Glen Gulutzan-16th Flames Coach

[cross16]

I see it as a promotion , see above.. the coaches on the bench are there for their specialty (PP- bench control , etc) being upstairs gives Gelinas bigger in game adjustment control and input. basically he becomes the coaches eyes for small things the team can exploit.

Its no different than an NFL coordinator being upstairs and sending down plays

You might be right but for me personally I would view any change that limits your ability to interact directly with the players and make changes on the fly a demotion. Gelinas can make all the suggestions he wants, but the coaches on the bench make the decisions.

I don't think comparing it to coordinator in Football is very fair either. Sending in plays every down is a fair more complex and important process than sending down some thoughts on how the game is going. I do get the value of having a aoch as an eye in the sky, but I think their impact on what actually happens in the game in hockey is minimal. A coordinator in football is critical to your team.

Just to be clear I don't think it's all bad news. I think it's pretty plausible that Gulutzan likes Gelinas as a coach he just wanted more experience behind the bench.

[MAC331]

You might be right but for me personally I would view any change that limits your ability to interact directly with the players and make changes on the fly a demotion. Gelinas can make all the suggestions he wants, but the coaches on the bench make the decisions.

I don't think comparing it to coordinator in Football is very fair either. Sending in plays every down is a fair more complex and important process than sending down some thoughts on how the game is going. I do get the value of having a aoch as an eye in the sky, but I think their impact on what actually happens in the game in hockey is minimal. A coordinator in football is critical to your team.

Just to be clear I don't think it's all bad news. I think it's pretty plausible that Gulutzan likes Gelinas as a coach he just wanted more experience behind the bench.

I think your last statement is the more relevant one.

[TrippinVdUb]

You might be right but for me personally I would view any change that limits your ability to interact directly with the players and make changes on the fly a demotion. Gelinas can make all the suggestions he wants, but the coaches on the bench make the decisions.

I don't think comparing it to coordinator in Football is very fair either. Sending in plays every down is a fair more complex and important process than sending down some thoughts on how the game is going. I do get the value of having a aoch as an eye in the sky, but I think their impact on what actually happens in the game in hockey is minimal. A coordinator in football is critical to your team.

Just to be clear I don't think it's all bad news. I think it's pretty plausible that Gulutzan likes Gelinas as a coach he just wanted more experience behind the bench.

I'm not gonna lie Cross, I was pretty annoyed at the idea of taking Marty off the bench as well. But after hearing Glen talk about the role he invisions for him I'm starting to think it will be a good fit. I like the idea of having him there as a voice for the players, it's going to add another layer of communication from someone who will have a very close relationship with both the coaching staff and the players. It's a pretty progressive idea, one that could pay dividends for the chemistry of this team.

[MAC331]

I went back to Gulutzan's time as head coach in Dallas to see if I could find out anything about the way he deploys players based on even strength ice. The ice time for the forwards broke down like this.

 

1st Line: 15-16min

2nd Line: 14-15min

3rd Line: 12-13min

4th Line: 9-11 min

 

He likes to roll all 4 lines pretty well, I also noticed that he likes to have a speedy 4th line.

 

The defense pairings ice time broke down like this

 

1st Pair: 17-18 min

2nd Pair: 16-17 min

3rd Pair: 16 min

 

Again rolling his pairings really evenly at even strength.

 

I expect we will see the 4th line and 3rd pairing out a little more than what we had seen under Hartley.

I missed this initially and it is good information, thx. I have been hearing a few references to "rolling" with 4 lines which should be interesting to see. The main situation that I see many as we discuss lines refer to the numbering of lines and I think its more important to get the chemistry correct for the two way game you want out of each line.

I'm not gonna lie Cross, I was pretty annoyed at the idea of taking Marty off the bench as well. But after hearing Glen talk about the role he invisions for him I'm starting to think it will be a good fit. I like the idea of having him there as a voice for the players, it's going to add another layer of communication from someone who will have a very close relationship with both the coaching staff and the players. It's a pretty progressive idea, one that could pay dividends for the chemistry of this team.

I think this is a good move as GG needs the players listening to him from the outset. The Flames have been smart with keeping guys like Lanny, Conroy and now Gelinas so good communication exists throughout the organization.

[rickross]

I think BT really drove home the focus of communication with the Gulutzan hiring. Hartley was likely still using intimidation and threats to try and spark the team. I'm sure he softened up somewhat with the tone of his messaging compared to the Hartley of past. I think more than anything Treliving wanted a team that played a motivated and inspired game with a coach that communicates well and can evolve with the game. Hartley took some steps toward adjusting to the new generation of the NHL but he wasn't offering the next step for this team. I'm hoping this refresher in direction and coaching does translate to the effective use of rolling 4 lines. We are a slightly deeper team compared to last season, here's hoping GG can see us thru the next step of the rebuild.

