Glen Gulutzan-16th Flames Coach

[cross16]

44 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

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.

 

Agree to a point. Most metrics will take into account the type of shot as well, Ie uncontested wrister, slap shot, open look etc so in part they do cover what you are referring to. That being said because we don't have a true and universal definition I absolutely agree that none of the data is exclusively true nor are they the be all end all. So far Scoring chance deferential has the highest correlation to successful teams so while I think there is merit in looking at the statistics, by no means are they a cure all. Most importantly they are by no means meant as a "well look the Flames are good at generating chances so they must be fine". I think analytics helps you identify gaps and a better understanding of where they come from but the goal is never to win the "analytics" game as you described. to me , you look at analytics to help tell you why or why not you are winning the actual game and what can be learned/improved from to do so. 

 

44 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

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.  

 

I actually agree with this. In terms of analytics, the Flames rank poorly in terms of passes into the slot area or the high danger areas which I think you and I would both agree is supported by the eye test. Even though from a philosophical standpoint I agree with Gulutzan's system I do advocate that they need to make an adjustment in the O'zone and I agree with your Hybrid style. That for me also includes the D man coming down a little deeper into the O-zone so they too are available for the one time pass (something Wideman feasted under that season under Hartley) and another look which may open up another pass. So they and more guys in the slot, not right in front of the net, are the 2 changes I would adovate for that I think would increase the offence. It's a change the Bruins made and I think it's why they've exploded under Cassidy, they generate alot of really good looks and chances once they are in O'zone.

 

I think were I may differ from you, is putting it all on coaching. I do think it's a coaching decision to play the way they do but i'm also not sure it's a wrong one. I think Gulutzan's system is designed to be a little "safer" and is Brent Sutter like in that he doens't want to give up odd man rushes. It's hard to disagree with him here, especially becuase IMO the Flames lack both speed and commitment to D, in their forwrad ranks to allow them to play a more aggressive style. The downside I found with Hartley's system is that yes it produced alot of offence, but it also left the Flames VERY susceptible to odd man rushes and they gave up a boatload under Hartley. I also agree with a comment you made about lacking the shooters, which I also think leads to more of a "safer" approach to their O'zone game because if you are going to make a high risk pass to the slot you better bury it becuase it might be going the other way. Flames don't have a lot of shooters that can bury that chance.

 

So maybe i'm wrong but I think we are actually closer in belief that it first appeared. I guess where i'm coming from is it strictly a coaching philosophy thing or is it part that, part a player utilization thing? Obviously I've never had this discussion with Gultuzan or the coaching staff, would love to, to verify if that is correct or not so I stop short of putting the blame soley on the coaching staff. That being said I do agree that there are system tweaks that would help, but I also stop short of saying the system is the reason the Flames are where they are. Despite my personal views and disagreements with some of the concepts Gulutzan uses, I just don't see this as an issue with how they play holding them back. My issues are more with the players and the roster but I absolutley agree that there are some coaching issues with this team that I would like to see addressed in the off-season too. 

 

I think in a perfect world you blend some of the concepts Hartley used with Gulutzan's and then I really think you have something. I thought, but correct me if i'm wrong, that is where you were going with that to. Maybe where we disagree is I see the roster not being able to play that way.

[redfire11]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I think in a perfect world you blend some of the concepts Hartley used with Gulutzan's and then I really think you have something.

I think you nailed it on the head with this comment.

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, redfire11 said:

I think you nailed it on the head with this comment.

So more stretch passing then LOL Give er a go.

[Flyerfan52]

19 hours ago, JTech780 said:

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.

If Trotz became available (I doubt it) he'd be a fantastic hire. Flames already have a D & goalie he can rely on & having that is his forte.
In Nashville he never had the forwards to go with it while in Washington he has the forwards & goalie but not so much on D. (After e was gone Poile finally added forwards & makes Laviolette look good)

 

If Caps were to let him walk the Flames would be a good spot for that Dauphin, Mb. guy. Hire him the day he's free & hopefully BT gives him input in any trades/acquisistions over the summer. He's a very smart hockey guy. I have no doubt he'd return to the prairies after all the years in the states as he still spends as much of the summer here as possible to reconnect with family.

