Glen Gulutzan-16th Flames Coach

[CheersMan]

Every play in hockey starts with the FO, they are important.  I can’t think of one situation where a team will purposely lose a FO.  The FO is the easiest way to gain possession of the puck.  A lost FO requires a team to resort to plan B, C or D to get the puck back before it ends up in their own net.  The game can not be described entirely by looking at numbers and I don’t want to be dragged into a debate about how one of our adopted children (enhanced stats blogger) has failed to identify the importance of a FO by looking at numbers.

[travel_dude]

Every play in hockey starts with the FO, they are important.  I can’t think of one situation where a team will purposely lose a FO.  The FO is the easiest way to gain possession of the puck.  A lost FO requires a team to resort to plan B, C or D to get the puck back before it ends up in their own net.  The game can not be described entirely by looking at numbers and I don’t want to be dragged into a debate about how one of our adopted children (enhanced stats blogger) has failed to identify the importance of a FO by looking at numbers.

 

What you missed was that FO is only one part of possession.  What you do with the puck after a win or a loss is much more important. The FO is an instant, while possession is a longer series of events.  So, like Hartley, focusing on improving FO alone does not buy you much.  Hartley also had 4 years to instill improvement on the dot and failed to address it.  So, there's that.

 

Hartley's answer to improving the team was FO's.  Nothing else other than compete level.  

 

What made Hartley look like a genius in 2014/15 was easily adapted to in the past season.  What changed when those things stopped working?  Not much. The other teams adapted.  Line up on the blueline to stop JH from skating it in.  Send a guy high to intercept the drop.  Apply pressure in the O-zone and move around the collapsing D.  Shot blocks are fine if that is not your defensive strategy.

 

Time to move on.  Hartley didn't adapt.  

[CheersMan]

What you missed was that FO is only one part of possession.  What you do with the puck after a win or a loss is much more important. The FO is an instant, while possession is a longer series of events.  So, like Hartley, focusing on improving FO alone does not buy you much.  Hartley also had 4 years to instill improvement on the dot and failed to address it.  So, there's that.

 

Hartley's answer to improving the team was FO's.  Nothing else other than compete level.  

 

What made Hartley look like a genius in 2014/15 was easily adapted to in the past season.  What changed when those things stopped working?  Not much. The other teams adapted.  Line up on the blueline to stop JH from skating it in.  Send a guy high to intercept the drop.  Apply pressure in the O-zone and move around the collapsing D.  Shot blocks are fine if that is not your defensive strategy.

 

Time to move on.  Hartley didn't adapt.  

 

And what you missed is that when you lose the draw there will be zero possession, let alone one part.  Let’s move on shall we.

 

 

 

[travel_dude]

And what you missed is that when you lose the draw there will be zero possession, let alone one part.  Let’s move on shall we.

 

Winning a draw means just that.  You still have to control it afterwards.  And losing a draw just means that you try to get it back sooner than later.  If all you do is win a draw, then your possession stats will suck.

 

Moving on....

[rickross]

I'll give credit (again) to BT for making the coaching change. He could easily have let Hartley coach this season and hope things would turn around this season but he didn't wait and see. Hartley inspired the team with the underdog role and it worked!..with some luck in off teams like the Sharks and Kings, plus a dumb number of comebacks. He failed to build off that momentum last year and it's telling, gone were the career years , GAA went up in the face of one the most stacked D corps in the league. BT could have bought himself atleast another year with Hartley but he didn't take the easy route. He took a gamble on GG and set his own path. Time will obviously tell but BT is not sitting back in his heels.

[rickross]

So how long do you give GG before you consider him a success or failure? Half a season or 2 full go rounds? If we don't make the playoffs next year, do we simply write it off as GG's rookie year or another year of regression?

[DirtyDeeds]

I'll give credit (again) to BT for making the coaching change. He could easily have let Hartley coach this season and hope things would turn around this season but he didn't wait and see. Hartley inspired the team with the underdog role and it worked!..with some luck in off teams like the Sharks and Kings, plus a dumb number of comebacks. He failed to build off that momentum last year and it's telling, gone were the career years , GAA went up in the face of one the most stacked D corps in the league. BT could have bought himself atleast another year with Hartley but he didn't take the easy route. He took a gamble on GG and set his own path. Time will obviously tell but BT is not sitting back in his heels.

I don't see it this way. I think keeping BH would have been the difficult route not the easy route. I think switching out the coach was the easy way to go for him.

 

If you believe the worst goaltending in the league last season was the difference between challenging for a playoff spot and and where we ended up in the standings, then add to that the BT admission he screwed up with the 3 goalie situation and took blame on himself, then you could just as easily put the blame elsewhere than BH.

