Glen Gulutzan-16th Flames Coach

[phoenix66]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

There is alot of evidence to suggest Brouwer had a down year and should bounce back. He is litterally down in just about every cateogry you can think of, not just raw numbers like goals and assists, but he dropped in almost everything else. Shooting percentage was up, but shots were way down, Individual corsi and Fenwick were down a lot and his impact on his line mates was way down. While he wasn't a very good possession player in St Louis, he also wasn't an anchor so while I still think the deal was and is terrible, he definetly had a down year.

 

Sticking Brouwer on the 4th line to start makes no sense to me. Sure if he winds up back there fine but like it or not he is here and isn't going anywhere as his contract is not trade able so you might as well try to maximize which is why i favor him with Frolik and Backlund to start. He can control he middle of the ice in the O-zone and those two are so good at driving possession that i'm not sure even Brouwer can drag them down. 

 

Good points , but i think we need to stop trying to pigeon hole players into spots to justify their salary .Especially breaking up our best line to do it.

If he can play high in the order , then  Fantastic. Personally I believe he will rebound to be more of what we expected him to be,   but if he doesn't , then he;s a $4.5M 4th line player , it is what it is .

I definitely can see him finding a home with Bennett tho .

[MAC331]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

 

Good points , but i think we need to stop trying to pigeon hole players into spots to justify their salary .Especially breaking up our best line to do it.

If he can play high in the order , then  Fantastic. Personally I believe he will rebound to be more of what we expected him to be,   but if he doesn't , then he;s a $4.5M 4th line player , it is what it is .

I definitely can see him finding a home with Bennett tho .

He didn't find a home with Bennett last season so what makes you so sure it works this time. Everyone but you thinks Tkachuk and Bennett would work well together. If a team wants to grow a coach has to find ways to get improved performance from all areas not just one line that happened to do well last season. Backlund, Frolik and Brouwer are 3 experienced veterans that should be exceptional together. Like cross said, if this doesn't work bust Brouwer down to the 4th line again but let's not be afraid to try alternatives first.

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, MAC331 said:

He didn't find a home with Bennett last season so what makes you so sure it works this time. Everyone but you thinks Tkachuk and Bennett would work well together. If a team wants to grow a coach has to find ways to get improved performance from all areas not just one line that happened to do well last season. Backlund, Frolik and Brouwer are 3 experienced veterans that should be exceptional together. Like cross said, if this doesn't work bust Brouwer down to the 4th line again but let's not be afraid to try alternatives first.

simply because i still believe why break up the best thing we have? Tkachuk contributed as much to Backlund and Frolik and vice versa.. its rare to get a trio that fully clicks in this league.

If you're willing to promote breaking them up , then you have to be open to redistributing Johnny and Monahan too.

 

The key to Brouwer and Bennett is who #3 becomes. Brouwer is not a passer nor goal scorer , tho he can chip in with both . Bennett is either a goto or a do-it-myself guy, but in the end hes the goal scorer .So what you end up with a lot of commotion and energy with no results .

 They need a semi skilled LW who can do a bit of it all.. leave Brouwer to do the dirty work in the corners, get it back to the center , Cause a distraction while Bennett gets dirty in the crease.

If given the chance to gel and get some chemistry ,  Versteeg or Ferland - Bennett - Brouwer  could be deadly from all 3 spots 

[cross16]

45 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

 

Good points , but i think we need to stop trying to pigeon hole players into spots to justify their salary .Especially breaking up our best line to do it.

If he can play high in the order , then  Fantastic. Personally I believe he will rebound to be more of what we expected him to be,   but if he doesn't , then he;s a $4.5M 4th line player , it is what it is .

I definitely can see him finding a home with Bennett tho .

 

So the better answer is to throw 4.5 million on the 4th line and let it rot away? Why would you not want to try and maximize/justify the salary you are paying it no matter what.

 

I'm not saying play them no matter what, but to start the season that's the line I would use. If it works fantastic, if not then you need to use something else. I don't want him anywhere near Bennett. They are a bad fit and like I mentioned even if he bounces back he is still a negative possession player. I think Bennett, as most 21 year old do, needs someone to help elevate his game not hold in back and that won't be Brouwer. 

