Glen Gulutzan-16th Flames Coach

[robrob74]

15 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

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. 

 

It is really quite frustrating. I didn’t expect division winners, but I did expect to be in the 2nd spot. The difference is Vegas, seemingly. I mean, I can’t believe they play like a well oiled machine and they just got put together while we were mostly together last year, and we haven’t even had tough injuries, unless you count Versteeg(?).

 

i think our biggest flaw was the start. 

 

We can still make it, but, we’ll see. I don’t think Glen can get them going though.

[JTech780]

24 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

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. 

 

Hartley had seasons of 72 points (adjusted for lockout), 77, 97 and 77. Which of these isn't like the others?

 

Can we please stop talking about Hartley like he did some amazing job while he was here. One lucky season where everything that could possibly go right did, does not make him a good coach. 

 

The roster has improved but it hasn't improved drastically, and yet we had 94 points last and are on pace for 92 this year. Is that not an improvement over the job Hartley did, I would say unequivocally yes.

[robrob74]

3 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

Hartley had seasons of 72 points (adjusted for lockout), 77, 97 and 77. Which of these isn't like the others?

 

Can we please stop talking about Hartley like he did some amazing job while he was here. One lucky season where everything that could possibly go right did, does not make him a good coach. 

 

The roster has improved but it hasn't improved drastically, and yet we had 94 points last and are on pace for 92 this year. Is that not an improvement over the job Hartley did, I would say unequivocally yes.

 

We have a top4 D now, where we had 1.5 D lines if you count Russell as a top4. We had Hudler and Monahan and then 1 year of Gaudreau. Backlund was also just starting to improve to what he is today. Bouma was on our 2nd line. Bennett started in the playoffs. 

 

Sure, he had a worse record, but he also had very little to work with in comparison. 

 

Was that Hartley’s system? Or did he adapt his coaching to suit the team he had? I really don’t know.

 

but I am still really pissed with this team’s compete...

[JTech780]

10 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

We have a top4 D now, where we had 1.5 D lines if you count Russell as a top4. We had Hudler and Monahan and then 1 year of Gaudreau. Backlund was also just starting to improve to what he is today. Bouma was on our 2nd line. Bennett started in the playoffs. 

 

Sure, he had a worse record, but he also had very little to work with in comparison. 

 

Was that Hartley’s system? Or did he adapt his coaching to suit the team he had? I really don’t know.

 

but I am still really pissed with this team’s compete...

 

You are kidding yourself if you think Hartley had a system. Hartley's teams played zero defense, and that isn't an exaggeration. His team's gave up odd man rush after odd man rush. He had 1 really lucky season, followed up by another terrible season. He was a terrible coach.

[CheersMan]

57 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

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. 

 

We all remember that first round series a few years back.  Many posters here never gave BH or that Flames team any credit at all for winning that series.  Fact is, BH out coached Willy who refused to waver from rolling the lines.  All I kept reading here from our own fan base was;

“If the Flames beat the Canucks, the Canucks must have been the worst team to make the playoffs, and we had the easiest road to the second round”.    

Willy kept rolling the same 4 lines, it cost him the series and it ultimately cost him his job.  BH beat them with match ups, his players played hard for him, then we fire our Jack Adams winner coach and hire the guy (assistant) we beat, who in fact has never won a damn thing at any level.

This season is not over (yet), our playoffs however are starting now, a month early.  We must now win in convincing fashion, like 4 wins every 6 games, because that is where we are at.

When the season is over the Flames will do their review like they do every year.  It will take them 6 weeks to make any kind of decisions, like it does every year, and during that time the rest of the league will be taking care of business and depleting our options.

This is a results based business, plain and simple.  The results will determine GG’s future.  With one playoff win in two years, me thinks he has some work to do if he has any chance of holding his job.

Let’s go Gully!  Win and you're in, lose and………..

 

42 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

It is really quite frustrating. I didn’t expect division winners, but I did expect to be in the 2nd spot. The difference is Vegas, seemingly. I mean, I can’t believe they play like a well oiled machine and they just got put together while we were mostly together last year, and we haven’t even had tough injuries, unless you count Versteeg(?).

