Glen Gulutzan-16th Flames Coach

[MAC331]

7 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

Bednar with Colorado was thrown in when Roy quit so really there was 0 expectations last year. Sakic with a great draft and trades this year has built one of the better younger teams in the league and it is being utilized correctly by Bednar. Next year I guarantee a play off spot for Col.

Hynes hired 2015 to the NJD's team that was one of the oldest and slowest. They did a complete face lift last year so again 0 expectations last year. Hynes has shown how to get the most out of his young team.

So why is NJD and COL better this year they are both younger and faster with coaches that excel with that skill set.

 

BT has made numerous moves and to some degree has made the Flames younger and faster but really missed it with Brouwer, Bart, Jagr and Versteeg and to some extent Stone. GG so called system does not utilize the faster and younger players. Similar to Deboer's system in New Jersey before he was removed. If the Flames want to keep up with the changes happening in the NHL; speed, high energy fore checking, mobile defense, strong center ice play and solid back checking, and youth;  WE WILL NEED A DIFFERENT COACH.

 

 

All the things you mention revolves around types of players required so why the heavy emphasis on a new Coach ? Also I wouldn't say the youth we have brought in so far are faster when referring to Monahan, Tkachuk or Jankowski 3 key players. Where we lack IMO is matching up our personel to best compliment each other and needing some of the additional speed you speak of for the team.

[cross16]

16 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

Bednar with Colorado was thrown in when Roy quit so really there was 0 expectations last year. Sakic with a great draft and trades this year has built one of the better younger teams in the league and it is being utilized correctly by Bednar. Next year I guarantee a play off spot for Col.

Hynes hired 2015 to the NJD's team that was one of the oldest and slowest. They did a complete face lift last year so again 0 expectations last year. Hynes has shown how to get the most out of his young team.

So why is NJD and COL better this year they are both younger and faster with coaches that excel with that skill set.

 

BT has made numerous moves and to some degree has made the Flames younger and faster but really missed it with Brouwer, Bart, Jagr and Versteeg and to some extent Stone. GG so called system does not utilize the faster and younger players. Similar to Deboer's system in New Jersey before he was removed. If the Flames want to keep up with the changes happening in the NHL; speed, high energy fore checking, mobile defense, strong center ice play and solid back checking, and youth;  WE WILL NEED A DIFFERENT COACH.

 

 

 

We differ greatly if you are trying to make the argument that this is a fast team capable of playing what you described there. Guluzan twice now has had to adjust his system because when he has tried to play a more aggressive/faster game the Flames can't get it done and give up a boatload of chances. 

 

also funny that the system doesn't utilize younger players but yet his two bigger young stars are having career years and he has a system that is in the top 5 in the entire NHL for Scoring chance differential and high danger chance differential.

 

 

[JTech780]

49 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

Bednar with Colorado was thrown in when Roy quit so really there was 0 expectations last year. Sakic with a great draft and trades this year has built one of the better younger teams in the league and it is being utilized correctly by Bednar. Next year I guarantee a play off spot for Col.

Hynes hired 2015 to the NJD's team that was one of the oldest and slowest. They did a complete face lift last year so again 0 expectations last year. Hynes has shown how to get the most out of his young team.

So why is NJD and COL better this year they are both younger and faster with coaches that excel with that skill set.

 

BT has made numerous moves and to some degree has made the Flames younger and faster but really missed it with Brouwer, Bart, Jagr and Versteeg and to some extent Stone. GG so called system does not utilize the faster and younger players. Similar to Deboer's system in New Jersey before he was removed. If the Flames want to keep up with the changes happening in the NHL; speed, high energy fore checking, mobile defense, strong center ice play and solid back checking, and youth;  WE WILL NEED A DIFFERENT COACH.

 

 

 

GG has to coach to the level of his players. Meaning that he can't play an uptempo, high pressure, aggressive forecheck game because he doesn't have the players that can play that way. Backlund and Frolik do a wonderful job at doing it, but that's because they have the speed to do it. Monahan, Tkachuk, Brouwer, Jankowski, Stajan don't have the required speed to be effective at that style of game. Gaudreau has the speed but lacks size and strength. Ferland can do it when he feels like it, but his effort level is very inconsistent. Bennett is also very good playing that style. Lazar and Hathaway can be effective but lack the skill to do anything with the puck once they get it. So we have 3 players who play an effective high tempo, forecheck out of 12 forwards. It's hard to play the style you want when 3/4 of your forwards can't play that style effectively.