[travel_dude]

39 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

So the better answer is to throw 4.5 million on the 4th line and let it rot away? Why would you not want to try and maximize/justify the salary you are paying it no matter what.

 

I'm not saying play them no matter what, but to start the season that's the line I would use. If it works fantastic, if not then you need to use something else. I don't want him anywhere near Bennett. They are a bad fit and like I mentioned even if he bounces back he is still a negative possession player. I think Bennett, as most 21 year old do, needs someone to help elevate his game not hold in back and that won't be Brouwer. 

 

And that is the problem.  Not good enough for the top line.  Too expensive to play on the 4th.  THe $4.5m question is whether he can bring enough to justify moving Frolik to his other side.  Frolik probably won't falter, but there isn't enough sample size to prove it.  So, it's a calculated risk.  

 

Start him with Backlund or not, I just don't want to be 3 months into the season wondering when the experiment is going to end.    

[AlbertaBoy12]

7 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

And that is the problem.  Not good enough for the top line.  Too expensive to play on the 4th.  THe $4.5m question is whether he can bring enough to justify moving Frolik to his other side.  Frolik probably won't falter, but there isn't enough sample size to prove it.  So, it's a calculated risk.  

 

Start him with Backlund or not, I just don't want to be 3 months into the season wondering when the experiment is going to end.    

Frolik has played the LW before, and it shouldnt be a huge thing to switch him to his strong side. We are talking about a winger going from his off wing to his strong side, how exactly is that a risk?

 

I dont think it will take 3 months to figure out if it works or not.

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

simply because i still believe why break up the best thing we have? Tkachuk contributed as much to Backlund and Frolik and vice versa.. its rare to get a trio that fully clicks in this league.

If you're willing to promote breaking them up , then you have to be open to redistributing Johnny and Monahan too.

 

The key to Brouwer and Bennett is who #3 becomes. Brouwer is not a passer nor goal scorer , tho he can chip in with both . Bennett is either a goto or a do-it-myself guy, but in the end hes the goal scorer .So what you end up with a lot of commotion and energy with no results .

 They need a semi skilled LW who can do a bit of it all.. leave Brouwer to do the dirty work in the corners, get it back to the center , Cause a distraction while Bennett gets dirty in the crease.

If given the chance to gel and get some chemistry ,  Versteeg or Ferland - Bennett - Brouwer  could be deadly from all 3 spots 

No I don't, how does that even make sense to you. Finding better chemistry is every coaches job even if it makes the team marginally better which I think putting Tkachuk with Bennett will accomplish. I think Backlund and Frolik with Brouwer will be stronger defensively or should be plus all of them will reach their normal statistics or more. The risk is will a Bennett/Tkachuk line give us added advantages, if I'm GG I want to find that out for the betterment of the team. In regards to your other perceptions Bennett in order to be a successful C has to learn to distribute the puck which require confidence in your line mates, something he hasn't had yet. Anyways to each their own.

[MAC331]

20 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Frolik has played the LW before, and it shouldnt be a huge thing to switch him to his strong side. We are talking about a winger going from his off wing to his strong side, how exactly is that a risk?

 

I dont think it will take 3 months to figure out if it works or not.

A risk worth taking IMO.

[cross16]

I think the term "risk" is a big exaggeration. We are talking about changing a line combo, not trading away a player...

 

Doesn't work you go back to what does. Don't understand why people think it would takes months to figure out and be a "risk" 

 

Remember when it was a big "risk" to separate Brodie and Gio? Flames need more out of their depth next year so sticking with the same lineup should not be plan A, especially considering they are returning, as of now at least, basically the same forward crop. 

[travel_dude]

29 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I think the term "risk" is a big exaggeration. We are talking about changing a line combo, not trading away a player...

 

Doesn't work you go back to what does. Don't understand why people think it would takes months to figure out and be a "risk" 

 

Remember when it was a big "risk" to separate Brodie and Gio? Flames need more out of their depth next year so sticking with the same lineup should not be plan A, especially considering they are returning, as of now at least, basically the same forward crop. 