 

i think our biggest flaw was the start. 

 

We can still make it, but, we’ll see. I don’t think Glen can get them going though.

 

Vegas has a good coach.  Gallant should win the Jack Adams this year, hands down.  

[Cowtownguy]

44 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

We have a top4 D now, where we had 1.5 D lines if you count Russell as a top4. We had Hudler and Monahan and then 1 year of Gaudreau. Backlund was also just starting to improve to what he is today. Bouma was on our 2nd line. Bennett started in the playoffs. 

 

Sure, he had a worse record, but he also had very little to work with in comparison. 

 

Was that Hartley’s system? Or did he adapt his coaching to suit the team he had? I really don’t know.

 

but I am still really pissed with this team’s compete...

And we should always remember that the same players both Hartley and GG coached were very different ages. Hartley had these guys when they were in grade 9, whereas GG has them in their graduating year. You should expect far more from them at this point. If memory serves, Hartley had Russell and Wideman whereas GG has Hamilton and Hamonic (guys so good that we paid bank for them). Hartley had Ramo and Hiller in net (neither is in the NHL now). GG has had Elliott and Smith (both still in the NHL). Brodie was in Norris contention under Hartley. He is now a shell of his former self. Bennett looked pretty solid under Hartley. A lot of people now want to trade him, but believe we will get little back for him. Hartley had to work with Bollig, big 'ern, Raymond etc.

 

GG has better players, closer to their prime ages, with far better goaltending. And yet here we are, not sure if we have a chance to make the playoffs. The Flames worked hard under Hartley and frequently managed to come back from deficits in the third period. They were nicknamed the "Comeback kids" (or whatever). GG cannot even motivate these guys to start or end a period without getting scored on more than once, and if we are down by 2 goals, you may as well go watch the Oilers tank. Hartley gave us a good scrap in Vancouver. GG threw a stick.

 

I don't think that many people are saying that Hartley did a great job overall. He just worked well with what he had. If Hartley was tossed for his efforts, GG should be run out of this city with Bettman when he leaves this week. Having said all of that, one of these coaches won the Jack Adams, the other has not and is clearly not even going to be in the conversation (unless someone makes a joke).

[Cowtownguy]

I will also add that nobody expected us to make the playoffs when Hartley coached our brutal roster, and yet we won a series. This year we were supposed to be contenders. We might not even have a chance to get to the dance.

[CheersMan]

19 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

And we should always remember that the same players both Hartley and GG coached were very different ages. Hartley had these guys when they were in grade 9, whereas GG has them in their graduating year. You should expect far more from them at this point. If memory serves, Hartley had Russell and Wideman whereas GG has Hamilton and Hamonic (guys so good that we paid bank for them). Hartley had Ramo and Hiller in net (neither is in the NHL now). GG has had Elliott and Smith (both still in the NHL). Brodie was in Norris contention under Hartley. He is now a shell of his former self. Bennett looked pretty solid under Hartley. A lot of people now want to trade him, but believe we will get little back for him. Hartley had to work with Bollig, big 'ern, Raymond etc.

 

GG has better players, closer to their prime ages, with far better goaltending. And yet here we are, not sure if we have a chance to make the playoffs. The Flames worked hard under Hartley and frequently managed to come back from deficits in the third period. They were nicknamed the "Comeback kids" (or whatever). GG cannot even motivate these guys to start or end a period without getting scored on more than once, and if we are down by 2 goals, you may as well go watch the Oilers tank. Hartley gave us a good scrap in Vancouver. GG threw a stick.

 

I don't think that many people are saying that Hartley did a great job overall. He just worked well with what he had. If Hartley was tossed for his efforts, GG should be run out of this city with Bettman when he leaves this week. Having said all of that, one of these coaches won the Jack Adams, the other has not and is clearly not even going to be in the conversation (unless someone makes a joke).

