Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[cross16]

I can't believe Hartley keeps coming up especially when you look at his actual record here. 

 

But  it is very well known by now that Hartley was let go because he turned on the players, made the atmosphere very negative, and multiple players questioned committing long term here if he was retained. 

 

That and outside of that 1 season, the team really wasn't very good. 

[JTech780]

20 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I see nothing wrong with what he said personally. 

 

This is part of the problem I've had with this analysis and how people view Treliving, it's summed up in this statement right here 

 

Why is it when we see that statement we automatically assume that it means big and tough? Or why do we seem to assume it means everywhere on your lineup? Tampa plays this way, are they big? Why is being tough to place against always assumed to be we are going to run you through a wall? to me hard to play against is more about limiting time and space then it is size and physicality. 

 

I don't get the criticism that he isn't building this team this way. Way I've looked at building a team is this: (this is mostly stolen from Brian Burke but modified for my own thoughts)

Top line - This is your offensive engine. I don't care if your big or small your job is to drive offence but not be a liability defensively. 

2nd line  Similar to above but you need this line to be two way responsible. Again, don't really care if you are big here. 

3rd line - This is where you need to be tight checking, in the opposition face, limit opportunities but still create your own. Should have some size here and the ability to take advantage of physical mismatches, forecheck hard. 

4th line - Be physical, not a liability, push the puck the over way.  Forecheck hard. 

 

D core

1 - Be able to dominate at both ends of the ice, limit possessions against and drive it the other way. Be critical in producing offence. 

2nd pair - Very stout in your own end, hard to play against and be able to initiative the counter attack. 

3rd pair - Be physical, stout in your own end and over time push the puck the over way more often than not. Should ideally have some size here as to take advantage of physical mis matches and lay the body where you can. Most important though is your have to be smart in your own end.

 

Are the Flames built exactly in this image? no but it's pretty close IMO and I think when you look at the players being drafted it's all done within this model. 

 

The part I have a problem with is, this team isn't physical and they aren't tight checking. That's just not the way this team is built. Be hard to play against and work hard for sure, but this team isn't going to be the Blues or Golden Knights out there.

[cross16]

4 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

The part I have a problem with is, this team isn't physical and they aren't tight checking. That's just not the way this team is built. Be hard to play against and work hard for sure, but this team isn't going to be the Blues or Golden Knights out there.

 

but again, why do they have to be? You can be physical without putting people through the glass. Was Dallas that physical last year? Is Tampa?

 

I guess we see it differently. As I said it's not perfect as ideally the 4th line could use more of an agitating presence and the 3rd pairing d could use more size but for me the rest is there. 

 

They are not executing like it for sure, but they have most of the pieces to be. 

[travel_dude]

My problem right now is with the current situation.

Maybe it's a symbolic trade to wake the players up.

Maybe it's a sign from the coach that his present use of players is a problem.

All we see is Kylington coming in and Bennett coming out.

That speaks more to the coach grasping at straws.

Maybe those two moves were demanded by the GM.

Bennett, because he is being traded and Kylington because he is being wasted.

I tend to believe the coach is just throwing things at the wall.

Back to the season starting top 12 with the exception of Ritchie.

Depth at C is more important than effective lines.

[ABC923]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I wish we still had Hartley, that he was a good coach, or anything like that.  Just that the team had an identity that matched the skills they had; we had a quick strike offense with poor puck control and a lackluster defense.  We played mostly in our own zone, pushing things to the outside and waiting for the opposition to give up an odd-man rush. We would get outshot and outchanced, but were very dangerous on the rush. It was exciting.

 

Now we are a terrible rush team, we still don't win puck battles or control the play well in the opposition zone and rely on low percentage shots from the point or boards. We can't skate the puck out of our own zone (or just don't). We aren't tough or physical, we don't control the play. We are boring to watch at best, and disasterous at worse.

[JTech780]

41 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

but again, why do they have to be? You can be physical without putting people through the glass. Was Dallas that physical last year? Is Tampa?

