Glen Gulutzan-16th Flames Coach

[xstrike]

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.

Not going to quote the full post, save some room. You make a lot of good points DD.

 

Only thing I wanted to add was I have both the GK and D experience.

 

As a D-man, if you know or think your GK is bad, you will try too hard to be perfect and error free which leads to more mistakes. You also hang back a lot and start trying to be another GK. It can really affect the confidence of a D-man.

 

Conversely, on the GK side, getting hung out to dry is one of the worst feelings in the world, especially if your D-man still blame you for their mistakes. It can have an even large blow to the psyche.

 

Ideally, it's a partnership. If the D makes a mistake, he knows his buddy is back there to help him out. If the GK knows his D-men will be reliable, it's much easier to focus on his own role and not try to do both. If the GK makes a great save, especially if it's a sure-goal scenario, it gives a huge boost to the team. But the D and GK partnership is integral and works in a feedback loop, both positive and negative. If it gets going right, it will really go right; if it gets going south, it will go bad fast. I think the latter is what happened last season at the start and they couldn't correct it.

 

I'm kinda tired and out of it, so that may be extremely rambly and not make much sense. Sorry 'bout that.

[AlbertaBoy12]

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.

I never stated that goaltending wasent an issue, simply dont understand why everyone thinks BH did a good job. I have made many posts stating I dont like BH and his so called systems.

 

While the goaltending was not his fault, poor player usage, special teams, the use of the stretch pass, passive d zone coverage(blocking shots), etc are on him. 

 

Our top 3 is a good group of D men, while our bottom 3 was a disaster. When you look at the way the russell/wideman pairing, they played a poor game in the D zone, they tried to block shots, and then when they did get possession of the puck they tried to rim up the strong side or weak side boards which didnt work because our forwards were to busy flying the zone for the stretch pass. BH and his system for the breakout relied on D men being able to make plays on their own, we saw our D men get burnt alot due to this. They would try to make a stretch pass that teams caught onto, rim it around the boards to no one, they didnt have options.  Sure goaltending didnt help the situation, but neither did BH player usage, systems etc. I almost forgot to mention how many times did you see our D men go to block a shot, not block the shot and the goaltender would be fooled or let in a rebound because no one boxed out the forward on the doorstep.

 

I have no expectations at this point for GG, but he should be a fresh voice in the locker room and seems like a decent hockey mind when you hear him talk hockey especially in a seminar someone linked in another thread. I dont think he will be a savior but he could end up fixing some of the problems.

[DirtyDeeds]

I don't often agree with Zima more like rarely.. but his last post I do agree with. Goaltending was the biggest problem and now that we are likely to get decent goaltending (good enough to compete for a playoff spot) GG will get most of the credit.

 

It is so easy to heap all the blame on BH. Some he deserves but not all that some seem to think he does.

[kehatch]

A lot of things had to happen to cause such a dramatic drop off.

Our goaltending fell apart. Our luck ran out. We saw a dramatic drop off for important veterans like Wideman and Hudler and our most important players lacked experience. Etc.

But coaching played a big part as well. Hartley caught teams off guard a season ago but he was exposed when teams had the opportunity to counter.

It isn't like we had a different roster (or goalies) the year before either.

[robrob74]

I just don't get why some see the year before as this great success and that it's something we had to measure this year off of. I certainly wasn't expecting the playoffs this year from the get go because I am a realist. The team wasn't that good the year we made the playoffs. They played 10 minutes of good hockey every night and had to have so many miracle comebacks. Despite getting results the fancy stats were horrible. That was mixed in with good teams having an off year. 

 

The way we played the year before was unsustainable. 

 

Adding Frolik and Hamilton was a slight improvement. But when you take into account the horrible play both years, I figured it wouldn't be enough. 

 

This coming season, I see another year of improving and a few young players have to step up in order to make the playoffs. I am not sure we're there yet and possibly one more year out. 

[DirtyDeeds]

I just don't get why some see the year before as this great success and that it's something we had to measure this year off of. I certainly wasn't expecting the playoffs this year from the get go because I am a realist. The team wasn't that good the year we made the playoffs. They played 10 minutes of good hockey every night and had to have so many miracle comebacks. Despite getting results the fancy stats were horrible. That was mixed in with good teams having an off year. 

 

The way we played the year before was unsustainable. 