I have always argued that Treliving fired BH to soon.  Hartley did not always have the best talent to work with but he got results with what he had.  Some here say his results weren’t that good, but id say his lineup wasn’t that good either.  The first sign of a promising lineup, and they fire BH and bring in a young guy with no winning history.  BH deserved one more year, the year that was remaining on his contract and then re-evaluate.  If he was terrible after given an opportunity with a decent lineup then I’d be fine in firing him, but he was not given a chance because our new GM had new ideas.

[travel_dude]

16 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

I have always argued that Treliving fired BH to soon.  Hartley did not always have the best talent to work with but he got results with what he had.  Some here say his results weren’t that good, but id say his lineup wasn’t that good either.  The first sign of a promising lineup, and they fire BH and bring in a young guy with no winning history.  BH deserved one more year, the year that was remaining on his contract and then re-evaluate.  If he was terrible after given an opportunity with a decent lineup then I’d be fine in firing him, but he was not given a chance because our new GM had new ideas.

 

I don;t have a big issue with firing BH.  He had middling results except for one year.  He was fired for not achieving the results in the followup year.  Many reasons for the team not acheving results.  Other teams adapting, Hiller regressing.  Stretch pass no longer working.  Wideman.  Regressing back to the norm.  The coach will always take the lumps.  That's the way it is.  You only get so many years.

For that reason, this coach should not get a longer leash. 

 

 

[CheersMan]

20 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don;t have a big issue with firing BH.  He had middling results except for one year.  He was fired for not achieving the results in the followup year.  Many reasons for the team not acheving results.  Other teams adapting, Hiller regressing.  Stretch pass no longer working.  Wideman.  Regressing back to the norm.  The coach will always take the lumps.  That's the way it is.  You only get so many years.

For that reason, this coach should not get a longer leash. 

 

 

 

Hockey is entertainment.  BH brought exciting, offensive hockey, for me at least.  He was upfront about it and told us that that was the way his team was going to play, because it was entertainment.  His defense drove the offense.  Gio and Brodie were having NHL record breaking years (until injury) with at best, average forward players.  If BH had a true #1 goaltender combined with the right mix upfront, that would have been entertainment for this fan base for sure.  Anyways, its gone.      

[phoenix66]

7 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

And we should always remember that the same players both Hartley and GG coached were very different ages. Hartley had these guys when they were in grade 9, whereas GG has them in their graduating year. You should expect far more from them at this point. If memory serves, Hartley had Russell and Wideman whereas GG has Hamilton and Hamonic (guys so good that we paid bank for them). Hartley had Ramo and Hiller in net (neither is in the NHL now). GG has had Elliott and Smith (both still in the NHL). Brodie was in Norris contention under Hartley. He is now a shell of his former self. Bennett looked pretty solid under Hartley. A lot of people now want to trade him, but believe we will get little back for him. Hartley had to work with Bollig, big 'ern, Raymond etc.

 

GG has better players, closer to their prime ages, with far better goaltending. And yet here we are, not sure if we have a chance to make the playoffs. The Flames worked hard under Hartley and frequently managed to come back from deficits in the third period. They were nicknamed the "Comeback kids" (or whatever). GG cannot even motivate these guys to start or end a period without getting scored on more than once, and if we are down by 2 goals, you may as well go watch the Oilers tank. Hartley gave us a good scrap in Vancouver. GG threw a stick.

 

I don't think that many people are saying that Hartley did a great job overall. He just worked well with what he had. If Hartley was tossed for his efforts, GG should be run out of this city when Bettman leaves this week. Having said all of that, one of these coaches won the Jack Adams, the other has not and is clearly not even going to be in the conversation (unless someone makes a joke).

Hartley also had Hamilton , and we almost ran him town . He is now in Norris talk (playing with Gio, that to me is the common denominator)

He insisted on constantly playing Hiller over Ramo when Ramo was clearly the better of the 2

Engelland ate Popcorn a LOT under Hartley 

Blocking shots was his one and only go to strategy for defense 

Yes we had a ton of comebacks, but that means we were behind a lot .. until recently this team had not lost a 3rd period lead under GG

 

My Point is both had good and bad points , but it wasnt a mistake to fire BH

 

 

Hartley was good one year of getting the team to work .. his final year "earned not given" went out the window, that's what got him fired.