 

This is Gully we are talking about.  How long did he try Chaisson on the top line.  The risk is that Gully lets it go for too long and we lose a bunch of games because it impacted the top shutdown line.  In theory, if he doesn't work out in 5 or so games, he probably shouldn't be there.  

[MAC331]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

This is Gully we are talking about.  How long did he try Chaisson on the top line.  The risk is that Gully lets it go for too long and we lose a bunch of games because it impacted the top shutdown line.  In theory, if he doesn't work out in 5 or so games, he probably shouldn't be there.  

Pretty small sample there coach. The plan last year was to give Chiasson that opportunity with JG and SM and how much of that not quite working was on JG and SM themselves. Why is it you don't think 3 seasoned veterans couldn't form a very good shutdown line considering all 3 have been relative specialists at it ? Why would you not want to see what Tkachuk could do with someone like Bennett ? 5 game samples are a joke you don't learn much in 5 games.

[cross16]

23 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

This is Gully we are talking about.  How long did he try Chaisson on the top line.  The risk is that Gully lets it go for too long and we lose a bunch of games because it impacted the top shutdown line.  In theory, if he doesn't work out in 5 or so games, he probably shouldn't be there.  

 

Had no other options. Versteeg and Brouwer up there were bad, Chiasson was at least passable until he was comfortable enough with Ferland and even then it's not like Ferlan'd blew Chiasson out of the water up there. Ferland got really hot for a shot period and then fizzled. 

 

That's over exaggerating the situation but to each his own. If you lose a "bunch of games" because you tinkered with 1 line then your issue isn't that 1 line it's somewhere else. 

[conundrumed]

Anyone think Jagr would be worth it to give us some better RW options?

Would he be interested?

Tkachuk-Bennett-Jagr?

Seems like Barkov loved him.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

Pretty small sample there coach. The plan last year was to give Chiasson that opportunity with JG and SM and how much of that not quite working was on JG and SM themselves. Why is it you don't think 3 seasoned veterans couldn't form a very good shutdown line considering all 3 have been relative specialists at it ? Why would you not want to see what Tkachuk could do with someone like Bennett ? 5 game samples are a joke you don't learn much in 5 games.

 

5 games is small enough to prevent damage.  10 games is how we started the slide last season.  How many games exactly did Chaisson play with the top line?  Around 30.

More games than the top line struggled to score in. But anyway I digress.  If he's not back this fall, there's probably a reason for it.

 

I have no issue with Tkachuk moved away from them; if fact I prefer it.  I think I have been saying that for quite some time now.

 

Anyway, no point arguing about what lines a coach will or won't play.  BTW, a prospect is luck to get a 5 game stint.  If he doesn't show something in that period, he might not get a 2nd chance that season.  Doesn't mean he's crap, just didn't do enough to warrant a longer look.

[MAC331]

27 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

5 games is small enough to prevent damage.  10 games is how we started the slide last season.  How many games exactly did Chaisson play with the top line?  Around 30.

More games than the top line struggled to score in. But anyway I digress.  If he's not back this fall, there's probably a reason for it.

 

I have no issue with Tkachuk moved away from them; if fact I prefer it.  I think I have been saying that for quite some time now.

 

Anyway, no point arguing about what lines a coach will or won't play.  BTW, a prospect is luck to get a 5 game stint.  If he doesn't show something in that period, he might not get a 2nd chance that season.  Doesn't mean he's crap, just didn't do enough to warrant a longer look.

You keep bringing up these points and 5 game scenerios like these coaches and managers don't already know what they have in these players. They do and a 5 game injury cover off isn't going to change the plan very often if at all. They want them developed properly so when they do bring them up they can impact the team and stay.

So you are changing your opinion about the MMM line now and going with what your opposition always was not wanting Brouwer there. I agree with cross try it and see if they have some success together, GG can always throw him  back down on the 4th line.

 

 

[robrob74]

I really hope that Poirier can still develop. Could he look good with Bennett?

[conundrumed]

4 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I really hope that Poirier can still develop. Could he look good with Bennett?

He's another year in the A after coming out. Why didn't we keep Grats around?

Ferland was the same. It's very real that it is a part of the culture in the game and these are kids that need babysitters to ensure they don't go overboard due to the built-in stress like Poirier with the weight of expectation.