 

Adding Frolik and Hamilton was a slight improvement. But when you take into account the horrible play both years, I figured it wouldn't be enough. 

 

This coming season, I see another year of improving and a few young players have to step up in order to make the playoffs. I am not sure we're there yet and possibly one more year out. 

Add to that Bennett playing a full season, plus we expected similar impact play from Jooris and Ferland, so most thought we had upgraded significantly.

 

Talk around here was our D was among best in league after adding Hamilton. Gio was returning from his injury so our D was going to be much better than without him right?

 

I disagree on the needing young players to step up to make playoffs. It would be nice if they did but I don't lay such expectations on our young players. Playing as bad as we did defensively I think all we need is slightly better than average goaltending to be right there in the running for a playoff spot. 

 

Edit : we were only 5 games out of  the last wild card spot. If these two goalies are not worth 5 more wins than the worst goaltending in league we got last season, then you have to wonder. hamilton settled in and should be able to find his stride.

 

The new system might take some time but it can't take forever for Pro's to get comfortable with a new system can it?

[kehatch]

I just don't get why some see the year before as this great success and that it's something we had to measure this year off of. I certainly wasn't expecting the playoffs this year from the get go because I am a realist. The team wasn't that good the year we made the playoffs. They played 10 minutes of good hockey every night and had to have so many miracle comebacks. Despite getting results the fancy stats were horrible. That was mixed in with good teams having an off year.

The way we played the year before was unsustainable.

Adding Frolik and Hamilton was a slight improvement. But when you take into account the horrible play both years, I figured it wouldn't be enough.

This coming season, I see another year of improving and a few young players have to step up in order to make the playoffs. I am not sure we're there yet and possibly one more year out.

It isn't so much that people are using the prior season as a measuring stick. I agree that a lot of luck was involved and it was unrealistic to sustain that another season.

But Frolik, Hamilton, and Bennett were significant additions. Plus you had young guys like Gaudreau, Backlund, and Monahan really step up and play like top end players.

The measuring stick were things like goals against, special teams, and possession. The Flames shouldn't have been that terrible by those metrics. At least part of the blame for that lays on the feat of the coaching.

Which is a good thing in my opinion. Because we changed the coaching and can expect improvement in those areas.

[MAC331]

I don't often agree with Zima more like rarely.. but his last post I do agree with. Goaltending was the biggest problem and now that we are likely to get decent goaltending (good enough to compete for a playoff spot) GG will get most of the credit.

 

It is so easy to heap all the blame on BH. Some he deserves but not all that some seem to think he does.

I didn't know it mattered who gets the credit.

BH is out GG is in and life goes on from there. BT as GM has made additions that should make the team better and removing BH was one of them. Looking in the rear view mirror accomplishes nothing.

[DirtyDeeds]

I didn't know it mattered who gets the credit.

BH is out GG is in and life goes on from there. BT as GM has made additions that should make the team better and removing BH was one of them. Looking in the rear view mirror accomplishes nothing.

You have to look in the rearview mirror. If you can't look at them and learn from your mistakes then you will be destined to repeat them.

[MAC331]

You have to look in the rearview mirror. If you can't look at them and learn from your mistakes then you will be destined to repeat them.

What does that have to do with assigning credit ? nothing. BT has corrected some situations and added a few improvements to enhance a fresh start. I don't think GG will be looking very far behind to figure out what it is he wants to accomplish with this team.

[cross16]

The measuring stick were things like goals against, special teams, and possession. The Flames shouldn't have been that terrible by those metrics. At least part of the blame for that lays on the feat of the coaching.

 

 

This is bang on IMO. Sure you can argue who is at "fault" for last season or was it goaltending etc and that's a fine argument to have but IMO it window dressing for what was plaguing the team last year. The Flames were in the bottom 3rd of the league in just about every stat you would assing to coaching. Special teams, possession, scoring chances against, and high quality scoring chances against.

 

Who you blame to me is irrelevant becuase when you have a dissapointing year there never is 1 thing to blame and that incluces Hartley. Hartley was only part of the problem last year and I dont' think anyone should lay all, or even the bulk, of the blame on him. However, I think its painfully obvious he was a big part of the problme and it was time for him to go.

 

For those who wanted to keep Hartley other than the fact that he took the Flames on a "miracle" playoff run can anyone give 1 stat or characteristic of the team that supported keeping Hartley? I honestly canot find 1 thing or reason the Flames did realy well last year that warranted keeping Hartley.