I like GG's vision and system way more than Hartleys, but .. as I stated earlier, its becoming apparent he lacks the player management facet of it .. this needs to change or he will also be fired 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[travel_dude]

53 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

 

Hockey is entertainment.  BH brought exciting, offensive hockey, for me at least.  He was upfront about it and told us that that was the way his team was going to play, because it was entertainment.  His defense drove the offense.  Gio and Brodie were having NHL record breaking years (until injury) with at best, average forward players.  If BH had a true #1 goaltender combined with the right mix upfront, that would have been entertainment for this fan base for sure.  Anyways, its gone.      

 

Hard to maintain that type of hockey over time.  BH wasn't able to.  The Oilers played and play that way, relying on blocks and scoring more than the opposition.  Kris Russell style defense.  Todd will take the fall.  Fun to watch McDavid get 5 points in a game and lose two games 5-0. 

 

What I am getting at is the results determine the length of the coach's term.  BT had one good year.  Gully had one okay year that featured a 10 game win streak, followed by a 1st round exit.  This year should have been better.  The only way he should retain his job is if the Flames win at least one playoff round.    

[flames for life]

I realize BH wasn’t able to sustain his idea of “entertaining “ hockey, but as others have stated, he did not have the talent that GG has now.  Even the year before JH’s addition, the most notable statement made by anyone playing Calgary was “any point you were going to get with Calgary, it was going to be earned.”  In other words, BH had the team working hard every game; to the point teams dreaded the effort they would have to exert.  BH was the first to admit he demanded a level of fitness that supported that kind of effort.  GG may have more talent to work with, but that mentality and effort are missing.   

[cccsberg]

12 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

Hartley had seasons of 72 points (adjusted for lockout), 77, 97 and 77. Which of these isn't like the others?

 

Can we please stop talking about Hartley like he did some amazing job while he was here. One lucky season where everything that could possibly go right did, does not make him a good coach. 

 

The roster has improved but it hasn't improved drastically, and yet we had 94 points last and are on pace for 92 this year. Is that not an improvement over the job Hartley did, I would say unequivocally yes.

Can we just as well stop with the "it was all luck" with BH?  It WAS the first season of Gaudreau so I will give you that JG probably hit teams by surprise.  As for Hartley, however, his fast, aggressive forechecking, full-attack and never-give-up style was not only not lucky (unless you pin everything on out-dated Corsi), it was also ahead of its time.  Today's best teams (TBL, Boston, Vegas, TML) all play that style and its exactly where this team needs to go to get back to being consistently competitive.  And also, please stop with the BH is not a good coach B.S.  In what universe is a guy who has won championships at every single level and who produced the most exciting team in decades and best results since 2004 not only a good coach, but even better?  And more to the point, in what world is a coach that has never won nothing outside of a incomplete ECHL run and consistently shown he can only get mediocre results suddenly a good coach now that he's been given a much better team?  

 

The problem with the coaching comes down to a false reliance on Corsi, drove home as necessary to BT when we got man-handled by Anaheim in the playoffs, versus an understanding that we just didn't have the horses... BT defined possession as the problem, dumped BH and went out and got a coach to improve Corsi.  GG has been hugely successful in his task.  Unfortunately, Corsi wasn't really the problem, the team was.  Now the team has been dramatically improved while the Corsi-reliance has left the Flames sputtering and inconsistent.  Fortunately (sarcasm here), with more games like the last in Colorado with huge games by Corsi giants Stajan, Brouwer, Stewart and Glass we can overcome our current "bad luck" and power into the playoffs and beyond!