 

To me it seems like it's more GG's personality that runs you the wrong way and I get it, for me its Bruce Boudreau who I can't stand. He is a very good coach, but I wouldn't want him coaching here. He likes the spotlight a little too much for my liking. And I think that's part of the reason his team's have struggled in the playoffs.

[cross16]

17 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

To me it seems like it's more GG's personality that runs you the wrong way and I get it, 

 

I think you nailed this here. I find the majority of complaints about Gultuzan come down to what people think of him personally and the results of the team. It's a big picture vs small picture debate and that's why I think this is potential dangerous for the organization. Traditionally they've been a small picture thinker when it comes to firing/hiring coaches. and I think that needs to change. 

 

I totally get lots don't like GG and i'm certainly not suggesting people change their minds. He was a pretty bland hire so I figured people were going to sour on him quickly if anything went south but it's just interesting that it involves twisting things to fit a narrative instead of looking at the facts. 

[MAC331]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I think you nailed this here.

 

I get lots don't like GG for a variety of reasons, some valid some flimsy but that is to each his own. It's just strange when it gets tied into how the team plays because it really isn't backed up by data/facts. That's the kind of stuff why you are left with 7 potential coaches in 14 years, short term small picture thinking. 

A lot of comments on here surround small picture or sample thinking. I said earlier that we have a coach and a team working through this together. No GG is not Quenneville, it would be nice but it doesn't mean he can't get the job done eventually.

[stubblejumper1]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

We differ greatly if you are trying to make the argument that this is a fast team capable of playing what you described there. Guluzan twice now has had to adjust his system because when he has tried to play a more aggressive/faster game the Flames can't get it done and give up a boatload of chances. 

 

also funny that the system doesn't utilize younger players but yet his two bigger young stars are having career years and he has a system that is in the top 5 in the entire NHL for Scoring chance differential and high danger chance differential.

 

 

 

Maybe those stats are not indicative of success?  The Hurricanes have great scoring chance differentials (best in the league) and they are probably going to miss the playoffs.   The Oilers will finish the season with really good scoring chance differentials and they were out of the playoff race at Christmas.  we can probably add the Flames to the list of teams with really good scoring chance differentials that will miss the playoffs. 

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

We differ greatly if you are trying to make the argument that this is a fast team capable of playing what you described there. Guluzan twice now has had to adjust his system because when he has tried to play a more aggressive/faster game the Flames can't get it done and give up a boatload of chances. 

 

also funny that the system doesn't utilize younger players but yet his two bigger young stars are having career years and he has a system that is in the top 5 in the entire NHL for Scoring chance differential and high danger chance differential.

 

 

 

Wonder what the results would be with Andersson in over Stone.  

Too limited a viewing before.

 

 

 

[cross16]

43 minutes ago, stubblejumper1 said:

 

Maybe those stats are not indicative of success?  The Hurricanes have great scoring chance differentials (best in the league) and they are probably going to miss the playoffs.   The Oilers will finish the season with really good scoring chance differentials and they were out of the playoff race at Christmas.  we can probably add the Flames to the list of teams with really good scoring chance differentials that will miss the playoffs. 

 

No stat is perfect and no stat will give you a direct correlation to team success. However, scoring chance differential has one of the highest correlations to wins over the season of any stat there is out there. That being said I also just picked one but you can find many that show that the Flames have a solid overall game but I think it also shows you that the team is playing to it's potential. The biggest thing I take away from the analytics of the Flames is that the team that some thought we had on paper isn't there and significant holes exist. 