[CheersMan]

I think BT really drove home the focus of communication with the Gulutzan hiring. Hartley was likely still using intimidation and threats to try and spark the team. I'm sure he softened up somewhat with the tone of his messaging compared to the Hartley of past. I think more than anything Treliving wanted a team that played a motivated and inspired game with a coach that communicates well and can evolve with the game. Hartley took some steps toward adjusting to the new generation of the NHL but he wasn't offering the next step for this team. I'm hoping this refresher in direction and coaching does translate to the effective use of rolling 4 lines. We are a slightly deeper team compared to last season, here's hoping GG can see us thru the next step of the rebuild.

BH had excellent communication skills.  Look no further than any post game scrum or media interview he had.  He was clear, concise and professional.

 

BH gave players opportunities, those who played well or showed signs of improving were rewarded with ice time.  If that’s a crime, then………….

 

I think what hung BH was his loyalty to his assistant coach, league worst goal tending, and a pp that failed to execute while investing in young players.

 

We just handed the reins to a head coach who has never won anything as a player or a coach, at any level.  Not sure why that would change now or how anyone could get to excited about that.  Hoping for better doesn’t exactly scream with confidence why the change was done in the first place.

 

I’ll make a prediction right now.  When comparing the two coaches after the GG era, BH will have had more success as a Flames head coach with weaker teams.

 

 

[travel_dude]

^^^^^^

 

What you saw was the coach in the media eyes.  That means nothing in the room or on the bench.  PLayers like Gio are not ever going to say anything negative about him, so it's really just speculation either way; either he lost the room or his demands were unreasonable, or he was a great motivator.  

 

I saw a lot of lacklustre performances this past year.  

[MAC331]

^^^^^^

 

What you saw was the coach in the media eyes.  That means nothing in the room or on the bench.  PLayers like Gio are not ever going to say anything negative about him, so it's really just speculation either way; either he lost the room or his demands were unreasonable, or he was a great motivator.  

 

I saw a lot of lacklustre performances this past year.  

Could we see Hartley in COL ?

[cross16]

BH had excellent communication skills.  Look no further than any post game scrum or media interview he had.  He was clear, concise and professional.

 

BH gave players opportunities, those who played well or showed signs of improving were rewarded with ice time.  If that’s a crime, then………….

 

I think what hung BH was his loyalty to his assistant coach, league worst goal tending, and a pp that failed to execute while investing in young players.

 

We just handed the reins to a head coach who has never won anything as a player or a coach, at any level.  Not sure why that would change now or how anyone could get to excited about that.  Hoping for better doesn’t exactly scream with confidence why the change was done in the first place.

 

I’ll make a prediction right now.  When comparing the two coaches after the GG era, BH will have had more success as a Flames head coach with weaker teams.

 

Communication has alot more to do with how you deal with the media. Again, you can believe what you want but its beocming very well documentated now around Calgary that the players did not like Hartley and grew tired of his approach. I think this is backed up by the fact that so many players, including the captain, have commented about Gulutzan being "refreshing". That says way more about his communication skills then his post game press conference. 

 

Personally I have very little doubt that Gulutzan will have more success than Hartley because IMO Hartley had 1 good year in 4 so its a pretty low bar of success.I think questioning whether or not the right guy was hired is very fair but IMO there is no question Hartley had to go. You need to have a coach players want to play for. 

[cross16]

Could we see Hartley in COL ?

 

I've said before that outside of Montreal i will be surprised if Hartley coaches in the NHL again but this circumstance may be different. This is so late in the offseason that i could see Sakic panicing and naming Hartley his coach at least for a year or 2 to get a more permanent one. 

 

It's not a very good hire though. Avs don't have the backend to pull of hartley's system and have been like the Flames in that they are one of the league's worst posession teams. Brining in a coach that has a system that doesn't encourage posession is the wrong move. 

[Cowtownguy]

BH had excellent communication skills.  Look no further than any post game scrum or media interview he had.  He was clear, concise and professional.

 

BH gave players opportunities, those who played well or showed signs of improving were rewarded with ice time.  If that’s a crime, then………….

 

I think what hung BH was his loyalty to his assistant coach, league worst goal tending, and a pp that failed to execute while investing in young players.

 

We just handed the reins to a head coach who has never won anything as a player or a coach, at any level.  Not sure why that would change now or how anyone could get to excited about that.  Hoping for better doesn’t exactly scream with confidence why the change was done in the first place.