[cccsberg]

11 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

And we should always remember that the same players both Hartley and GG coached were very different ages. Hartley had these guys when they were in grade 9, whereas GG has them in their graduating year. You should expect far more from them at this point. If memory serves, Hartley had Russell and Wideman whereas GG has Hamilton and Hamonic (guys so good that we paid bank for them). Hartley had Ramo and Hiller in net (neither is in the NHL now). GG has had Elliott and Smith (both still in the NHL). Brodie was in Norris contention under Hartley. He is now a shell of his former self. Bennett looked pretty solid under Hartley. A lot of people now want to trade him, but believe we will get little back for him. Hartley had to work with Bollig, big 'ern, Raymond etc.

 

GG has better players, closer to their prime ages, with far better goaltending. And yet here we are, not sure if we have a chance to make the playoffs. The Flames worked hard under Hartley and frequently managed to come back from deficits in the third period. They were nicknamed the "Comeback kids" (or whatever). GG cannot even motivate these guys to start or end a period without getting scored on more than once, and if we are down by 2 goals, you may as well go watch the Oilers tank. Hartley gave us a good scrap in Vancouver. GG threw a stick.

 

I don't think that many people are saying that Hartley did a great job overall. He just worked well with what he had. If Hartley was tossed for his efforts, GG should be run out of this city with Bettman when he leaves this week. Having said all of that, one of these coaches won the Jack Adams, the other has not and is clearly not even going to be in the conversation (unless someone makes a joke).

You are so right on.  This year GG has not only taken a very good team right to the brink of playoffs elimination but taken me right out of seriously caring about the Flames for the foreseeable future, until they dump GG (and possibly BT also, though I'm inclined to give him another chance) and get someone in who can rally the troops and get playing exciting hockey.  Thanks GG, nice job!

[MAC331]

8 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Can we just as well stop with the "it was all luck" with BH?  It WAS the first season of Gaudreau so I will give you that JG probably hit teams by surprise.  As for Hartley, however, his fast, aggressive forechecking, full-attack and never-give-up style was not only not lucky (unless you pin everything on out-dated Corsi), it was also ahead of its time.  Today's best teams (TBL, Boston, Vegas, TML) all play that style and its exactly where this team needs to go to get back to being consistently competitive.  And also, please stop with the BH is not a good coach B.S.  In what universe is a guy who has won championships at every single level and who produced the most exciting team in decades and best results since 2004 not only a good coach, but even better?  And more to the point, in what world is a coach that has never won nothing outside of a incomplete ECHL run and consistently shown he can only get mediocre results suddenly a good coach now that he's been given a much better team?  

 

The problem with the coaching comes down to a false reliance on Corsi, drove home as necessary to BT when we got man-handled by Anaheim in the playoffs, versus an understanding that we just didn't have the horses... BT defined possession as the problem, dumped BH and went out and got a coach to improve Corsi.  GG has been hugely successful in his task.  Unfortunately, Corsi wasn't really the problem, the team was.  Now the team has been dramatically improved while the Corsi-reliance has left the Flames sputtering and inconsistent.  Fortunately (sarcasm here), with more games like the last in Colorado with huge games by Corsi giants Stajan, Brouwer, Stewart and Glass we can overcome our current "bad luck" and power into the playoffs and beyond!

At the end of the season they will sit down and evaluate what went right and what went wrong. This team needs to be better in a number of areas so they are ready to win.

IMO some quick thoughts is there was way to much experimenting that didn't work well, causing a lot of the inconsistent play. Interesting point is that where there was consistent placement those forwards have had good numbers. On the back end we have seen Giordano and Hamilton work well but Brodie and Hamonic not so much. Stone and Kulak has been ok with not much contribution. Our PP has been terrible and our PK both good and bad at times. In order to win consistently you need to have all parts of your team and game being consistent enough to deliver those wins. We are not quite there yet.

[MAC331]

9 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

You are so right on.  This year GG has not only taken a very good team right to the brink of playoffs elimination but taken me right out of seriously caring about the Flames for the foreseeable future, until they dump GG (and possibly BT also, though I'm inclined to give him another chance) and get someone in who can rally the troops and get playing exciting hockey.  Thanks GG, nice job!