[robrob74]

For those who wanted to keep Hartley other than the fact that he took the Flames on a "miracle" playoff run can anyone give 1 stat or characteristic of the team that supported keeping Hartley? I honestly canot find 1 thing or reason the Flames did realy well last year that warranted keeping Hartley.

 

 

The only stats I can find that your talking about are the quality of players on the roster (both years), the state of the rebuild. One year, he had a near miracle, something like 2nd best in comebacks with the lowest possession stats. So, that's what we see. 

 

Even in those games, the Flames looked ugly until they became present. 

 

All I want is individual improvements. And I think that we added a few good players in Brouwer, Elliott and Johnson. They should get us in the hunt, but I wonder if it will be enough. But I think they'll make the upcoming season interesting. 

[MAC331]

The only stats I can find that your talking about are the quality of players on the roster (both years), the state of the rebuild. One year, he had a near miracle, something like 2nd best in comebacks with the lowest possession stats. So, that's what we see. 

 

Even in those games, the Flames looked ugly until they became present. 

 

All I want is individual improvements. And I think that we added a few good players in Brouwer, Elliott and Johnson. They should get us in the hunt, but I wonder if it will be enough. But I think they'll make the upcoming season interesting. 

Personal wise we should be a better team if you believe in the "building from the net out" philosophy. We are two years removed the playoff appearance season when our young core was virtual rookies. We have added Hamilton, Frolik, Elliott, Johnson, Chiasson and Brouwer to the current mix. We have a new coaching staff introducing a set of new systems so they will need a total team buy in. It will be a huge plus if our weaknesses, Wideman, Stajan, Chiasson and Bouma can stay healthy and contribute with their efforts.

[robrob74]

I believe that in net, you need an Osgood or better. Therefore, yes you can start from the net out. But if you go with outstanding goaltending and you don't fix the parts of the game that the Flames have been horrible at, it's not going to matter what goaltending you get. It's easy to point to the 5 wins out and think, if they can get a few extra wins we will be closer. I think that's over-simplifying it. 

 

I think we will be close, but be about 3 points out in the end, maybe 5. I wish for better, but if we are, it means that the team is playing inspired hockey and are engaged for more than half a game. 10-20 min does not cut it, even half the game isn't enough. Anything over half is a well played game, because the ebb and flows of the game happen. 

[DirtyDeeds]

This is bang on IMO. Sure you can argue who is at "fault" for last season or was it goaltending etc and that's a fine argument to have but IMO it window dressing for what was plaguing the team last year. The Flames were in the bottom 3rd of the league in just about every stat you would assing to coaching. Special teams, possession, scoring chances against, and high quality scoring chances against.

 

Who you blame to me is irrelevant becuase when you have a dissapointing year there never is 1 thing to blame and that incluces Hartley. Hartley was only part of the problem last year and I dont' think anyone should lay all, or even the bulk, of the blame on him. However, I think its painfully obvious he was a big part of the problme and it was time for him to go.

 

For those who wanted to keep Hartley other than the fact that he took the Flames on a "miracle" playoff run can anyone give 1 stat or characteristic of the team that supported keeping Hartley? I honestly canot find 1 thing or reason the Flames did realy well last year that warranted keeping Hartley.

He managed to get career years from a lot of players in each of his years here. Last season was no different. Year before.....same

 

While I am not in the we should have kept BH crowd I am firmly in the you don't blame all of the Flames problems on the departing coach crowd.

[MAC331]

I believe that in net, you need an Osgood or better. Therefore, yes you can start from the net out. But if you go with outstanding goaltending and you don't fix the parts of the game that the Flames have been horrible at, it's not going to matter what goaltending you get. It's easy to point to the 5 wins out and think, if they can get a few extra wins we will be closer. I think that's over-simplifying it. 

 

I think we will be close, but be about 3 points out in the end, maybe 5. I wish for better, but if we are, it means that the team is playing inspired hockey and are engaged for more than half a game. 10-20 min does not cut it, even half the game isn't enough. Anything over half is a well played game, because the ebb and flows of the game happen. 

I think it is a bit silly to start trying to predict where we will be come playoff time next season.

[CheersMan]

This is bang on IMO. Sure you can argue who is at "fault" for last season or was it goaltending etc and that's a fine argument to have but IMO it window dressing for what was plaguing the team last year. The Flames were in the bottom 3rd of the league in just about every stat you would assing to coaching. Special teams, possession, scoring chances against, and high quality scoring chances against.