 

I guess we see it differently. As I said it's not perfect as ideally the 4th line could use more of an agitating presence and the 3rd pairing d could use more size but for me the rest is there. 

 

They are not executing like it for sure, but they have most of the pieces to be. 

 

The way I see this team is they are kind of like a slower Carolina, and if they played more like that I could get behind it. When I read Treliving's comments and the way Ward is coaching this team it makes me think they want to be more of a heavy/grind team like Vegas or St. Louis. It is a very small distinction, I will admit.

 

I am just not sure everyone is on the same page from top to bottom.

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, JTech780 said:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/brad-treliving-laments-inconsistent-flames-amid-trying-season/

 

Here is an interview with Treliving written by Eric Francis.

 

I have to be honest, not really a fan of anything Treliving had to say in this article, and after reading it I am closer to being on the side of it's time to change the GM.

 

Firstly he says that they have an 'A' game and a 'D' game, and that they haven't seen the 'A' game enough. I think I have only seen the 'A' game once, maybe twice this season. I would say they have a 'B' game and a 'D' game, and that we haven't seen the 'A' game yet.

 

Then he talks about what he think the identity of the team should be. "I want to be hard to play against, hard-working, physical, tight-checking and have the skill and the ability to generate offense." IMO that's not the team he built, if this is what he is preaching from the top, then I can see why this team is so schizophrenic, they are being asked to be something they are not. Lucic and Giordano say that this team should be a "checking team that can score". 

 

Treliving goes on to say "The bubble wasn't a big success story, but I think there was an identity for the team there--" this sentence is really disappointing.

 

I like a lot of what Treliving has done, but this interview shows me that the vision for this team gotten confused somewhere down the line. It might take a new voice to get it back on the track.

 

I agree and the only way we become a hitting team is by adding Robinson, Rinaldo and having Bennett and Lucic. I would say Mange plays with grit and can use his body but it’s a good way of shortening his career if the expectations are to be a hitting team. All of the guys who are hitters, aside from Lucic, deserve about 5-7 minutes a game and I am now throwing Bennett into that category. 
 

the way the GM has it, theyve created a team where about one-third or two-thirds of each line have skill, but not speed....

 

you’re right, disappointing!

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I can't believe Hartley keeps coming up especially when you look at his actual record here. 

 

But  it is very well known by now that Hartley was let go because he turned on the players, made the atmosphere very negative, and multiple players questioned committing long term here if he was retained. 

 

That and outside of that 1 season, the team really wasn't very good. 

thing is, I take his record here with a grain of salt. I just don’t think it’s fair to compare his record here with others as he was here with a bare bones roster. I think that’s why. He got more out of the team with almost nothing on it. Of course his record is going to be Satoshi Nakamototy. He was here for 3 years of a rebuild. Gully took over with a better roster and further developed players and then Peters graduated them to ready status. So yes, Jartley isn’t a good coach, but still his record here was because the team make up were basically all AHL players.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I can't believe Hartley keeps coming up especially when you look at his actual record here. 

 

But  it is very well known by now that Hartley was let go because he turned on the players, made the atmosphere very negative, and multiple players questioned committing long term here if he was retained. 

 

That and outside of that 1 season, the team really wasn't very good. 

 

Hartley was great his first season.  Literally whoever played well, played more.

 

And then suddenly in season two he changed.  Not sure why.  I felt upper management pushed him to win immediately and so Hartley began to play favorites.  It didn't matter if someone wasn't going, he played them.  And when the results were poor, he got fired.

 

So for me, there was two Hartley's.  He first one was coach of the year material..   the later, absolute garbage.  If only we can get back the first Hartley, I would be all for it.

[sak22]

48 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Hartley was great his first season.  Literally whoever played well, played more.

 

And then suddenly in season two he changed.  Not sure why.  I felt upper management pushed him to win immediately and so Hartley began to play favorites.  It didn't matter if someone wasn't going, he played them.  And when the results were poor, he got fired.

 

So for me, there was two Hartley's.  He first one was coach of the year material..   the later, absolute garbage.  If only we can get back the first Hartley, I would be all for it.