I'm sure there's too many untold stories just like Poirier to the point I kinda thought he left Stockton last year due to an addiction.

I really wish that, as fans, we could show more restraint towards jumping all over our misguided ambitious outlooks towards what amounts to kids.

Piling on doesn't help, like, at all.

I'm not a flagrant rah-rah Justin Trudeau overt compassion-monger either.

I want Lomberg on the 4th line, enough said.

Poirier now needs to prove accountability, imo, and don't play woe-is-me with the bottle, because that's a bs move when the going gets tough.

In my opinion.

Show an ounce of fortitude to fight through your struggles. Prove you have that. There aren't any silver platters, 500 guys will work twice as hard for half of a shot of what you have.

If anything, suck it up for them.

Here ends my compassion.

Last year of his ELC, the excuses are out of the way.

 

Back to GG, I think there is too much cronyism when we sign the likes of Gazdic, Chia-son and Lack. Enough of that. Name your needs by position, not name.

Coach THIS team. If we put an all-star team of your former players together we'd be the Calgary Avalanche.

[AlbertaBoy12]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Back to GG, I think there is too much cronyism when we sign the likes of Gazdic, Chia-son and Lack. Enough of that. Name your needs by position, not name.

Coach THIS team. If we put an all-star team of your former players together we'd be the Calgary Avalanche.

Its a little short sited to not take your coaches opinions on players dont you think? Gazdic is probably not going to play for this team, and if he does heres hoping he finds success. Chiasson had a good season, im honestly surprised no one has signed him yet. Lack was a really good goalie until he went to carolina, im not seeing the problem with that move. Lack apparently was asked to change some things about his game in carolina, and those changes didnt work for him. Bart was a decent player for this team down the stretch, and I really dont think that signing was just GG saying he wanted him because it made sense for the team.

 

I really dont think BT is sitting there taking what GG wants and going out to get those guys. I think whats more likely is they identify a player and ask his opinion on him, obviously he might have good things to say about them and then they go get him. 

[MAC331]

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I really hope that Poirier can still develop. Could he look good with Bennett?

I think both Poirier and Shinkaruk are players you could use there and we may be thankful we have them available in the AHL. We need these types of good replacements.

[MAC331]

4 hours ago, conundrumed said:

He's another year in the A after coming out. Why didn't we keep Grats around?

Ferland was the same. It's very real that it is a part of the culture in the game and these are kids that need babysitters to ensure they don't go overboard due to the built-in stress like Poirier with the weight of expectation.

I'm sure there's too many untold stories just like Poirier to the point I kinda thought he left Stockton last year due to an addiction.

I really wish that, as fans, we could show more restraint towards jumping all over our misguided ambitious outlooks towards what amounts to kids.

Piling on doesn't help, like, at all.

I'm not a flagrant rah-rah Justin Trudeau overt compassion-monger either.

I want Lomberg on the 4th line, enough said.

Poirier now needs to prove accountability, imo, and don't play woe-is-me with the bottle, because that's a bs move when the going gets tough.

In my opinion.

Show an ounce of fortitude to fight through your struggles. Prove you have that. There aren't any silver platters, 500 guys will work twice as hard for half of a shot of what you have.

If anything, suck it up for them.

Here ends my compassion.

Last year of his ELC, the excuses are out of the way.

 

Back to GG, I think there is too much cronyism when we sign the likes of Gazdic, Chia-son and Lack. Enough of that. Name your needs by position, not name.

Coach THIS team. If we put an all-star team of your former players together we'd be the Calgary Avalanche.

It isn't abnormal for coaches to go with players they have some experience with or go with some additional experience when the situation calls for it. Kind of why they have these TDLs.

[phoenix66]

2 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Its a little short sited to not take your coaches opinions on players dont you think? Gazdic is probably not going to play for this team, and if he does heres hoping he finds success. Chiasson had a good season, im honestly surprised no one has signed him yet. Lack was a really good goalie until he went to carolina, im not seeing the problem with that move. Lack apparently was asked to change some things about his game in carolina, and those changes didnt work for him. Bart was a decent player for this team down the stretch, and I really dont think that signing was just GG saying he wanted him because it made sense for the team.