[cccsberg]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Agree to a point. Most metrics will take into account the type of shot as well, Ie uncontested wrister, slap shot, open look etc so in part they do cover what you are referring to. That being said because we don't have a true and universal definition I absolutely agree that none of the data is exclusively true nor are they the be all end all. So far Scoring chance deferential has the highest correlation to successful teams so while I think there is merit in looking at the statistics, by no means are they a cure all. Most importantly they are by no means meant as a "well look the Flames are good at generating chances so they must be fine". I think analytics helps you identify gaps and a better understanding of where they come from but the goal is never to win the "analytics" game as you described. to me , you look at analytics to help tell you why or why not you are winning the actual game and what can be learned/improved from to do so. 

 

 

I actually agree with this. In terms of analytics, the Flames rank poorly in terms of passes into the slot area or the high danger areas which I think you and I would both agree is supported by the eye test. Even though from a philosophical standpoint I agree with Gulutzan's system I do advocate that they need to make an adjustment in the O'zone and I agree with your Hybrid style. That for me also includes the D man coming down a little deeper into the O-zone so they too are available for the one time pass (something Wideman feasted under that season under Hartley) and another look which may open up another pass. So they and more guys in the slot, not right in front of the net, are the 2 changes I would adovate for that I think would increase the offence. It's a change the Bruins made and I think it's why they've exploded under Cassidy, they generate alot of really good looks and chances once they are in O'zone.

 

I think were I may differ from you, is putting it all on coaching. I do think it's a coaching decision to play the way they do but i'm also not sure it's a wrong one. I think Gulutzan's system is designed to be a little "safer" and is Brent Sutter like in that he doens't want to give up odd man rushes. It's hard to disagree with him here, especially becuase IMO the Flames lack both speed and commitment to D, in their forwrad ranks to allow them to play a more aggressive style. The downside I found with Hartley's system is that yes it produced alot of offence, but it also left the Flames VERY susceptible to odd man rushes and they gave up a boatload under Hartley. I also agree with a comment you made about lacking the shooters, which I also think leads to more of a "safer" approach to their O'zone game because if you are going to make a high risk pass to the slot you better bury it becuase it might be going the other way. Flames don't have a lot of shooters that can bury that chance.

 

So maybe i'm wrong but I think we are actually closer in belief that it first appeared. I guess where i'm coming from is it strictly a coaching philosophy thing or is it part that, part a player utilization thing? Obviously I've never had this discussion with Gultuzan or the coaching staff, would love to, to verify if that is correct or not so I stop short of putting the blame soley on the coaching staff. That being said I do agree that there are system tweaks that would help, but I also stop short of saying the system is the reason the Flames are where they are. Despite my personal views and disagreements with some of the concepts Gulutzan uses, I just don't see this as an issue with how they play holding them back. My issues are more with the players and the roster but I absolutley agree that there are some coaching issues with this team that I would like to see addressed in the off-season too. 

 

I think in a perfect world you blend some of the concepts Hartley used with Gulutzan's and then I really think you have something. I thought, but correct me if i'm wrong, that is where you were going with that to. Maybe where we disagree is I see the roster not being able to play that way.

Yes we do agree on many points.  Neither BH nor GG have all the answers, and yes BH's team did give up tons of odd-man rushes.  Having said that we also got a ton of odd-man rushes, perhaps even more that we gave up?  I'm not sure.  Certainly I agree that overall the team needs a lot more speed to effectively play the high-octane aggressive style that I think will be more effective.  Right now we can probably also agree that dropping Brouwer, Stajan, Glass, Stewart and Jagr (already done) would provide a huge speed upgrade to the bottom six that should improve the team immediately.  Personally I also believe that having a more dynamic (versus static) 1C would help a lot and lessen the ability of others to shut down Gaudreau.  I would do it with Monahan going to 1RW.  Bennett certainly "looks" kind of like that guy in terms of aggressiveness and dynamism, but I'm starting to question his hockey IQ ability to play well with others and effectively utilize his line mates.  Perhaps we will see that more the rest of the season with Ferland injured.  Beyond him, Backlund is not that guy (though still a great player), and Jankowski I see more as topping out as a 2C just due to his temperament, though that could change too.    