Not sure about management influence, but when Hudler, Wideman, Hiller, Bouma, and Jooris who all played a part in the success of 2015 all fell off a cliff the results showed.  The reality was it was the players who performed that year like Johnny, Monahan, and Bennett who were probably bigger influences in getting him canned.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

 

The way I see this team is they are kind of like a slower Carolina, and if they played more like that I could get behind it. When I read Treliving's comments and the way Ward is coaching this team it makes me think they want to be more of a heavy/grind team like Vegas or St. Louis. It is a very small distinction, I will admit.

 

I am just not sure everyone is on the same page from top to bottom.

 

I agree there is a disconnect between the comments, the way the team is built and what we are seeing on the ice. Whose fault that is i think is very much open to debate.

 

All I was trying to say is i personally have always found that Treliving is building this team with a certain vision in mind and we keep seeing it in spirts. Even this year if you go back to the Winnipeg series they ahve periods where they looked fantastic. Gulutzan did it for a while, Peters did it for a while so while it doesn't have staying power I think the identity is there. 

 

It's why i question if Ward is actually who Treliving wanted. 

[travel_dude]

14 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree there is a disconnect between the comments, the way the team is built and what we are seeing on the ice. Whose fault that is i think is very much open to debate.

 

All I was trying to say is i personally have always found that Treliving is building this team with a certain vision in mind and we keep seeing it in spirts. Even this year if you go back to the Winnipeg series they ahve periods where they looked fantastic. Gulutzan did it for a while, Peters did it for a while so while it doesn't have staying power I think the identity is there. 

 

It's why i question if Ward is actually who Treliving wanted. 

 

If Ward wasn't what he wanted, he bet the farm on it.

In theory, this is his last hire so it should have been all or nothing.

That is unless he had the caviat from the owners saying he would go cheap now, due to the limited revenues, but he was not going to take the fall if it didn't work.

I can see that being possible.

 

If we are seeing spurts of what this team is able to do, maybe it's games where they throw out the book and try to play according to their instincts.

I could be wrong, but it may be why we see changes after a win.

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

Not sure about management influence, but when Hudler, Wideman, Hiller, Bouma, and Jooris who all played a part in the success of 2015 all fell off a cliff the results showed.  The reality was it was the players who performed that year like Johnny, Monahan, and Bennett who were probably bigger influences in getting him canned.

 

For sure players had career years and I do believe part of that was the coaches willingness to reward hard work and good results.  We were a team with no expectations so it was easy to do that. Again, in the second season, that all changed because we had expectations probably, especially from upper management.  Hartley had build rapport with certain players and played them in certain situations when they clearly weren't going well that night.  He started playing favorites and after a few months, it was clear the players turned on him.  

 

If only we could get back that first season of Hartley.  We were so fun to watch and you could see players having fun out there.

[dieselmarble]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I agree and the only way we become a hitting team is by adding Robinson, Rinaldo and having Bennett and Lucic. I would say Mange plays with grit and can use his body but it’s a good way of shortening his career if the expectations are to be a hitting team. All of the guys who are hitters, aside from Lucic, deserve about 5-7 minutes a game and I am now throwing Bennett into that category. 
 

the way the GM has it, theyve created a team where about one-third or two-thirds of each line have skill, but not speed....

 

you’re right, disappointing!

 

Its just too bad Robinson doesn't hit and can't fight his way out of a paper bag.

 

[sak22]

29 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

For sure players had career years and I do believe part of that was the coaches willingness to reward hard work and good results.  We were a team with no expectations so it was easy to do that. Again, in the second season, that all changed because we had expectations probably, especially from upper management.  Hartley had build rapport with certain players and played them in certain situations when they clearly weren't going well that night.  He started playing favorites and after a few months, it was clear the players turned on him.  

 

If only we could get back that first season of Hartley.  We were so fun to watch and you could see players having fun out there.