 

Just for the record, becuase i'm sure i'm going to get the "who cares about stats look at the wins" argument, this isn't designed to absolve blame. It's unfortunate but I think in alot of these discussion it inevitably leads to people thinking that using analytics to lessen the blame. I think what is more valid about looking at the Flmaes and their analytics is to identify the areas of the game that they arn't good enough in and then fixing those areas, and then what can you do to fix them? It's about digging deeper, not making ourselves feel better. I think the data points to a very few specific things as it relates to the Flames:

 

-They are a very good 5 on 5 team in terms of limiting and creating changes - that tells me the system is working and is the right way you want to play

-They give up too much defensive zone time at times. Sometimes they are great, but sometimes they give up too much - Part of this is coaching, part is player. The coaching part is the Flames are inconsistent with how they want to play the blue line and inconsistent in their puck support in the D zone. part of it is player because I think it's clear now the Flames have 1 awesome D pair, 1 avg at best d pair and 1 below avg d pair. I don't agree with the notion that the Flames D is stacked on paper because Hamonic is clearly not to the top pairing Defensive dman some thought he was. He wasn't that on the Island last year and that's continued. I think the coaching element is that they want to play a more aggressive style that steps up at the blueline but every time they do it doesn't work so they have to resort back to giving up the blueline and letting the teams enter and then slowly pinning them off. Players seems to go back and forth between both. Part of this also highlights their depth because the top half of their roster is fine by this measure but the bottom is pretty bad.

- They are not a good shooting team - The flames are about 18th/20th in terms of shooting percentage 5 on 5 and I believe are top 5 in shots missed, blocked shots, and posts hits. This speaks to their talents as a team IMO and not coaching. It's difficult for me to put blame on a coaching staff when the team is in a position to generate so much activity but they can't bury it. Now I do think the Flames could do a better job of getting pucks to the slot and part of that might be coaching but I also wonder how many guys they have that like going to the net. 

- Penalties are still an issue. part of this might be coaching but I think it's mostly player related. It's also not a serious issue IMO.

 

End of the day for me, coaching is not going to fix a lot of this. There is a significant talent/execution gap here that needs to be addressed if you want to put Calgary up contending for a division. 

 

[MAC331]

46 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

No stat is perfect and no stat will give you a direct correlation to team success. However, scoring chance differential has one of the highest correlations to wins over the season of any stat there is out there. That being said I also just picked one but you can find many that show that the Flames have a solid overall game but I think it also shows you that the team is playing to it's potential. The biggest thing I take away from the analytics of the Flames is that the team that some thought we had on paper isn't there and significant holes exist. 

 

Just for the record, becuase i'm sure i'm going to get the "who cares about stats look at the wins" argument, this isn't designed to absolve blame. It's unfortunate but I think in alot of these discussion it inevitably leads to people thinking that using analytics to lessen the blame. I think what is more valid about looking at the Flmaes and their analytics is to identify the areas of the game that they arn't good enough in and then fixing those areas, and then what can you do to fix them? It's about digging deeper, not making ourselves feel better. I think the data points to a very few specific things as it relates to the Flames:

 

-They are a very good 5 on 5 team in terms of limiting and creating changes - that tells me the system is working and is the right way you want to play

-They give up too much defensive zone time at times. Sometimes they are great, but sometimes they give up too much - Part of this is coaching, part is player. The coaching part is the Flames are inconsistent with how they want to play the blue line and inconsistent in their puck support in the D zone. part of it is player because I think it's clear now the Flames have 1 awesome D pair, 1 avg at best d pair and 1 below avg d pair. I don't agree with the notion that the Flames D is stacked on paper because Hamonic is clearly not to the top pairing Defensive dman some thought he was. He wasn't that on the Island last year and that's continued. I think the coaching element is that they want to play a more aggressive style that steps up at the blueline but every time they do it doesn't work so they have to resort back to giving up the blueline and letting the teams enter and then slowly pinning them off. Players seems to go back and forth between both. Part of this also highlights their depth because the top half of their roster is fine by this measure but the bottom is pretty bad.

- They are not a good shooting team - The flames are about 18th/20th in terms of shooting percentage 5 on 5 and I believe are top 5 in shots missed, blocked shots, and posts hits. This speaks to their talents as a team IMO and not coaching. It's difficult for me to put blame on a coaching staff when the team is in a position to generate so much activity but they can't bury it. Now I do think the Flames could do a better job of getting pucks to the slot and part of that might be coaching but I also wonder how many guys they have that like going to the net. 