 

Who you blame to me is irrelevant becuase when you have a dissapointing year there never is 1 thing to blame and that incluces Hartley. Hartley was only part of the problem last year and I dont' think anyone should lay all, or even the bulk, of the blame on him. However, I think its painfully obvious he was a big part of the problme and it was time for him to go.

 

For those who wanted to keep Hartley other than the fact that he took the Flames on a "miracle" playoff run can anyone give 1 stat or characteristic of the team that supported keeping Hartley? I honestly canot find 1 thing or reason the Flames did realy well last year that warranted keeping Hartley.

 

To look at just last year is a little narrow sighted considering BH’s history. 

 

How about leadership.  How about proven winner, with 3 different teams winning various championships.  How about career years for players he coached at various times like Brodie, Bouma, Colbourn, Gio, Hudler, Hamilton, Russell, Wideman and Backland.  How about our young players who have shown steady and sharp improvement like Bennett, Monahan and Gaudreau.  How about tireless worker, devoting every waking minute to the team.

 

Take a look at other players he coached in Atlanta (Kovalchuk, Savard, Hossa, +) and Colorado (too many to count) who had career years, year after year.

 

Some like to refer to 2014-2015 season as a miracle, I don’t.  I watched the Flames go 24-16-3 down the stretch when games mattered.  I watched a confident team never give up, then predictably win the game.  Teams new what was coming in the 3rd period but couldn’t stop it.  I watched the Flames eliminate the defending SC champions (Kings) from the playoffs in game 81, taking their play-off spot. 

 

I watched a coach praise the leadership on his team every chance he got, always working from the positives not the negatives, never throwing a player under the bus.  Some say he was tough behind closed doors, well who gives a elbowing, a coach needs to be tough, at times.  The soft players can go bye-bye, you won’t win with them anyway.

 

I don’t buy the shelf-life BS either, BH was no nut case like Tortorella or Keenan. 

 

Most of BH’s criticism on here comes from stats.  So I took a look.  Possession seem to be the trendy stat.  How about the FO% and the SA% stat?  Some choose to ignore it but the Flames were well below average in the FO% department in every area on the ice except the neutral zone.  When you win the FO to start the game then lose the remaining FO’s, while your goaltender fails to stop a puck, do you think that effects your coaching stats? 

 

I don’t study the stats, I watch the product and supporting characters.  Although BT has done many good things for this team, I believe he fired BH unnecessarily and prematurely.  BH deserved another season with better goaltending, he earned it and was already paid to do it.

 

Now we have GG and his assistant, both with a resume filled with hope and nothing else.  GG coached Jamie Benn, oh did you hear GG coached Jamie Benn?  Cameron was later hired as a second assistant which has BT finger prints all over it.  Maybe it’s insurance in case GG fails?  Cameron failed in Ottawa and looked less than impressive when facing the media.  He was also criticizing the ownership/ management on his way out of Ottawa.

 

Sorry, but I’m not drinking the kool-aid like many on here.  I don’t intend to sound like a broken record but when some continue to bash BH I feel compelled to support him.

[travel_dude]

^^^^^^^

 

Sorry, but you don't earn anything for coaching a team to a 26th and a 27th place in two out of 3 years with any team.  

 

Usage:  

Favoring Granlund to center Bennett, even though Granlund was far worse on the dot.  

Limiting Bennett's use on the PP, regardless of how he played.

Team FO% is not just a team performance issue, it's a coaching moment.

High usage of Colborne on the PP, even though he failed to score any points until late in the season.

Hamilton minutes less than Engelland or Wideman most nights.

 

Normal coaching responsibilities:

Inability to adapt once the end-zone pass was being picked off 9/10 times per game.

Lack of any defensive system other than passive/blocking.

Very inactive PP setup.

 

You can look at coaching and say Coach A is a winner, has a history of winning in the NHL, and has won at every level.  Coach B has done nothing at the NHL level.  Some coaches only have success with stacked teams.  Hartley's last success n the NHL was 2006/7, which most would say was a different era of hockey.

 

I don't really care what experience GG had prior to landing in CGY.  What I care about is how he works with the younger players, the systems he employs, and better communication with management.