 

I’ll make a prediction right now.  When comparing the two coaches after the GG era, BH will have had more success as a Flames head coach with weaker teams.

I agree with most of what you have said, but I also think that Hartley's days were numbered once Burke was hired. The only way that Burke would have kept him is if the team seriously played over their heads. Given the rebuild, that was highly unlikely. Coaches take too much blame because they are so easy to blame.

 

I don't get this mentality that younger players need to be motivated or refreshed by coaches. That basically translates into "the inmates run the asylum". If someone like, say, Wideman cannot motivate himself to play better, then he should fall off of his wallet and hire a shrink. Coaches cannot be expected to make players happy or excited.

[rickross]

^^^^^^

 

What you saw was the coach in the media eyes.  That means nothing in the room or on the bench.  PLayers like Gio are not ever going to say anything negative about him, so it's really just speculation either way; either he lost the room or his demands were unreasonable, or he was a great motivator.  

 

I saw a lot of lacklustre performances this past year.

I think the exit meetings confirmed the obvious, I'm sure BT pressed hard to get a pulse from the players on the coaching situation. Hartley did a good job dealing with the media with his clever quotes. Thing is we started to hear "Elvis is dead and the Beatles broke up...!" One too many times. I could only imagine how repetitive he must have gotten to the players.

[conundrumed]

I agree with most of what you have said, but I also think that Hartley's days were numbered once Burke was hired. The only way that Burke would have kept him is if the team seriously played over their heads. Given the rebuild, that was highly unlikely. Coaches take too much blame because they are so easy to blame.

 

I don't get this mentality that younger players need to be motivated or refreshed by coaches. That basically translates into "the inmates run the asylum". If someone like, say, Wideman cannot motivate himself to play better, then he should fall off of his wallet and hire a shrink. Coaches cannot be expected to make players happy or excited.

At camp, when Hartley wasn't on the ice, he was always with Burke. In BT's 1st camp, he was occasionally with them, in his 2nd, he was around them more, but it was still BB and BH I saw together the most.

It appeared to me that BB and BH were doing most of the talking. I'm thinking BB played 2 yrs of transition to give BT full autonomy.

[MAC331]

I agree with most of what you have said, but I also think that Hartley's days were numbered once Burke was hired. The only way that Burke would have kept him is if the team seriously played over their heads. Given the rebuild, that was highly unlikely. Coaches take too much blame because they are so easy to blame.

 

I don't get this mentality that younger players need to be motivated or refreshed by coaches. That basically translates into "the inmates run the asylum". If someone like, say, Wideman cannot motivate himself to play better, then he should fall off of his wallet and hire a shrink. Coaches cannot be expected to make players happy or excited.

Seriously, we are conditioned in life to be motivated by teachers, coaches and significant others in our lives. Yes an individual needs to be self motivated but we can all stand the right kind of encouragement at the right times. How a coach influences his players is a huge part of team sports.

Hartley did some good here however when you have other people who assess you and make the decision we could be better with someone else the situation changes. Only time will tell if it was a good decision.

[CheersMan]

So now we are measuring good years as only those where Jack Adams was won? Tough crowd in here.

When the captain was asked about the new coach, he treaded very safely. He used the word "refreshing". I'm not sure there is more of a safer word out there. I'm not going to interpret "refreshing" as you have other than welcome to the team. Gio was put in a difficult spot and was asked a tough question.

[cross16]

So now we are measuring good years as only those where Jack Adams was won? Tough crowd in here.

When the captain was asked about the new coach, he treaded very safely. He used the word "refreshing". I'm not sure there is more of a safer word out there. I'm not going to interpret "refreshing" as you have other than welcome to the team. Gio was put in a difficult spot and was asked a tough question.

 

Not at all, but i'm also not going to consider a year "good" when you finish the in bottom 5 of the league, rebuild or not. Not to mention in 4 years the Flames showed very little improvement in any major stat and went backwards in many of them.

 

Of couse he did, he's a classy guy and no one wants to throw and old coach under the buss. I'm glad he did, but I think he also made it pretty clear in his interview he ie excited for a new voice. That was just a public example I had becuase quietly i've heard from several sources that told me Hartley was not well liked and the player grew tired of him. It's not unexpected nor an insult to Hartley that is his style and it happens. If you look throughout his career he gets 3-4 years with a team before the team tunes him out, it happened right on schedule here. 

[travel_dude]

So now we are measuring good years as only those where Jack Adams was won? Tough crowd in here.

When the captain was asked about the new coach, he treaded very safely. He used the word "refreshing". I'm not sure there is more of a safer word out there. I'm not going to interpret "refreshing" as you have other than welcome to the team. Gio was put in a difficult spot and was asked a tough question.