[MAC331]

7 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Yes we do agree on many points.  Neither BH nor GG have all the answers, and yes BH's team did give up tons of odd-man rushes.  Having said that we also got a ton of odd-man rushes, perhaps even more that we gave up?  I'm not sure.  Certainly I agree that overall the team needs a lot more speed to effectively play the high-octane aggressive style that I think will be more effective.  Right now we can probably also agree that dropping Brouwer, Stajan, Glass, Stewart and Jagr (already done) would provide a huge speed upgrade to the bottom six that should improve the team immediately.  Personally I also believe that having a more dynamic (versus static) 1C would help a lot and lessen the ability of others to shut down Gaudreau.  I would do it with Monahan going to 1RW.  Bennett certainly "looks" kind of like that guy in terms of aggressiveness and dynamism, but I'm starting to question his hockey IQ ability to play well with others and effectively utilize his line mates.  Perhaps we will see that more the rest of the season with Ferland injured.  Beyond him, Backlund is not that guy (though still a great player), and Jankowski I see more as topping out as a 2C just due to his temperament, though that could change too.    

Why would you not leave Monahan where he is a seek a player similar to Gaudreau for their RW ? I have said this before if you could get a 6'2 200lb Hudler we would have what we need there both shooter and play maker. Also as we are starting to realize and point out is two good skaters with Monahan would help.

[cross16]

15 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Yes we do agree on many points.  Neither BH nor GG have all the answers, and yes BH's team did give up tons of odd-man rushes.  Having said that we also got a ton of odd-man rushes, perhaps even more that we gave up?  I'm not sure.  Certainly I agree that overall the team needs a lot more speed to effectively play the high-octane aggressive style that I think will be more effective.  Right now we can probably also agree that dropping Brouwer, Stajan, Glass, Stewart and Jagr (already done) would provide a huge speed upgrade to the bottom six that should improve the team immediately.  Personally I also believe that having a more dynamic (versus static) 1C would help a lot and lessen the ability of others to shut down Gaudreau.  I would do it with Monahan going to 1RW.  Bennett certainly "looks" kind of like that guy in terms of aggressiveness and dynamism, but I'm starting to question his hockey IQ ability to play well with others and effectively utilize his line mates.  Perhaps we will see that more the rest of the season with Ferland injured.  Beyond him, Backlund is not that guy (though still a great player), and Jankowski I see more as topping out as a 2C just due to his temperament, though that could change too.    

 

Agree 100% with this. Well said. 

[cccsberg]

4 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Why would you not leave Monahan where he is a seek a player similar to Gaudreau for their RW ? I have said this before if you could get a 6'2 200lb Hudler we would have what we need there both shooter and play maker. Also as we are starting to realize and point out is two good skaters with Monahan would help.

Well I agree completely we need two good skaters with Monahan.  Monahan is a primo shooter who finds the quiet areas and buries them.  To me that screams winger.  I believe a dynamic third to the line is going to be most effective at Centre, but honestly, the past few games with Bennett at 1RW the three have just played and to heck with what position you put them in.  I realize the defensive responsibilities are way different so I guess that might be the consideration that tips it one way or another.  As for another Hudler, he was way too small and passive and when the opposition leaned on them the line was pretty much shut down.

[MAC331]

12 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Well I agree completely we need two good skaters with Monahan.  Monahan is a primo shooter who finds the quiet areas and buries them.  To me that screams winger.  I believe a dynamic third to the line is going to be most effective at Centre, but honestly, the past few games with Bennett at 1RW the three have just played and to heck with what position you put them in.  I realize the defensive responsibilities are way different so I guess that might be the consideration that tips it one way or another.  As for another Hudler, he was way too small and passive and when the opposition leaned on them the line was pretty much shut down.

I guess you missed the 6'2" 200lb part of the Hudler look alike I was referring too. Also Monahan is as fundamentally sound as you will get in a C, I wouldn't be moving him to wing.

[cccsberg]

7 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I guess you missed the 6'2" 200lb part of the Hudler look alike I was referring too. Also Monahan is as fundamentally sound as you will get in a C, I wouldn't be moving him to wing.

Yeah, I got the 6'2" part, just that if he's like Hudler the size doesn't matter.  Another on-looker, just bigger.  

 

As for Monahan, he is a terrific shooter and ok on D and skating.  As far as generating offence for others he is sub-par, and his battle/compete I think is also sub-par.  I love him on my team, but compared to other top C's on contending teams he is lagging seriously.  This has been a concern of mine for a year and some... that our core just is not good enough, and Monahan as 1C certainly fits that bill.  Now, if the whole team is working together and the system is designed to maximize the strengths of the guys we have, that is a different story and I believe Vegas exemplifies that very thing.  