This is not a "really good team" which is the point people are missing.

[cross16]

13 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

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 don't agree with the statement that GG has the much better team. Better sure, but "much" I don't agree. As i have said since the offseason I truly believe pepole have overrated the Flames and how they look on paper. This is a roster that needs improvment in several areas and I would argue that Hartley's teams had more and better depth.

 

Yes it does. You need to play a certain way to win and win in a sustainable way in the NHL. Hartley's system and philosophy couldn't do that. 

 

I think the question about is he not getting enough out of the team is part yes and part no. A good chunk of the roster are either on pace for, or already surpassed, career highs. Even players like Gio probably won't put up career highs but are going to be close or put up numbers close to their career highs. So a good portion of the roster is having success but lots of pieces are not. Is that the coach or the pieces? I vote the later but I understand people feel differently.

 

Gulutzan will almost certainly be gone if the Flames miss the playoffs. I'm no advocating that will be a mistake but if the idea is that we need to put this all on the coach and we have a fine team that just needs a new coach, then yes that will be a mistake. I'm a strong believer that this late in a season is when your room takes over and players play because they want to, because they are driven and because they want to win. You should not need your coach this late in the season to be providing motivation or get you going because the motivation is already there, a spot in the playoffs. The fact that the Flames have sputtered so much in the last few weeks makes me point to the team and the makeup and not the coach, so if the argument is let's get rid of Gulutzan and that will fix everything then I truly believe everyone here will be solely disappointed in that because it should be pretty clear the problems run deeper than that. 

 

 

18 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

The problem with the coaching comes down to a false reliance on Corsi, 

 

Almost no one cares about Corsi anymore and i'm actually pretty sure the Flames don't even track it. Flames care about scoring chances and quality scoring chances, both creating them and limiting them, and the reality is you need the puck in order to both create and limit scoring chances. 

[cccsberg]

13 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

This is not a "really good team" which is the point people are missing.

Obviously, as results speak for themselves.  I am saying they have the horses to be a very good team, but that primarily coaching is holding them back....

[MAC331]

Just now, cccsberg said:

Obviously, as results speak for themselves.  I am saying they have the horses to be a very good team, but that primarily coaching is holding them back....

I disagree

[cccsberg]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't agree with the statement that GG has the much better team. Better sure, but "much" I don't agree. As i have said since the offseason I truly believe pepole have overrated the Flames and how they look on paper. This is a roster that needs improvment in several areas and I would argue that Hartley's teams had more and better depth.

 

Yes it does. You need to play a certain way to win and win in a sustainable way in the NHL. Hartley's system and philosophy couldn't do that. 

 

I think the question about is he not getting enough out of the team is part yes and part no. A good chunk of the roster are either on pace for, or already surpassed, career highs. Even players like Gio probably won't put up career highs but are going to be close or put up numbers close to their career highs. So a good portion of the roster is having success but lots of pieces are not. Is that the coach or the pieces? I vote the later but I understand people feel differently.

 

Gulutzan will almost certainly be gone if the Flames miss the playoffs. I'm no advocating that will be a mistake but if the idea is that we need to put this all on the coach and we have a fine team that just needs a new coach, then yes that will be a mistake. I'm a strong believer that this late in a season is when your room takes over and players play because they want to, because they are driven and because they want to win. You should not need your coach this late in the season to be providing motivation or get you going because the motivation is already there, a spot in the playoffs. The fact that the Flames have sputtered so much in the last few weeks makes me point to the team and the makeup and not the coach, so if the argument is let's get rid of Gulutzan and that will fix everything then I truly believe everyone here will be solely disappointed in that because it should be pretty clear the problems run deeper than that. 

 

 

 

Almost no one cares about Corsi anymore and i'm actually pretty sure the Flames don't even track it. Flames care about scoring chances and quality scoring chances, both creating them and limiting them, and the reality is you need the puck in order to both create and limit scoring chances. 