 

Compare Trotz to Hartley and you would pick Trotz every time.  Boudreau was a much better coach than Hartley and was fired. Interpret player comments any way you like.  The point is that after the garbage bag day (locker cleanout) exit interviews with the players and coach, BH was fired.   A smart GM lays blame on not being on the same page with the GM.  

 

You can wax poetically all you like about BH's pressers and how he seemed to motivate players, but the bottom line is that he was fired.  He got one good year out of this team.  

[rickross]

Hartley was good at squeezing a lot out of a young and experienced team. Really if you think about that playoff year with all the comebacks..it is reflective of poor coaching but a strong locker room. Good teams lead games and close them out , comebacks should never be any coaches motto! The Hartley message obviously wore off, mix that in with crap goaltending and it makes it even easier to fire a coach.

[robrob74]

Hartley coached well enough with a elbowing team every year. Say all you want about our D being one of the best in the league, but that's only offensively. Can they play better D with the new coach? I hope so. But the teams were bottom level because we had bottom level players and youth who were learning to play pro.

One would think improvement start now, so I don't think we can compare Hartley with the rest. He inherited a disinterested fast freefalling team and transitioned to a rebuild. We all expected this. To say he was a failure isn't fair because we don't know what he could've done with a real team.

I am not defending him, it's reality. His downfall was this last year when everyone fell back down to earth and player management crashed along with it. He was in panic mode the whole year and couldn't right the ship. The Captain (coach) went down with his ship and got fired for it. Where he succeeded one year, he failed in the same way the next. Everything went perfectly in luck the year prior, and almost nothing the next. Plus goaltending. He wasn't given quality goaltending. It was all a elbowing show and it wasn't just one person's fault. But a few people took the lumps for it. I was unhappy with his coaching as well.

For me, until possession numbers and players show they're involved in the game from the get go, I will think we are on the outside looking in. Goaltending is a good start. We shall see. looking forward to some improvement.

[The_People1]

BH gave players opportunities, those who played well or showed signs of improving were rewarded with ice time.  If that’s a crime, then………….

 

That was the nail in the coffin for me though.  In his Jack Adams winning year, he did exactly that to which you speak of.  If you play well, then you get to play more.  If you play poorly, then you didn't play.

 

For the life of me and I'm sure BT, I don't know why Hartley stopped doing that because he clearly played favorites last season.  Guys who were playing well got held back in favor of guys who were not in what was justified as a way to "get them going".  In the end, the guys who were not going dragged down the guys who were, until finally, no one was going.

 

What kind of Hartley were we going to see this coming season?  The one who rewarded good play with ice time or the one who plays favorites?  Or maybe one who would be completely different entirely.  BT decided he didn't want to find out.  Couple that with a run and gun style of game that isn't championship style hockey, i think BT did the right thing by taking a chance on Gulutzan.  For all we know, Gulutzan can be a total bust but despite that, not making a coaching change is the bigger risk.

[MAC331]

That was the nail in the coffin for me though.  In his Jack Adams winning year, he did exactly that to which you speak of.  If you play well, then you get to play more.  If you play poorly, then you didn't play.

 

For the life of me and I'm sure BT, I don't know why Hartley stopped doing that because he clearly played favorites last season.  Guys who were playing well got held back in favor of guys who were not in what was justified as a way to "get them going".  In the end, the guys who were not going dragged down the guys who were, until finally, no one was going.

 

What kind of Hartley were we going to see this coming season?  The one who rewarded good play with ice time or the one who plays favorites?  Or maybe one who would be completely different entirely.  BT decided he didn't want to find out.  Couple that with a run and gun style of game that isn't championship style hockey, i think BT did the right thing by taking a chance on Gulutzan.  For all we know, Gulutzan can be a total bust but despite that, not making a coaching change is the bigger risk.

I like the change and look forward to what this new coaching staff will introduce to the style of play.

[zima]

I think the sad think is due to a real goalie we will get to the post season and everyone will be given kodos to GG. Instead of where it should have fallen all along B H instead of finding us some stopping power they let B H take the blame now there going to pat themselves on the back because they did the right thing this yr. Instead of righting the ship in mid term when they were still in the thick of things they let Bob take the blunt of poor play even B T said they needed a goalie but didn't do enough to get 1. I for 1 don't blame Bob I blame bad management.