Yeah, but It's not just management with the expectations, the players don't play to lose, they don't play for a lottery pick, they have the expectations, Hartley had 2 years left but I'm sure he's not in Russia by choice, media has expectations and yes even a large % of the fans wanted growth over regression.  Even then we still held a little more hope that more was coming, but out of propects that Treliving inherited the only ones to make the jump into full time NHLers were Jankowski who didn't reach expectations,  Kulak and Hathaway who are basically dime a dozen players, and Ferland.  With limited results from top 60 picks like Poirier, Klimchuk, Sieloff, Granlund and Wotherspoon, not to forget his first draft produced all duds.

[MP5029]

Well if we are judging him in sticking with Ward and also ok with Bennett being benched again...solid FAIL 

 

if we are judging him on this season so far...solid FAIL

 

over the past 2 season it’s been FAIL, FAIL...excuses...FAIL 

 

BT needs to do a bunch of things:

 

1. get rid of Ward ASAP

2. blow this failed experiment up ASAP, it’s a looser culture time to change that like yesterday.

3. Part of blowing it up, time to move the Captain, he’s done and so is his leadership team going down with the ship..it should be the Captain not the entire crew Gio I loved this Guy and screamed blue murder when Cgy let him go to Russia for a year but having said that, I’m also the one saying it’s time for him to call it a career 

[robrob74]

59 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Yeah, but It's not just management with the expectations, the players don't play to lose, they don't play for a lottery pick, they have the expectations, Hartley had 2 years left but I'm sure he's not in Russia by choice, media has expectations and yes even a large % of the fans wanted growth over regression.  Even then we still held a little more hope that more was coming, but out of propects that Treliving inherited the only ones to make the jump into full time NHLers were Jankowski who didn't reach expectations,  Kulak and Hathaway who are basically dime a dozen players, and Ferland.  With limited results from top 60 picks like Poirier, Klimchuk, Sieloff, Granlund and Wotherspoon, not to forget his first draft produced all duds.

 

 

I don't deny that Hartley is a good or bad coach. I just think we judge him too harshly on years where we had literally 3 or 4 NHLers on the roster. I am exaggerating but thosee team just weren't made up of good players. He did win a cup with Colorado and to dismiss that because of the players that were on the team then you have to dismiss the fact that he had horrible players on his Flames teams and got the most out of them in one year, but not the next. Which Like People, I wonder why he went away from what worked the year before. 

I don't want Hartley as a coach. You're right, the players also have their own expectations, but what happens when they can't live up to their or management's/fans' expectations?

 

My bet is that he'd end up like Peters and Babcock anyway, with how he would have treated players in the past. 

[robrob74]

Just now, MP5029 said:

Well if we are judging him in sticking with Ward and also ok with Bennett being benched again...solid FAIL 

 

if we are judging him on this season so far...solid FAIL

 

over the past 2 season it’s been FAIL, FAIL...excuses...FAIL 

 

BT needs to do a bunch of things:

 

1. get rid of Ward ASAP

2. blow this failed experiment up ASAP, it’s a looser culture time to change that like yesterday.

3. Part of blowing it up, time to move the Captain, he’s done and so is his leadership team going down with the ship..it should be the Captain not the entire crew Gio I loved this Guy and screamed blue murder when Cgy let him go to Russia for a year but having said that, I’m also the one saying it’s time for him to call it a career 

 

 

I have to admit, I think Bennett is checked out. I think others could get checked out in time due to this coach's process. I think he was checked out from day 1. Usually he is the best player to start a year. The team takes 2-3 weeks to get it's groove and he's the only one skating during that time, and never rewarded for it. He was arguably the best player in the playoffs last year and he got demoted to the 4th line while Dube was promoted to the 1st. He's checked out. He is playing like it too. I get that you have to play yourself up the lineup, but it's next to impossible when with Nordstrom. Ryan can do it because he has learned how to simplify his game as a C. Bennett is still a new C and is shifted all over the place he hasn't had the chance to solidify a role. He is checked out. 

 

But I wonder if it's only time as it seems players who've had good games get taken out after a good game that they will start to feel the same way.

[pikey7883]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

I see nothing wrong with what he said personally. 