[MAC331]

To look at just last year is a little narrow sighted considering BH’s history. 

 

How about leadership.  How about proven winner, with 3 different teams winning various championships.  How about career years for players he coached at various times like Brodie, Bouma, Colbourn, Gio, Hudler, Hamilton, Russell, Wideman and Backland.  How about our young players who have shown steady and sharp improvement like Bennett, Monahan and Gaudreau.  How about tireless worker, devoting every waking minute to the team.

 

Take a look at other players he coached in Atlanta (Kovalchuk, Savard, Hossa, +) and Colorado (too many to count) who had career years, year after year.

 

Some like to refer to 2014-2015 season as a miracle, I don’t.  I watched the Flames go 24-16-3 down the stretch when games mattered.  I watched a confident team never give up, then predictably win the game.  Teams new what was coming in the 3rd period but couldn’t stop it.  I watched the Flames eliminate the defending SC champions (Kings) from the playoffs in game 81, taking their play-off spot. 

 

I watched a coach praise the leadership on his team every chance he got, always working from the positives not the negatives, never throwing a player under the bus.  Some say he was tough behind closed doors, well who gives a elbowing, a coach needs to be tough, at times.  The soft players can go bye-bye, you won’t win with them anyway.

 

I don’t buy the shelf-life BS either, BH was no nut case like Tortorella or Keenan. 

 

Most of BH’s criticism on here comes from stats.  So I took a look.  Possession seem to be the trendy stat.  How about the FO% and the SA% stat?  Some choose to ignore it but the Flames were well below average in the FO% department in every area on the ice except the neutral zone.  When you win the FO to start the game then lose the remaining FO’s, while your goaltender fails to stop a puck, do you think that effects your coaching stats? 

 

I don’t study the stats, I watch the product and supporting characters.  Although BT has done many good things for this team, I believe he fired BH unnecessarily and prematurely.  BH deserved another season with better goaltending, he earned it and was already paid to do it.

 

Now we have GG and his assistant, both with a resume filled with hope and nothing else.  GG coached Jamie Benn, oh did you hear GG coached Jamie Benn?  Cameron was later hired as a second assistant which has BT finger prints all over it.  Maybe it’s insurance in case GG fails?  Cameron failed in Ottawa and looked less than impressive when facing the media.  He was also criticizing the ownership/ management on his way out of Ottawa.

 

Sorry, but I’m not drinking the kool-aid like many on here.  I don’t intend to sound like a broken record but when some continue to bash BH I feel compelled to support him.

The long and short of the coaching debate is it's a what have you done for me lately environment. Change is inevitable especially when there is a change of people around you. BT is taking the direction he wants to go now and no one has to embrace it until his way proves itself out. Be guaranteed if it doesn't work out we will have a new GM in a few years, that is just the way it goes. Cheer the team onwards and let the rest look after itself is my advice.

[cross16]

He managed to get career years from a lot of players in each of his years here. Last season was no different. Year before.....same

 

While I am not in the we should have kept BH crowd I am firmly in the you don't blame all of the Flames problems on the departing coach crowd.

 

Of course not and I have never have. I am very quick to say I do not blame everything on Hartley and nor do i even place the majority of blame on him. I've campagined as hard as anyone on here that I thinkt he Flames are a bordeliner playoff team with better goaltending last year so I do not blame Hartley.

 

I do however, 100% believe he had to go and that he was not going to be able to get this team going any further. 

 

To look at just last year is a little narrow sighted considering BH’s history. 

 

How about leadership.  How about proven winner, with 3 different teams winning various championships.  How about career years for players he coached at various times like Brodie, Bouma, Colbourn, Gio, Hudler, Hamilton, Russell, Wideman and Backland.  How about our young players who have shown steady and sharp improvement like Bennett, Monahan and Gaudreau.  How about tireless worker, devoting every waking minute to the team.

 

Take a look at other players he coached in Atlanta (Kovalchuk, Savard, Hossa, +) and Colorado (too many to count) who had career years, year after year.

 

Some like to refer to 2014-2015 season as a miracle, I don’t.  I watched the Flames go 24-16-3 down the stretch when games mattered.  I watched a confident team never give up, then predictably win the game.  Teams new what was coming in the 3rd period but couldn’t stop it.  I watched the Flames eliminate the defending SC champions (Kings) from the playoffs in game 81, taking their play-off spot. 