 

I really dont think BT is sitting there taking what GG wants and going out to get those guys. I think whats more likely is they identify a player and ask his opinion on him, obviously he might have good things to say about them and then they go get him. 

I think you absolutely need your coaches input. Last year especially , since he was bringing in a new system , it helps to have players that know the system to quicken the transition . This season obviously he has more of that since everybody that was here last year is familiar .

But last year I think bringing in Chiasson , Vey (even tho he didnt work out ) etc.. was to inject a knowledge of what GG wanted. I called it and was right that Engelland would get a more prominent role . These players are all familiar with GG and he with them . I doubt he specifically asked for Bart, but I'm sure it played a factor knowing you were injecting a guy that already knew how he was supposed to play .

 

In Lack's case, youre right , I doubt he told BT to go get him .. but having an insight into what he can be and why he likely veered from that in Carolina was likely a big factor in BT pulling the trigger on the deal, and even approaching it to begin with .

I'm also sure the direction to go D heavy was an ask of GG.. as was the goal of 4 pure lines 

[MAC331]

5 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I think you absolutely need your coaches input. Last year especially , since he was bringing in a new system , it helps to have players that know the system to quicken the transition . This season obviously he has more of that since everybody that was here last year is familiar .

But last year I think bringing in Chiasson , Vey (even tho he didnt work out ) etc.. was to inject a knowledge of what GG wanted. I called it and was right that Engelland would get a more prominent role . These players are all familiar with GG and he with them . I doubt he specifically asked for Bart, but I'm sure it played a factor knowing you were injecting a guy that already knew how he was supposed to play .

 

In Lack's case, youre right , I doubt he told BT to go get him .. but having an insight into what he can be and why he likely veered from that in Carolina was likely a big factor in BT pulling the trigger on the deal, and even approaching it to begin with .

I'm also sure the direction to go D heavy was an ask of GG.. as was the goal of 4 pure lines 

I think you are likely correct with having some players being familiar with GG and his system being a fit. In Bartkowski's case I think timing was good that he was available and they want someone with a tad more experience than what we had. New coaches, new systems it's a process and by the end of the season they were working it just fine.

Lack is familiar to GG but that was a situation waiting to be had and BT was all over it. Lack is a good goalie, I don't think he will disappoint here.

The D heavy makes all kind of sense when you have forward lines getting use to each other up front. We hopefully will be ahead of the game with a season under the belt for most of our forwards. I'm excited.

[rickross]

How short is GG's leash? If we fail to qualify for the playoffs next season is it fair to fire GG? Would a coach like Dave Tippett be a better option? It's no secret the Flames play was up and down throughout the year, that 10 game win streak saved the season let alone GG's first year behind the bench. The team improved in some areas but is there enough progress and confidence shown in GG to see him through his entire contract ? 

[Cowtownguy]

1 hour ago, rickross said:

How short is GG's leash? If we fail to qualify for the playoffs next season is it fair to fire GG? Would a coach like Dave Tippett be a better option? It's no secret the Flames play was up and down throughout the year, that 10 game win streak saved the season let alone GG's first year behind the bench. The team improved in some areas but is there enough progress and confidence shown in GG to see him through his entire contract ? 

I am still not convinced that GG is a good or a great coach. I suspect that Treliving will at least give him the entire season before any decisions are made. We need stability throughout the franchise, so I am not big on the idea that GG should be fired. Given that he has more to work with this year, I suspect that his future is more secure. Treliving's leash is cut shorter if GG is turfed.

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, Cowtownguy said:

I am still not convinced that GG is a good or a great coach. I suspect that Treliving will at least give him the entire season before any decisions are made. We need stability throughout the franchise, so I am not big on the idea that GG should be fired. Given that he has more to work with this year, I suspect that his future is more secure. Treliving's leash is cut shorter if GG is turfed.

I think most coaches are on a 3 year look and would have to have their team digress huge before facing the axe. What is wrong with you guys wanting to give a young coach some opportunity to advance in the NHL. Just because Tippet is out there doesn't mean we should run out and grab him.