[AlbertaBoy12]

I think the sad think is due to a real goalie we will get to the post season and everyone will be given kodos to GG. Instead of where it should have fallen all along B H instead of finding us some stopping power they let B H take the blame now there going to pat themselves on the back because they did the right thing this yr. Instead of righting the ship in mid term when they were still in the thick of things they let Bob take the blunt of poor play even B T said they needed a goalie but didn't do enough to get 1. I for 1 don't blame Bob I blame bad management.

What about every other department the flames were not good in? Was that managements fault as well? or the goaltenders?

[robrob74]

What about every other department the flames were not good in? Was that managements fault as well? or the goaltenders?

 

I am not defending Zima or Hartey, but I think it's just the state of the team. They're not fully built and the holes are there. We are still a few years away and I think Hartley should take the blame for player usage, but management also accidentally hindered themselves with bad contracts. We got out of contract hell and put ourselves back in. I don't think there's any way a team that's 5th last in the league should be paying to the cap. But that's just me, and on players that aren't that good. 

 

Although, some were contracts from the previous regime. I look at Raymond, Bouma and others... I get Engelland a bit, but still. Like I said, it's the reality of a rebuild and we came back down to earth. We added two players last year who slightly improved some parts of the team, and it just wasn't enough. The year before wasn't the true nature of the team. Early on this past year every team knew to come out to play the flames, and we found out what we were made of... Just not there yet... 

[DirtyDeeds]

What about every other department the flames were not good in? Was that managements fault as well? or the goaltenders?

 

 

I am not defending Zima or Hartey, but I think it's just the state of the team. They're not fully built and the holes are there. We are still a few years away and I think Hartley should take the blame for player usage, but management also accidentally hindered themselves with bad contracts. We got out of contract hell and put ourselves back in. I don't think there's any way a team that's 5th last in the league should be paying to the cap. But that's just me, and on players that aren't that good. 

 

Although, some were contracts from the previous regime. I look at Raymond, Bouma and others... I get Engelland a bit, but still. Like I said, it's the reality of a rebuild and we came back down to earth. We added two players last year who slightly improved some parts of the team, and it just wasn't enough. The year before wasn't the true nature of the team. Early on this past year every team knew to come out to play the flames, and we found out what we were made of... Just not there yet... 

The Flames were brutal in goaltending and poor on Defense.  

GF231  GA260  last season compared to

GF241  GA216  the previous season.

We let in 44 more goals this past year. Scored 10 less but let in 44 more..... you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the implications of those facts.

 

Goaltending

The #1 single biggest reason our season was so poor last season. but not the only reason.

There is no disputing it. Worst in the league and none(except Ramo around Xmas) of our 3 goalies were able to play(when it counted) for any length of time needed to be successful. BH had no options with goaltending and was given a 3 goalie situation that just about everyone and their dog agrees has never worked in the NHL. BT admitted he errored in this regard yet some posters here still claim BH was to blame. It is easy to blame someone who is no longer here but this is burying your head in the sand about the real problems with our goalies. One final note that baffles me about the goalies. Why was our goalie coach retained after this brutal year? It was long past any meaningful games before he was able to help with the goaltenders to make any adjustments....

 

Defence

Any thoughts remaining of the Flames having one of the best D in the league? I hope not.

Mobility and points alone do not make up a SC calibre D. Once some posters here are able to get past this point then you can go about trying to form some decent pairings to run with. You have to ask yourself why the tandem of Russel and Wideman were so good the previous season as 2nd pairing yet such a huge failure last season when starting the season. Wideman was top scoring D and suddenly he isn't? I think it all stemmed out from the poor goaltending. Not being able to trust the goalie behind you made our D try to do only what they thought would work(ie stretch passing) and this made it easy for opposing teams to counter us. 

Hamilton

You know the timing of this acquisition would have been much better this season or next. His contract put us in cap hell and forced some trades that we likely would not have had to make. Was it worth it? Sure, but this was not a BH mistake either. BH tried to put him with our best D in Gio and they just didn't get a chance to work well together. The goaltending did not allow our D to flow and this put us in a standings position, that we never recovered from. We were able to fight back close to contention by christmas but we had nothing left so dropped back down. In Hamilton's defence he improved by years end but lets face it this was too little to late. Not all his fault either. Wideman had a very poor year. Russell was as bad as he has ever been.

 

Forwards

Pretty much what we expected overall and similar numbers as the season before. Huds had a very poor start but it did not affect the end result unless you think we should have scored a lot more. It is not easy to maintain the same scoring levelwhen you are playing more in your own end. Fill the holes in the top 9 and we have a very nice lineup to work with.

 

BH was not the big problem he was only a part of the problem. GG is not qualified to be a saviour either so don't heap those expectations on him. I'll give him some leeway but I won't hold my breath, his history does not show me a lot.