- Penalties are still an issue. part of this might be coaching but I think it's mostly player related. It's also not a serious issue IMO.

 

End of the day for me, coaching is not going to fix a lot of this. There is a significant talent/execution gap here that needs to be addressed if you want to put Calgary up contending for a division. 

 

Cross you point out a lot of realities about this team and this is why I say BT has some work to do this offseason. You have mentioned before team speed and now their lousy passing and shooting with their game and I agree.

In regards to team speed I like that Bennett is now with Gaudreau and Monahan in order to provide this element both from an offensive and defensive stand point. Tkachuk and Backlund together could be enhanced with a faster more skilled RW than Frolik and we either have this in Foo or Gadwin or BT needs to be on the hunt for such a player. A much improved Ferland should be able to work on a line with Jankowski and Frolik to make for an effective 3rd line. I am hopeful with Stajan gone BT can unload Brouwer so a proper 4th line can be built from within and without Hathaway. My 4th line would look something like Klimchuk, Shore and Lazar with Shinkaruk and Poirier as my spares. All good skaters that have had scoring success in Junior but now must have a checking element to their games.

On defense I think Brodie and Stone need to be traded in order to have a defensive group that would correct what you have as stated weaknesses. Asking Valimaki to step in for a traded Brodie might be a tall order so maybe we need a 1 year deal for an experienced defenseman.

Our Goalie positioning is as sound as it has been for quite some time.

[stubblejumper1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

No stat is perfect and no stat will give you a direct correlation to team success. However, scoring chance differential has one of the highest correlations to wins over the season of any stat there is out there. That being said I also just picked one but you can find many that show that the Flames have a solid overall game but I think it also shows you that the team is playing to it's potential. The biggest thing I take away from the analytics of the Flames is that the team that some thought we had on paper isn't there and significant holes exist. 

 

Just for the record, becuase i'm sure i'm going to get the "who cares about stats look at the wins" argument, this isn't designed to absolve blame. It's unfortunate but I think in alot of these discussion it inevitably leads to people thinking that using analytics to lessen the blame. I think what is more valid about looking at the Flmaes and their analytics is to identify the areas of the game that they arn't good enough in and then fixing those areas, and then what can you do to fix them? It's about digging deeper, not making ourselves feel better. I think the data points to a very few specific things as it relates to the Flames:

 

-They are a very good 5 on 5 team in terms of limiting and creating changes - that tells me the system is working and is the right way you want to play

-They give up too much defensive zone time at times. Sometimes they are great, but sometimes they give up too much - Part of this is coaching, part is player. The coaching part is the Flames are inconsistent with how they want to play the blue line and inconsistent in their puck support in the D zone. part of it is player because I think it's clear now the Flames have 1 awesome D pair, 1 avg at best d pair and 1 below avg d pair. I don't agree with the notion that the Flames D is stacked on paper because Hamonic is clearly not to the top pairing Defensive dman some thought he was. He wasn't that on the Island last year and that's continued. I think the coaching element is that they want to play a more aggressive style that steps up at the blueline but every time they do it doesn't work so they have to resort back to giving up the blueline and letting the teams enter and then slowly pinning them off. Players seems to go back and forth between both. Part of this also highlights their depth because the top half of their roster is fine by this measure but the bottom is pretty bad.

- They are not a good shooting team - The flames are about 18th/20th in terms of shooting percentage 5 on 5 and I believe are top 5 in shots missed, blocked shots, and posts hits. This speaks to their talents as a team IMO and not coaching. It's difficult for me to put blame on a coaching staff when the team is in a position to generate so much activity but they can't bury it. Now I do think the Flames could do a better job of getting pucks to the slot and part of that might be coaching but I also wonder how many guys they have that like going to the net. 

- Penalties are still an issue. part of this might be coaching but I think it's mostly player related. It's also not a serious issue IMO.

 

End of the day for me, coaching is not going to fix a lot of this. There is a significant talent/execution gap here that needs to be addressed if you want to put Calgary up contending for a division. 

 

 

Now I see what you are getting at.  In that light I agree.  I have previously stated that the team needs a better set of RWers and a "true" #1 centre to be competitive.  Those are personnel issues.

