retreat closer to the blueline, but this is too easy to defend and is a simple read what play they’re looking for. It just doesn't play to the strengths of a 1-3-1 formation. They need to skate it in to actually get a good shot off, and it’s often off to the side because of the L/R stick-handedness.

Dave Cameron... #PackYour#####

[Draug]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

It seems like the flames have issues with allowing players to be between the D and the goalie. For a lot of goals against it is this player that gets a tip or a rebound. Shouldn't that be priority number one when playing D zone coverage without the puck is to clear the front of the net or at least cover anyone between you and the crease? Just seems to be an issue with the Flames more so then other teams both 5v5 and on the PK.

It's Another "winning" Cameron strategy.... he'd rather our D block the shot than add another layer of screen while trying to box out the other team. Results in our D playing a lot of goal and lots of unchecked opponents in front.

[timbit]

Such a good league with such parity. So difficult for fans to have a realistic approach or opinion on where their team and coaching staff fits. Long season and little separation in the 4 to 12 teams in each conference.

Secondly, it kinda makes me laugh when one reads and hears the coaching critiques when things go awry through the first thirty, forty or fifty(?) games in the season. How would you know? Fact is how would one know what is happening regarding moves that are instructional, motivational and strategical?

The game outcomes?

Lots of good and bad things can happen over a season.

Can guarantee that not all the good and bad things are correlated to coaching.

When your teams’ best players are better than the other teams best players you win .

Yes, coaching is important.

Not sure anyone on this board can accurately critique and or give the coaching staff their due credit and/ or blame up to this point.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by timbit

Such a good league with such parity. So difficult for fans to have a realistic approach or opinion on where their team and coaching staff fits. Long season and little separation in the 4 to 12 teams in each conference.

Secondly, it kinda makes me laugh when one reads and hears the coaching critiques when things go awry through the first thirty, forty or fifty(?) games in the season. How would you know? Fact is how would one know what is happening regarding moves that are instructional, motivational and strategical?

The game outcomes?

Lots of good and bad things can happen over a season.

Can guarantee that not all the good and bad things are correlated to coaching.

When your teams’ best players are better than the other teams best players you win .

Yes, coaching is important.

Not sure anyone on this board can accurately critique and or give the coaching staff their due credit and/ or blame up to this point.

Then what is the point of having a discussion board?

[timbit]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Then what is the point of having a discussion board?

Contribution , worthwhile or not.

[zamler]

What is the point of being overly optimistic even in the face of failure. Coping mechanism?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by timbit

Such a good league with such parity. So difficult for fans to have a realistic approach or opinion on where their team and coaching staff fits. Long season and little separation in the 4 to 12 teams in each conference.

Secondly, it kinda makes me laugh when one reads and hears the coaching critiques when things go awry through the first thirty, forty or fifty(?) games in the season. How would you know? Fact is how would one know what is happening regarding moves that are instructional, motivational and strategical?

The game outcomes?

Lots of good and bad things can happen over a season.

Can guarantee that not all the good and bad things are correlated to coaching.

When your teams’ best players are better than the other teams best players you win .

Yes, coaching is important.

Not sure anyone on this board can accurately critique and or give the coaching staff their due credit and/ or blame up to this point.

So then what was the point of your post? You didn't say anything that Bingo hasn't said. I understand Bingo being "nice" to the Flames. What's your excuse?

[GullFoss]

In Sutter we trust

[robbie111]

Even if they won 30 in a row after this game and set a new hockey record, I still think they would lose in 4 straight in the first round with this coaching staff. They don't know how to utilize the strengths of this teams players. Let's hamstring an incredibly mobile and offensive gifted defense core. Let's play Troy Brouwer on the Number 1 PP and use him and Stajan together to kill penalties. Let's rim it blindly around the glass in our own end. Real rocket scientists behind that bench.