 

I watched a coach praise the leadership on his team every chance he got, always working from the positives not the negatives, never throwing a player under the bus.  Some say he was tough behind closed doors, well who gives a elbowing, a coach needs to be tough, at times.  The soft players can go bye-bye, you won’t win with them anyway.

 

I don’t buy the shelf-life BS either, BH was no nut case like Tortorella or Keenan. 

 

Most of BH’s criticism on here comes from stats.  So I took a look.  Possession seem to be the trendy stat.  How about the FO% and the SA% stat?  Some choose to ignore it but the Flames were well below average in the FO% department in every area on the ice except the neutral zone.  When you win the FO to start the game then lose the remaining FO’s, while your goaltender fails to stop a puck, do you think that effects your coaching stats? 

 

I don’t study the stats, I watch the product and supporting characters.  Although BT has done many good things for this team, I believe he fired BH unnecessarily and prematurely.  BH deserved another season with better goaltending, he earned it and was already paid to do it.

 

Now we have GG and his assistant, both with a resume filled with hope and nothing else.  GG coached Jamie Benn, oh did you hear GG coached Jamie Benn?  Cameron was later hired as a second assistant which has BT finger prints all over it.  Maybe it’s insurance in case GG fails?  Cameron failed in Ottawa and looked less than impressive when facing the media.  He was also criticizing the ownership/ management on his way out of Ottawa.

 

Sorry, but I’m not drinking the kool-aid like many on here.  I don’t intend to sound like a broken record but when some continue to bash BH I feel compelled to support him.

 

That's fine and if you like Hartley that is fine too. Just know that I am in no means blaming everything on him and again I have said countless time in several threads I do not blame Hartley for last season I just don't think he was doing a very good job and was certainly part of the problem but not all of it that has never been my argument to say this is all his fault and now the Flames are fine because Hartley is gone. 

 

If you are saying we shoudn't look at 1 year to make an arguemnt then I do find some irony that you don't buy the "shelf life". hartley is on this 3rd NHL team and in every single occasion he has been fired either before or shortly after his 4th season. There is certainly a patter with Hartley that shows you he does in fact have a shelf life. 

 

There is no linke between faceoffs and puck posession and in fact most of the reserach on it has shown there is no tangible link or evidence that would suggest improved faceoffs will improve puck possession. Case in point, last yeart the Coytoes were the best faceoff team in the league and were bottom 5 in puck possession., Faceoffs are not an integral part of puck possession so no I do not agree that they affected the Flames underlying stats. 

 

Just to be clear to,  the deicision to fire Hartley and hire Gulutzan are 2 different events that are not mutually inclussive of one another. I fully support, obviously, that Hartley needed to go but that does not mean I assume or suggest that everyone has to support Gulutzan. Those are 2 diffrent events, and Gulutzan will need to prove himiself just like any other coach. It is possible to disagre with hiring Gulutzan but still agree Hartley had to go. 

[CheersMan]

^^^^^^^

 

Sorry, but you don't earn anything for coaching a team to a 26th and a 27th place in two out of 3 years with any team.  

 

Usage:  

Favoring Granlund to center Bennett, even though Granlund was far worse on the dot.  

Limiting Bennett's use on the PP, regardless of how he played.

Team FO% is not just a team performance issue, it's a coaching moment.

High usage of Colborne on the PP, even though he failed to score any points until late in the season.

Hamilton minutes less than Engelland or Wideman most nights.

 

Normal coaching responsibilities:

Inability to adapt once the end-zone pass was being picked off 9/10 times per game.

Lack of any defensive system other than passive/blocking.

Very inactive PP setup.

 

You can look at coaching and say Coach A is a winner, has a history of winning in the NHL, and has won at every level.  Coach B has done nothing at the NHL level.  Some coaches only have success with stacked teams.  Hartley's last success n the NHL was 2006/7, which most would say was a different era of hockey.

 

I don't really care what experience GG had prior to landing in CGY.  What I care about is how he works with the younger players, the systems he employs, and better communication with management.

 

 

I don’t have an issue with how Granlund and Colbourn were utilized.  Nobody can say they were never given a fair opportunity to succeed in the organization, like some have claimed with other past players. 

 

Bennett will be a good player but he still had lots to learn. 

 

Hamilton was lost in the early going on his new team, Hartley recognized that and pulled the reins way back, then gave more responsibility as the player earned it.   