 

The issues that I blame on coaching are the number of penalties the team takes and the poor special teams. 

 

The coaches obviously aren't telling the players "go out and take some stupid offensive zone penalties," but there doesn't seem to be a lot of consequences for the players who go out and take stupid offensive zone penalties.   

 

The PK seems to be better in the second half of the season, but there was no excuse for how bad it was earlier in the year.  I put that on the coaches.  The PP was terrible until a week or two ago, likely because the coaches kept sending out some players who aren't very good at scoring.

 

For the record - I am not one of the people who is against advanced stats.  I don't follow hockey stats closely because I spend alot of my day doing math at work, so stats are the last thing I want to look at in my free time.  

 

This isn't intended a shot at anyone on this forum, just some personal opinions:

 

1.  I think that members of the media (who may not have a strong background in math/statistics) try to use statistics in ways that the statistics were not intended to be used (I would call it the Kardashianizing of math). 

 

2.  I understand that advanced stats in hockey are in their infancy and are rapidly being developed, but I find it comical that Corsi is an important metric in 2016/17, but is becoming irrelevant in 2017/18.  What that says to me is that it was never a good statistic but it caught on due to social media.

 

3.  While no single stat is going to predict who wins the Stanley Cup, I don't think any of the current statistics are particularly indicative of performance.  NHL teams may have better proprietary stats/analysis that are better at predicting success, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the current "flavour of the months stats" are obsolete in a couple years.  A new flavour of the month or, hopefully, a more meaningful set of statss will be the numbers everyone points to. 

 

 

[The_People1]

36 minutes ago, stubblejumper1 said:

2.  I understand that advanced stats in hockey are in their infancy and are rapidly being developed, but I find it comical that Corsi is an important metric in 2016/17, but is becoming irrelevant in 2017/18.  What that says to me is that it was never a good statistic but it caught on due to social media.

 

This is very true of hockey and I think the difficulty of mapping advanced stats in hockey is that hockey's game play and flow is much more dynamic than say, baseball where there are only so many situations that can occur.  So much of a hockey players advanced stats depend on the player's teammate and team X's and O's.

 

The only situational stat that can be accurately tracked is faceoffs because many of the variables are controlled on a faceoff.  Other than that, there's very few stats that can be measured objectively.

[Cowtownguy]

8 hours ago, cross16 said:

For Quenville, I would be all for making the move. I've always liked him and the opportunity to get a coach with his resume doesn't come up often. I don't think he is a cure all, but I would like adding that type of resume to a team like this one, especially so young. Outside of him though i'm not really excited by anyone out there and I think it looks like a pretty mediocre crop. I think if the Flames did decide to move on from Gulutzan you are likely hiring a coach with a really similar resume. 

 

I approach this differently though, and I know i'm basically alone here, I don't think much of this is due to coaching. The Flames 5 on 5 game is very good and for the most part really consistent with some dips here and there. Special teams is very inconsistent and some of that is coaching (ie Hamilton not getting more PP time) but some of it is players too. There are some bad roster decision and bad coaching decisions but that is true of all coaches. Check out a Leafs forum or some Leafs people on twitter and see some of the things they say about Babcock. I recall some calls for Jon Cooper to be removed last year and the Lightning seem to be fine now.  I also do not understand the idea that people think this should be a division contending team, there are some very significant holes on this roster. Going into the season I had the Flames pegged in that playoff battle area, the 12-16 range in the NHL. So for me they are in 16th, maybe 2-4 points behind where I would have thought they would be but I don't agree with the notion that this team is playing far below their potential.

 

I know people think I really like Gulutzan but the reality is that is not quite the truth. I do like his philosophy on players, I like the way the Flames play, and I like his background and most importantly I do really think the players like to play for him. I do have some concerns about some player usages decisions and I do wonder about his ability to motivate but I'm starting to think a lot more big picture about that and wonder about the team/franchise more. If you move on from Gultuzan you are talking about your 7th coach in 14 seasons and that is just a flat our brutal track record so I think we need to get past the idea that coaching is a fix all. Not only that, Gulutzan is not the first coach who has a team that once expectations were raised the players couldn't meet them. This is a team that basically since 04 has had high expectations (save for a couple years under Hartley) and they have yet to find a group of players that collectively can stand up and meet them. Hartley had a great year with no expectations, expectations were raised and that team fell flat the next year. This is not only a Gulutzan problem for me. 