Just for the sake of discussion, and because this goes to the heart of the issue, can you please tell me exactly how scoring chances and quality scoring chances are defined?  My impression (haven't looked it up, yet) is it means having/shooting the puck in close proximity to the net, more than anything else.  Once we have a mutual agreement on what it is, discussion can proceed.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Just for the sake of discussion, and because this goes to the heart of the issue, can you please tell me exactly how scoring chances and quality scoring chances are defined?  My impression (haven't looked it up, yet) is it means having/shooting the puck in close proximity to the net, more than anything else.  Once we have a mutual agreement on what it is, discussion can proceed.

 

LIke shots, and like alot of hockey stats, there is no true definition. At a high level yes i would say you are right but there are some variations to it as well.

 

here is a decent summary: http://www.corsica.hockey/blog/2016/08/13/shot-quality-and-expected-goals-part-1-5/

[JTech780]

This team has 4 top 6 forwards (Backlund, Gaudreau, Tkachuk and Monahan), 3 other player that fit in the top 9, but ideally should be 3rd line players (Bennett, Frolik, Ferland), and then a bunch of forwards that probably shouldn't be in the NHL (Stajan, Brouwer, Lazar, Jankowski, Hathaway, Glass, Hrivik). We have a really good 1st pairing on defense and then an2nd pairing that is playing like a 3rd and a 3rd that is playing like 7th defenseman.

 

Our top of the line up is good but is missing two top 6 wingers. Our 3rd line is using non NHLers because we are using our 3rd liners in the top 6. Our 4th line is down right embarrassing.

 

I don't know how this is looked at as a contending team. We are missing tons of pieces, a few high end players can only take you so far (ie Chicago) you need depth up and down the lineup if you want to compete in this NHL.

 

Even our top end horses have holes in their games; Gaudreau is small and lacks strength and has a well below average shot; Monahan is a poor skater, doesn't use his size well, doesn't always give 100% on defense; Tkachuk is a poor skater, takes too many penalties; Giordano is getting older, his skating isn't terrible but leaves a lot to be desired; Hamilton doesn't use his size effectively, can be soft on defense.

 

There are major holes and weaknesses to this team.

[cccsberg]

42 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

LIke shots, and like alot of hockey stats, there is no true definition. At a high level yes i would say you are right but there are some variations to it as well.

 

here is a decent summary: http://www.corsica.hockey/blog/2016/08/13/shot-quality-and-expected-goals-part-1-5/

OK, so as I partially suspected, Scoring Chances is based on 2 things: 1/ Unblocked shots and 2/ Proximity to Net.  If that is the definition then we can discuss from there.

 

Although I don't disagree with the concept that close-in shots are more dangerous than those further out, it doesn't mean that that is exclusively true.  If I recall from BH's best season, the first year of Gaudreau, one of the very key aspects of the team's offence was the close-in, last-second pass across to an open man in the slot. Because it was last-second and near the net, and the ANGLE OF THE SHOT changed dramatically, it was extremely difficult for the goalies to react in time and it resulted in a very high (higher than norm, i.e. "lucky") success rate.  The subsequent year's "regression to norm" was nothing of the sort (had nothing to do with "luck"), but rather other team's adapting, cutting off our stretch passes and focusing on covering the into-the-slot pass more than covering JG (and others), much like a standard 1 vs 2 defensive coverage.  BH was slow to adapt the following year, largely I feel because we just din't have the truly dynamic, speedy centres needed (and still don't) so the offence inevitably suffered, as did the team as a whole.

 

This year we tend to enter the zone and try to set up, much like a power play, with possession and cycling and work the puck into position for a close-in shot and look for rebounds as our primary offensive weapon.  We are getting those close-in chances, but unfortunately most are from a scramble in front of the net and into either the opposition or the goalie.  There is very little change of angle and we're relying on truly lucky bounces far too much.  Yes, we are creating more scoring chances, and even "high danger" scoring chances from this because we get the puck close into the net, but I honestly do not believe they are that "high danger".  Look at our team's shooting %'s this year and I think you will find they are down versus BT years.  Why?  The SYSTEM, the style of play we are playing.  For some teams, that have big, rugged players a la Anaheim and LAK perhaps this can work because you can't move them out and they can win those scrum battles.  But, outside of Tkachuk, and sometimes Bennett, the Flames do not have those players so this style of play just is not that effective, and hence our results.  