Was Hartley making those end zone passes or was it poor decision making by the D?  The D were also given the green light to join the rush, did they join the rush every play?  No.  The D were responsible for making smart decisions. 

The defensive scheme boxed the opposition to the outside.  Hartley was playing the percentages, less chance of the puck going in your net from the outside.  I’m not saying I was a fan of it.

 

The long and short of the coaching debate is it's a what have you done for me lately environment. Change is inevitable especially when there is a change of people around you. BT is taking the direction he wants to go now and no one has to embrace it until his way proves itself out. Be guaranteed if it doesn't work out we will have a new GM in a few years, that is just the way it goes. Cheer the team onwards and let the rest look after itself is my advice.

 

I cheer for the crest on the front of the jersey, regardless of who the coach is, that will never change.

 

Of course not and I have never have. I am very quick to say I do not blame everything on Hartley and nor do i even place the majority of blame on him. I've campagined as hard as anyone on here that I thinkt he Flames are a bordeliner playoff team with better goaltending last year so I do not blame Hartley.

 

I do however, 100% believe he had to go and that he was not going to be able to get this team going any further. 

 

 

That's fine and if you like Hartley that is fine too. Just know that I am in no means blaming everything on him and again I have said countless time in several threads I do not blame Hartley for last season I just don't think he was doing a very good job and was certainly part of the problem but not all of it that has never been my argument to say this is all his fault and now the Flames are fine because Hartley is gone. 

 

If you are saying we shoudn't look at 1 year to make an arguemnt then I do find some irony that you don't buy the "shelf life". hartley is on this 3rd NHL team and in every single occasion he has been fired either before or shortly after his 4th season. There is certainly a patter with Hartley that shows you he does in fact have a shelf life. 

 

There is no linke between faceoffs and puck posession and in fact most of the reserach on it has shown there is no tangible link or evidence that would suggest improved faceoffs will improve puck possession. Case in point, last yeart the Coytoes were the best faceoff team in the league and were bottom 5 in puck possession., Faceoffs are not an integral part of puck possession so no I do not agree that they affected the Flames underlying stats. 

 

Just to be clear to,  the deicision to fire Hartley and hire Gulutzan are 2 different events that are not mutually inclussive of one another. I fully support, obviously, that Hartley needed to go but that does not mean I assume or suggest that everyone has to support Gulutzan. Those are 2 diffrent events, and Gulutzan will need to prove himiself just like any other coach. It is possible to disagre with hiring Gulutzan but still agree Hartley had to go. 

 

 

If you win the FO, do you now have possession of the puck?

[AlbertaBoy12]

I don’t have an issue with how Granlund and Colbourn were utilized.  Nobody can say they were never given a fair opportunity to succeed in the organization, like some have claimed with other past players. 

 

Bennett will be a good player but he still had lots to learn. 

 

Hamilton was lost in the early going on his new team, Hartley recognized that and pulled the reins way back, then gave more responsibility as the player earned it.   

Was Hartley making those end zone passes or was it poor decision making by the D?  The D were also given the green light to join the rush, did they join the rush every play?  No.  The D were responsible for making smart decisions. 

The defensive scheme boxed the opposition to the outside.  Hartley was playing the percentages, less chance of the puck going in your net from the outside.  I’m not saying I was a fan of it.

 

 

I cheer for the crest on the front of the jersey, regardless of who the coach is, that will never change.

 

 

 

If you win the FO, do you now have possession of the puck?

The coach makes the choices on systems such as a breakout so if he stresses the stretch pass or D making plays to get the puck out of the zone, this is a coaches idea. When you look at the forwards flying the zone and the D rimming the puck around sure, the D could make their own choices but the coaches system is the plan you play with. The utilization of a player does not only mean giving them a chance to play it means using them for the right situation, hamilton was awesome on the pp but got less time on it some nights then the veterans, or pk time not being split in a good way. The flames playing the percentages is a nice way of saying they played passively, which is obviously not a successfully way to play defense.

 

Sure you do have possession but getting shots at the net is the way the metric is based so maybe the flames being passive made their possession stats look worse, but the flames got hemmed in their own zone, because our breakout and D zone coverage was garbage.

 

As others have said I dont heap all the blame on BH, but hes not adapting to the new NHL and I doubt he will get another job at this level. I think sometimes blocking shots, or attempting to block shots left our goalies hanging out to dry and made them look worse then they were on some nights.