[DirtyDeeds]

On 3/1/2018 at 9:09 PM, 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 distinctly remember you saying out loud you thought he played his firing the coach card too soon.

[DirtyDeeds]

13 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

 

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. 

 

I Don't think GG will be gone no matter how we finish the season. He was BT's choice so will get at least one more season.

[Carty]

 

      WHERE IS IT?...

[DHT]

14 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I Don't think GG will be gone no matter how we finish the season. He was BT's choice so will get at least one more season.

If this happens after missing the playoff, it would be BT's Titanic that would sink him as GM for the Flames.

[cross16]

14 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I Don't think GG will be gone no matter how we finish the season. He was BT's choice so will get at least one more season.

 

Could be right. I still don't think a lot of this is his fault but I also can't see Burke or the owners putting up with a non playoff season. Might not be Trelivings call. 

[robrob74]

15 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Yeah, I got the 6'2" part, just that if he's like Hudler the size doesn't matter.  Another on-looker, just bigger.  

 

As for Monahan, he is a terrific shooter and ok on D and skating.  As far as generating offence for others he is sub-par, and his battle/compete I think is also sub-par.  I love him on my team, but compared to other top C's on contending teams he is lagging seriously.  This has been a concern of mine for a year and some... that our core just is not good enough, and Monahan as 1C certainly fits that bill.  Now, if the whole team is working together and the system is designed to maximize the strengths of the guys we have, that is a different story and I believe Vegas exemplifies that very thing.  

 

 

I didn't see Hudler as an on-looker though. He was really good up until he got the crosscheck to the arms from Reggie in the LA game before the playoffs. He wasn't the same player since. Whether it was that specific play or not... But Hudler drove the offence much like Gaudreau before Gaudreau got there, and which was why that line was so effective until the injury. He stick handled in a phone booth and for that time period, was my favourite player. So I see what MAC is getting at there. Yes, Hudler prior to his injury or last year here.... 

 

Where Mac sees Monahan is fully fundamentally sound, I see him getting into position to make plays well enough, but he isn't always intense enough to fight for it... Much like the other night when he floated to the puck in the right wing in their zone and then the other two opponents outskated him and out skated him into our zone, and he watched as they scored. But that is par for the course with all of our defenders. We like to watch other teams.

[MAC331]

15 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Yeah, I got the 6'2" part, just that if he's like Hudler the size doesn't matter.  Another on-looker, just bigger.  

 

As for Monahan, he is a terrific shooter and ok on D and skating.  As far as generating offence for others he is sub-par, and his battle/compete I think is also sub-par.  I love him on my team, but compared to other top C's on contending teams he is lagging seriously.  This has been a concern of mine for a year and some... that our core just is not good enough, and Monahan as 1C certainly fits that bill.  Now, if the whole team is working together and the system is designed to maximize the strengths of the guys we have, that is a different story and I believe Vegas exemplifies that very thing.  

Another onlooker ? Hudler was a good smart player with the puck that could be a playmaker, shooter and scored. You want to draw the attention away from Gaudreau but you also want a similar talent that can equally compliment their talents. Ferland is a presence and has proved to be a finisher so he has provided some of what they needed. I think BT needs to keep trying for an answer at top line RW. I agree with you about Bennett in that he isn't that smart. I think moving him to LW the right move but I think he needs to play with smart veterans like Backlund and Frolik.

[MAC331]

9 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

I didn't see Hudler as an on-looker though. He was really good up until he got the crosscheck to the arms from Reggie in the LA game before the playoffs. He wasn't the same player since. Whether it was that specific play or not... But Hudler drove the offence much like Gaudreau before Gaudreau got there, and which was why that line was so effective until the injury. He stick handled in a phone booth and for that time period, was my favourite player. So I see what MAC is getting at there. Yes, Hudler prior to his injury or last year here.... 

 

Where Mac sees Monahan is fully fundamentally sound, I see him getting into position to make plays well enough, but he isn't always intense enough to fight for it... Much like the other night when he floated to the puck in the right wing in their zone and then the other two opponents outskated him and out skated him into our zone, and he watched as they scored. But that is par for the course with all of our defenders. We like to watch other teams.