 

To be more effective the Flames need to get more aggressive, both forechecking and once in the O-zone, with a hybrid style that utilizes both types depending on who is on the ice.  They also need to get some guys who know how to one-time the puck and hit the net, and get all the players moving around once in the zone to open up shot lanes and playmaker's opportunities.  This is coaching, this is watching the game and seeing what is happening and being able to adapt.  Coaching again.  

 

So, bottom line, it seems BT, and some here are stuck on a couple advanced stat metrics but failing to see the details on the ice.  At least that's my view.  As a guy we know once ~said about a drunk and a light standard... stats are good for illumination, but not for direction..... Corsi, Scoring Chances and Dangerous Scoring Chances are not the be all, end all.  Until this team understands exactly what is happening and is able to adapt appropriately they will be chasing their tails rather than chasing off the intruders coming to steal what should be ours.... We have many excellent players, with exceptional skills and talents, but they need to be playing to their strengths and not have their round selves be forced into square holes.  And we need smart, dynamic coaches who can learn and adapt too.  We are not there yet.

[MAC331]

42 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

This team has 4 top 6 forwards (Backlund, Gaudreau, Tkachuk and Monahan), 3 other player that fit in the top 9, but ideally should be 3rd line players (Bennett, Frolik, Ferland), and then a bunch of forwards that probably shouldn't be in the NHL (Stajan, Brouwer, Lazar, Jankowski, Hathaway, Glass, Hrivik). We have a really good 1st pairing on defense and then an2nd pairing that is playing like a 3rd and a 3rd that is playing like 7th defenseman.

 

Our top of the line up is good but is missing two top 6 wingers. Our 3rd line is using non NHLers because we are using our 3rd liners in the top 6. Our 4th line is down right embarrassing.

 

I don't know how this is looked at as a contending team. We are missing tons of pieces, a few high end players can only take you so far (ie Chicago) you need depth up and down the lineup if you want to compete in this NHL.

 

Even our top end horses have holes in their games; Gaudreau is small and lacks strength and has a well below average shot; Monahan is a poor skater, doesn't use his size well, doesn't always give 100% on defense; Tkachuk is a poor skater, takes too many penalties; Giordano is getting older, his skating isn't terrible but leaves a lot to be desired; Hamilton doesn't use his size effectively, can be soft on defense.

 

There are major holes and weaknesses to this team.

I don't agree these are holes however this is what I mean by not being advanced enough with their talents as a team to win consistently yet.

Line #1

Monahan is as developed as he is ever going to be so you have to compliment him with talented but speedy Wingers.

Gaudreau is very good and would be even better if he learned to protect the puck so as not to cough it up so much. I would also hope he shoots more and doesn't fall into just a feeder mentality. As good as Ferland as been we need a speedier more skilled RW for this line.

Line #2

Bennett on LW is IMO the right way to go for him and playing with Backlund and Frolik would provide an even better shutdown line with exceptional secondary scoring ability.

Line # 3

I would be tempted to try this arrangement should Ferland be replaced from the top line. Ferland LW, Jankowski C, Tkachuk RW (I think he is versatile more so than Ferland)

Line #4                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       There should be some good players for filling out this line next season. Hopefully BT can do the right thing and trade or buyout Brouwer so he is gone.

LW Klimchuk, Lomberg, Shinkaruk, Poirier

C Lazar, Shore

RW Lazar, Hathaway,

DEFENSE

Giordano, Hamilton

Kulak (or better), Hamonic

Brodie, Andersson

Wotherspoon

Balances out the experience levels and worth trying IMO

GOALIES

One more year of Smith and then we should have Rittich and Gilles battling it out for starts. All good