[cross16]

If you win the FO, do you now have possession of the puck?

 

 Sure, for about 5 seconds and given that the difference between being a good team and a bad team on faceoffs isn't that large you aren't talking about something that is going to have a significant impact on puck possession or puck possession statistics. I'm not saying that faceoffs are not important or that they wouldn't help puck possession, its that so far the research shows it doesn't make a tangible different to your puck possession.

 

Again, Coyotes were the best faceoff team in the nhl last year and yet were a bottom 5 puck possession team. That would be impossible if faceoffs were that critical to puck possession, they are not.

 

Faceoffs were not what prevented the Flames from being a good puck possession team last year, Hartley's system did. You won't be a puck possession team when you sit back in your own zone and they rely on the stretch pass to generate your offence.

[CheersMan]

The coach makes the choices on systems such as a breakout so if he stresses the stretch pass or D making plays to get the puck out of the zone, this is a coaches idea. When you look at the forwards flying the zone and the D rimming the puck around sure, the D could make their own choices but the coaches system is the plan you play with. The utilization of a player does not only mean giving them a chance to play it means using them for the right situation, hamilton was awesome on the pp but got less time on it some nights then the veterans, or pk time not being split in a good way. The flames playing the percentages is a nice way of saying they played passively, which is obviously not a successfully way to play defense.

 

Sure you do have possession but getting shots at the net is the way the metric is based so maybe the flames being passive made their possession stats look worse, but the flames got hemmed in their own zone, because our breakout and D zone coverage was garbage.

 

As others have said I dont heap all the blame on BH, but hes not adapting to the new NHL and I doubt he will get another job at this level. I think sometimes blocking shots, or attempting to block shots left our goalies hanging out to dry and made them look worse then they were on some nights.

 

The new NHL removed the red-line.  Hartley used the two-line pass to stretch out the defense.  Some times it worked and sometimes it didn’t, just like any other play in hockey.  How many times did the puck end up directly in the back of our net due to a failed stretch pass?  How many times did we score directly off the stretch pass?  I don’t think the stretch pass was used exclusively, it was just one of the tools in the tool box.

 

Hartley allowed the D to join the rush.  The 4-5 man attack was difficult to defend.  Gio, Brodie, Russell and Wideman all had career years under Hartley.  In fact, Gio and Brodie (until Gio’s injury) were having a season better than what Weber-Suter had in Nashville in their last year playing together.  Last season we seen many teams copying what Hartley had been doing in prior years.

 

How about fitness?  Apparently the Flames were one of the best fit teams in the league the last few seasons.

 

How about discipline?  We have been one of the least penalized teams under Hartley?

 

How about 4 on 4 in OT?  We won more than our share of these games. 

 

How about the drop pass (to JHG) that froze the defenders at the blue-line, allowing JHG to enter the Ozone?  Sure it failed sometimes, due to failed execution on the drop pass, but more often than not JHG was able to enter and set up in the ozone.

 

I believe these are all examples of Hartley adapting to the new NHL.

 

 

 Sure, for about 5 seconds and given that the difference between being a good team and a bad team on faceoffs isn't that large you aren't talking about something that is going to have a significant impact on puck possession or puck possession statistics. I'm not saying that faceoffs are not important or that they wouldn't help puck possession, its that so far the research shows it doesn't make a tangible different to your puck possession.

 

Again, Coyotes were the best faceoff team in the nhl last year and yet were a bottom 5 puck possession team. That would be impossible if faceoffs were that critical to puck possession, they are not.

 

Faceoffs were not what prevented the Flames from being a good puck possession team last year, Hartley's system did. You won't be a puck possession team when you sit back in your own zone and they rely on the stretch pass to generate your offence.

 

Obviously FO’s are not the only thing that drives possession.  I hope we agree that starting with the puck is probably a good place to start.

[cross16]

 

 

Obviously FO’s are not the only thing that drives possession.  I hope we agree that starting with the puck is probably a good place to start.

 

That's my point, no I do not agree. If you want to increase your puck possession in a real and tangible way you don't start with faceoffs, you start with how you play 5 on 5. Improving your faceoffs will not make enough of an improvement to puck possession for the Flames, they needed to change the way the played 5 on 5. Improve faceoffs yes, but that is not where you start, nor is it the biggest factor in being a good puck possession team, that's what I am saying.