I would never say Monahan is the perfect C, he has his strong points and his weaknesses which is why you need to compliment the talents Gaudreau and him possess. Now with Hudler gone how about another bigger Gaudreau type for their RW (maybe I should have said this lol)

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I would never say Monahan is the perfect C, he has his strong points and his weaknesses which is why you need to compliment the talents Gaudreau and him possess. Now with Hudler gone how about another bigger Gaudreau type for their RW (maybe I should have said this lol)

 

I agreed with you on a bigger Hudler. I loved Hudler’s skill. With just a touch more speed. Hudler probably shot more than Gaudreau. We need to get more shots from him now so he’s not as predictable.

[JTech780]

On headlines last night they were talking about how Trotz is in the final year of his contract and his future with the team in uncertain. They also mentioned that Todd Reirden might be their next coach, and how they denied the Coyotes, Sabres and Panthers permission to speak with Reirden in the past.

[MAC331]

On ‎2018‎-‎03‎-‎02 at 10:11 PM, cccsberg said:

Yeah, I got the 6'2" part, just that if he's like Hudler the size doesn't matter.  Another on-looker, just bigger.  

 

As for Monahan, he is a terrific shooter and ok on D and skating.  As far as generating offence for others he is sub-par, and his battle/compete I think is also sub-par.  I love him on my team, but compared to other top C's on contending teams he is lagging seriously.  This has been a concern of mine for a year and some... that our core just is not good enough, and Monahan as 1C certainly fits that bill.  Now, if the whole team is working together and the system is designed to maximize the strengths of the guys we have, that is a different story and I believe Vegas exemplifies that very thing.  

It sure would have been beneficial if Bennett had provided more answers for us to date. If we are not going to give up on Bennett and along with your suggestion maybe rearrange the top 9 this way next season.

Gaudreau, Bennett, Tkachuk

Monahan, Backlund, Foo or Gawdin

Ferland, Jankowski, Frolik

[travel_dude]

28 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

It sure would have been beneficial if Bennett had provided more answers for us to date. If we are not going to give up on Bennett and along with your suggestion maybe rearrange the top 9 this way next season.

Gaudreau, Bennett, Tkachuk

Monahan, Backlund, Foo or Gawdin

Ferland, Jankowski, Frolik

 

I just can't see Bennett being the answer for the top 3.

If you are moving Tkachuk up, then just move him up with Mony and JH.  They have been good on the PP together.

I have high hopes for Gawdin.  His scoring rate should make him an easy transition to the NHL, but ya know....

Bennett-Backlund-Frolik

Maybe Ferland-Janko-Gawdin.  Tow of thse guys can finish.

[JTech780]

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I just can't see Bennett being the answer for the top 3.

If you are moving Tkachuk up, then just move him up with Mony and JH.  They have been good on the PP together.

I have high hopes for Gawdin.  His scoring rate should make him an easy transition to the NHL, but ya know....

Bennett-Backlund-Frolik

Maybe Ferland-Janko-Gawdin.  Tow of thse guys can finish.

 

Be careful not to over rate Gawdin, he is about to turn 21 and is still playing in the WHL, his highest point total prior to this season was 59. Most NHL prospects his age are playing pro. While the point totals this year are awesome, don't expect him to put up high point totals in pro.

[MAC331]

16 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I just can't see Bennett being the answer for the top 3.

If you are moving Tkachuk up, then just move him up with Mony and JH.  They have been good on the PP together.

I have high hopes for Gawdin.  His scoring rate should make him an easy transition to the NHL, but ya know....

Bennett-Backlund-Frolik

Maybe Ferland-Janko-Gawdin.  Tow of thse guys can finish.

I was more addressing ccc's thought on moving Monahan to a Wing idea. I did say "if" we keep Bennett we have to find a position for him to provide max production. I would not like to see two average skaters such as Monahan and Tkachuk together, I think we get killed defensively 5 on 5. I agree using them as PP weapons together would be smart. Personally I don't know that the team should go much longer without some proven production.

[MAC331]

14 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

Be careful not to over rate Gawdin, he is about to turn 21 and is still playing in the WHL, his highest point total prior to this season was 59. Most NHL prospects his age are playing pro. While the point totals this year are awesome, don't expect him to put up high point totals in pro.

We need to upgrade the 3rd line RW so I think players such as Foo 24 years old and Gawdin 21 years old should be trying to challenge to make the team there. How is Gawdin's skating JT is he fast, quick or another average skater.