 

I think the organization needs more patience. I didn't realize this until yesterday but take a look at the bottom 5 of the NHL last year. Colorado Avalanche and Devils were both there, didn't make a coaching chance, and now are both battling for playoff spots. It's a very tight and competitive league so i also don't think its fair to point to coaching so much if a team doesn't meet expectations. You need to go deeper. 

 

 

You make some compelling points in your post. I appreciate that effort. I am generally a guy who does not agree with firing the coach. I think it is a bad idea to do so frequently as it send a message to the players that the inmates run the asylum. I agree with you that this team needs to show more ambition. All it takes is a few guys to dog it to affect the entire team/game.

 

Having said that, it seems that GG makes some bizarre player choices at times. We have been through that. He also seems really reluctant to consider alternative options in terms of line ups. Finally, it bothers me that we seem to so frequently come out so blandly at the beginning of really important games. I just cannot fathom that. Coaches can only take so much responsibility for player enthusiasm. At the same time, how can a team so frequently get scored on so early in the first period, or at the end of the period? We don't appear to start the engine until a few minutes into the game and they head out for holidays with 2 minutes remaining in the first period. How does that happen?

 

There also appears to be uneven development in players. As a team, we should be embarrassed by the fact that our highest draft pick ever is struggling and some people want him traded. 

 

I would be so happy if we landed Quenneville. Been a fan of his or years.

[cccsberg]

9 hours ago, stubblejumper1 said:

 

Maybe those stats are not indicative of success?  The Hurricanes have great scoring chance differentials (best in the league) and they are probably going to miss the playoffs.   The Oilers will finish the season with really good scoring chance differentials and they were out of the playoff race at Christmas.  we can probably add the Flames to the list of teams with really good scoring chance differentials that will miss the playoffs. 

Exactly, too much pinning your hopes/arguments on stats that DO NOT MATTER!

[ABC923]

In defense of stats, there are logical reasons to liking things like corsi or scoring chance differentials.  Corsi compares shots for vs shots against.  It's supposed to indirectly indicate who has control of the puck more often.  If you have control more often, it stands to reason you should score more goals.  Of course, as we've seen with this club, corsi can be manipulated by taking lots of shots from bad angles and locations.  You can take 20 more shot attempts than the other guys in a game, but if they're all coming from the point or the goal line while the other team gets it's shots from the middle of the ice, who is really more likely to win?

 

Scoring chance differentials make more sense as a good indicator to me, as there should be a direct correlation between number of scoring chances and number of goals.  But no one stat can give you the answer.  Take the oilers and hurricanes for example.  They may have great scoring chance differentials, but they both got garbage goaltending this year.  Sv% is probably a pretty accurate stat to use when predicting team success.  That said, all you can really ask of your coach is to put in place systems that give your team more chances than the other team to score, so I like this one.  After that you have to rely on the abilities of the players to put that system into motion, finish on their chances, and make saves.

[MAC331]

9 hours ago, ABC923 said:

In defense of stats, there are logical reasons to liking things like corsi or scoring chance differentials.  Corsi compares shots for vs shots against.  It's supposed to indirectly indicate who has control of the puck more often.  If you have control more often, it stands to reason you should score more goals.  Of course, as we've seen with this club, corsi can be manipulated by taking lots of shots from bad angles and locations.  You can take 20 more shot attempts than the other guys in a game, but if they're all coming from the point or the goal line while the other team gets it's shots from the middle of the ice, who is really more likely to win?

 

Scoring chance differentials make more sense as a good indicator to me, as there should be a direct correlation between number of scoring chances and number of goals.  But no one stat can give you the answer.  Take the oilers and hurricanes for example.  They may have great scoring chance differentials, but they both got garbage goaltending this year.  Sv% is probably a pretty accurate stat to use when predicting team success.  That said, all you can really ask of your coach is to put in place systems that give your team more chances than the other team to score, so I like this one.  After that you have to rely on the abilities of the players to put that system into motion, finish on their chances, and make saves.