 

This is part of the problem I've had with this analysis and how people view Treliving, it's summed up in this statement right here 

 

Why is it when we see that statement we automatically assume that it means big and tough? Or why do we seem to assume it means everywhere on your lineup? Tampa plays this way, are they big? Why is being tough to place against always assumed to be we are going to run you through a wall? to me hard to play against is more about limiting time and space then it is size and physicality. 

 

I don't get the criticism that he isn't building this team this way. Way I've looked at building a team is this: (this is mostly stolen from Brian Burke but modified for my own thoughts)

Top line - This is your offensive engine. I don't care if your big or small your job is to drive offence but not be a liability defensively. 

2nd line  Similar to above but you need this line to be two way responsible. Again, don't really care if you are big here. 

3rd line - This is where you need to be tight checking, in the opposition face, limit opportunities but still create your own. Should have some size here and the ability to take advantage of physical mismatches, forecheck hard. 

4th line - Be physical, not a liability, push the puck the over way.  Forecheck hard. 

 

D core

1 - Be able to dominate at both ends of the ice, limit possessions against and drive it the other way. Be critical in producing offence. 

2nd pair - Very stout in your own end, hard to play against and be able to initiative the counter attack. 

3rd pair - Be physical, stout in your own end and over time push the puck the over way more often than not. Should ideally have some size here as to take advantage of physical mis matches and lay the body where you can. Most important though is your have to be smart in your own end.

 

Are the Flames built exactly in this image? no but it's pretty close IMO and I think when you look at the players being drafted it's all done within this model. 

Have you been reading my posts? Lol, I tend to agree with you

[sak22]

51 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

I don't deny that Hartley is a good or bad coach. I just think we judge him too harshly on years where we had literally 3 or 4 NHLers on the roster. I am exaggerating but thosee team just weren't made up of good players. He did win a cup with Colorado and to dismiss that because of the players that were on the team then you have to dismiss the fact that he had horrible players on his Flames teams and got the most out of them in one year, but not the next. Which Like People, I wonder why he went away from what worked the year before. 

I don't want Hartley as a coach. You're right, the players also have their own expectations, but what happens when they can't live up to their or management's/fans' expectations?

 

My bet is that he'd end up like Peters and Babcock anyway, with how he would have treated players in the past. 

I'm struggling with what he did the year before.  But the key factor between the two seasons is, they had the worst PK and GA in the league the second year.  I think Hartley ran a system of hot hand in net in 2015, which seemed to work, but can really only run that for so long before before goalies confidences were shattered.  Besides the goaltending there were just a couple of fluke performances that couldn't be repeated.  I don't think Hartley did anything to make Bouma a 16 goal scorer, guy just got a lot of breaks that year.

[MP5029]

Ok D. Sutter...that’s an epic PASS! 
 

solid move BT!

[rickross]

Yikes! 5 coaches in 5 years?!...Flames have been a revolving door for coaches with no right fix in mind. Enter Dutter, this will be interesting to see where he takes this team. The 3 yr contract makes sense but rarely do BT coaches see thru the entirety of their contracts. Not sure BT had any other choices but this is definitely one I’ll be watching in anticipation! We are running out of time!

[JTech780]

22 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree there is a disconnect between the comments, the way the team is built and what we are seeing on the ice. Whose fault that is i think is very much open to debate.

 

All I was trying to say is i personally have always found that Treliving is building this team with a certain vision in mind and we keep seeing it in spirts. Even this year if you go back to the Winnipeg series they ahve periods where they looked fantastic. Gulutzan did it for a while, Peters did it for a while so while it doesn't have staying power I think the identity is there. 

 

It's why i question if Ward is actually who Treliving wanted. 

 

Really have to think that that interview was foreshadowing for the Sutter hire. It makes a lot more sense today.

 

 

[travel_dude]

55 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

Really have to think that that interview was foreshadowing for the Sutter hire. It makes a lot more sense today.

 

 

 

Have to think the ink was drying when he did the interview.  

[Cubicon]

This is the last coach Treliving hires for the Flames. If Sutter doesn't work out, expect some house cleaning.