I thought last night's last PP said all about the lack of smarts on this team. Down by 2 with little time remaining and they are working the puck around for a pretty goal when the "urgency" calls for 2 goals. Shoot the puck boys, LOTS.

[JTech780]

6 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I thought last night's last PP said all about the lack of smarts on this team. Down by 2 with little time remaining and they are working the puck around for a pretty goal when the "urgency" calls for 2 goals. Shoot the puck boys, LOTS.

 

What's the point of shooting when they can't ever hit the net.

[MAC331]

10 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

What's the point of shooting when they can't ever hit the net.

That too.

[travel_dude]

39 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

What's the point of shooting when they can't ever hit the net.

 

Stone has one of the hardest shots on the team.  Hasn't hit the net since he scored ages ago.  He does cause a lot of pain.

I would prefer seeing Andersson on this team over Stone.  Needless penalties.  Weak defense.  Suspect skating.

Andersson is one of the leaders in the AHL for defense.  Could really use a player like him.

[phoenix66]

18 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

You make some compelling points in your post. I appreciate that effort. I am generally a guy who does not agree with firing the coach. I think it is a bad idea to do so frequently as it send a message to the players that the inmates run the asylum. I agree with you that this team needs to show more ambition. All it takes is a few guys to dog it to affect the entire team/game.

 

Having said that, it seems that GG makes some bizarre player choices at times. We have been through that. He also seems really reluctant to consider alternative options in terms of line ups. Finally, it bothers me that we seem to so frequently come out so blandly at the beginning of really important games. I just cannot fathom that. Coaches can only take so much responsibility for player enthusiasm. At the same time, how can a team so frequently get scored on so early in the first period, or at the end of the period? We don't appear to start the engine until a few minutes into the game and they head out for holidays with 2 minutes remaining in the first period. How does that happen?

 

There also appears to be uneven development in players. As a team, we should be embarrassed by the fact that our highest draft pick ever is struggling and some people want him traded. 

 

I would be so happy if we landed Quenneville. Been a fan of his or years.

These are some of my biggest concerns. GG controls the one thing that players covet more than money ,  ..Icetime

How many times has TJ struggled and yet still gets top minutes and PP time..  how many times has Kulak / Stone been having a great game and yet still played low minutes

Bench some people .. shorten the bench.. Hartley got great results from the "always earned" mantra.. he went away from it in his final season and it got him fired 

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

These are some of my biggest concerns. GG controls the one thing that players covet more than money ,  ..Icetime

How many times has TJ struggled and yet still gets top minutes and PP time..  how many times has Kulak / Stone been having a great game and yet still played low minutes

Bench some people .. shorten the bench.. Hartley got great results from the "always earned" mantra.. he went away from it in his final season and it got him fired 

 

A couple of players deserved the bench the other night, but till played prime minutes.

Tkachuk had one bad penalty doing Tkachuk things, but made up for it in spades.  He was a victim to DH's vendetta even though he was speared in the belly by Comeau.

Maybe I saw it wrong, but it sure looked that way.  No supplemental.  No additional 3 minutes or whatever for Comeau.

Monahan was lazy coming back, but Brouwer was a chump on two goals.

No less ice time for him.  Even got 2nd unit PP time.

 

All I can say is I hope the players force GG's hand sooner than later.

Shore and Ferland coming back in.

Stewart not playing very good, but gives a crap some shifts.

Careless use of PP time.

Using 4th line when we just got scored on or after we score.

Brodie skating like a fool some shifts.  Pass the puck already!!

Bennett flailing around with his stick or feet.  Be careful dude.  You've injured your own guy twice.

 

 

[robrob74]

On 2018-02-28 at 8:03 AM, MAC331 said:

I think there is a lot of versions of where this team is at and why. You mention PIT but you don't mention that they have a level of experience within the player group that makes their way of playing work. On the end you mention Quennville could be done in CHI, ask yourself why is that ? I will tell you why is because they have been forced to subtract the experienced support players from the equation. Here in Calgary we are not yet out of the mentorship program nurturing our young core to the experience level enough to fully take over. I think we are getting close and next season we will see a huge shift for the identity of this team. Out with the old and average players and in with the new core and better players. This could mean we see a new coach but I'm thinking not.

 

I see a lot of what you’re saying. 

 

Still, for me, I really don’t like the way we started the season. Most of the team was back and we had to relearn the system? It took us 25 games to get used to a system we already played last year? Vegas didn’t need 30 games to, and they’re brand new. 

 

We’ve had a fairly healthy team for most of the season and for awhile, Versteeg and Jagr were the biggest losses. So we can’t blame injuries either. Subtracting Brouwer was a benefit because it forced him off the PP.... 

Ok, Versteeg was a “pp specialist” who ran our pp. But we couldn’t muster anything up without him? Come-on!!!! Not saying it to you, but it takes nearly 60 games to play Hamilton on the PP?

 

That PP needed to work in order for us to make the playoffs. 

 

Then other player choices... this is BS! Comical really. 

 

The beginning of the season killed us. We had to play catch-up for the first half and then figure things out along the way. 

 

Young team yes, but a team that played a system last year, including Jankowski (in the A), that couldn’t get it done. 

Is that the lack of identity? Or is that our identity?

[redfire11]

18 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Exactly, too much pinning your hopes/arguments on stats that DO NOT MATTER!

What Matters is Wins and Losses. Having stats that says we are in the top 10 means squat when we are in the bottom half of the league.

[420since1974]

I have been unable to find out how much Gulutzan's salary is or how long his contract runs for.

Does anyone here have any idea?

[JTech780]

8 minutes ago, 420since1974 said:

I have been unable to find out how much Gulutzan's salary is or how long his contract runs for.

Does anyone here have any idea?

https://www.capfriendly.com/coaches

 

I don't think it was made public. I could be wrong but most coaches are given 3 years with a new team.

 

Quenneville has 2 more years at $6m a year, I have a hard time seeing him getting fired, that is a big pill to swallow for the owner.

 

Vigneault and Trotz are both on the last year of their deals, if this accurate. I Trotz is a fantastic coach and I would absolutely hire him if he was available and wanted to come here. Vigneault is also a very good coach and I think he would be a good hire. 

 

I don't think I would fire GG just to fire him, but if you can upgrade on him than I think you do it.

[DirtyDeeds]

On 2/28/2018 at 11:52 AM, cross16 said:

 

I think you nailed this here. I find the majority of complaints about Gultuzan come down to what people think of him personally and the results of the team. It's a big picture vs small picture debate and that's why I think this is potential dangerous for the organization. Traditionally they've been a small picture thinker when it comes to firing/hiring coaches. and I think that needs to change. 

 

I totally get lots don't like GG and i'm certainly not suggesting people change their minds. He was a pretty bland hire so I figured people were going to sour on him quickly if anything went south but it's just interesting that it involves twisting things to fit a narrative instead of looking at the facts. 

Ask yourself these questions:

 

Would you rather go to a playoff run with BH's team(the year he made it) or would you rather go into a playoffs with last years team?

I ask this question to highlight that GG has a much better team to work with.

 

The upgrades are many yet he(GG) is barely getting the same results.. Does it matter if the style is better to watch if the results are just as bad or worse with a better team?

 

I remember distinctly that GG was the hire because he was thought to be able to "take the team to the next level". This is the next level? 

 

BT fixed the rotating door of Goal tending. We pretty much solidified the top 4 D while BH worked with a top 2 D(Gio and Brodie) and a bunch of 5 - 6 -7D.

 

GG is not getting from this team the results he should be. He sticks to his "rotating" the lines and D pairings to a fault. Every time I see a GDT with "Why is he putting Stajan's or Brouwers line out after a goal, I shake my head, because he is rotating his lines. Not because it is what he thinks is the safe or best line to have out there. He learned from Willy that it is easier to run the bench by rotating lines.. Willy did not get much results with this thinking either and relied way to heavily on his aging vets.

 

I could go on but this is what BT has to be doing at years end when he reviews the season.. 

 

GG can't get this team to play .500 hockey and we need about .660 hockey or we are out.