 

Personally I think the goalie coach should have let go, and look upon the BH firing as a way to deflect the blame for missing the playoffs.

 

Career years happened last year too. Even with the poor results and failure to make the playoffs. When so many players have career years then you have to give BH credit for getting a lot out of a team that lesser coaches are unable to.

 

As for GG he is BT's choice and you are correct he took a gamble a big gamble. All we have to go by is a poor previous NHL record. Has he won a SC as a coach? umm no. But he was best coach in ECHL a couple of times I think...

 

[rickross]

I don't see it this way. I think keeping BH would have been the difficult route not the easy route. I think switching out the coach was the easy way to go for him.

If you believe the worst goaltending in the league last season was the difference between challenging for a playoff spot and and where we ended up in the standings, then add to that the BT admission he screwed up with the 3 goalie situation and took blame on himself, then you could just as easily put the blame elsewhere than BH.

Personally I think the goalie coach should have let go, and look upon the BH firing as a way to deflect the blame for missing the playoffs.

Career years happened last year too. Even with the poor results and failure to make the playoffs. When so many players have career years then you have to give BH credit for getting a lot out of a team that lesser coaches are unable to.

As for GG he is BT's choice and you are correct he took a gamble a big gamble. All we have to go by is a poor previous NHL record. Has he won a SC as a coach? umm no. But he was best coach in ECHL a couple of times I think...

I'll agree and disagree with you. I'd still argue that keeping Hartley was the easier route. He was Feaster's hire, it's still a rebuild...BH is the reigning Jack Adams. If GG proves inept then it's BT's vision in question..no one else's. Also yes, there were a couple career years in Backs and Big Joe, JH and Gio are automatics IMO. However the team regressed overall, the goalie situation was a debacle but Hiller and Ramo were playoff worthy Iast year so you have to look at the teams D play and as you mentioned the goalie coach too! There was no pressure to fire BH, Treliving didn't waste time with installing his vision, he had to fire good ppl to do it. Still , you have to wonder what becomes of BT should GG fail ?

[cross16]

Keeping the coach is always the easier route IMO. As soon as you fire the coach and bring in your own guy the focus shifts back to you and sometimes you only get 1 coach hire as a GM. The "easy" thing to do for BT would have been to blame the season on the goatlending, give Hartley 1 more year and then if the team wasn't good again he can let him go and get "his guy" and chalk the season up to another one without his guy. Keeping a coach keeps a GM "safe" to a certain degree

 

Obviously you need to see the team improvement in the W-L column that is without question but I don't thikn the Flames need to make the playoffs in order for Gulutzan to be doing a good job or be the right hire. Obviously if he does make the playoffs it shows he is doing a good job but its not a necessity IMO, many other factors are going to go into whether or not Flames are a playoff team. 

 

Key thing for me will be the underlying numbers. Scoring chances against, high danger scoring chances against, possession and PK i'm going to watch very closely and would want to see improvement in all of those categories. If there is, its a high probablity the Flames will improve as well. 

[travel_dude]

^^^^^

 

I think there were some issues with the coach that really were being kept on the down low.  You never really want to come out and say he lost the room, or that he was not following the prescriptions of the GM and POHO.  Besides, I don't think it's a losing season as much as how they lost or key decisions that may have lead to the losses piling up.

[rickross]

^^^^^

I think there were some issues with the coach that really were being kept on the down low. You never really want to come out and say he lost the room, or that he was not following the prescriptions of the GM and POHO. Besides, I don't think it's a losing season as much as how they lost or key decisions that may have lead to the losses piling up.

I agree, I think the exit meetings buried Hartley. He lost the room for sure, Flames were a different team last season and for the wrong reasons. As often as we heard "Elvis is dead and the Beattles split up..." I can only imagine how often the players were hearing him repeat the same quotes and mantras...that would get old after a couple years for sure

[MAC331]

I agree, I think the exit meetings buried Hartley. He lost the room for sure, Flames were a different team last season and for the wrong reasons. As often as we heard "Elvis is dead and the Beattles split up..." I can only imagine how often the players were hearing him repeat the same quotes and mantras...that would get old after a couple years for sure

I don't think he lost the room at all, management want a very different style of hockey and in their decision BH wasn't the coach they wanted. Hartley has the respect of these players or he should as he did a good job nurturing them along while here.

[travel_dude]

I don't think he lost the room at all, management want a very different style of hockey and in their decision BH wasn't the coach they wanted. Hartley has the respect of these players or he should as he did a good job nurturing them along while here.

 

I don't think we can do anything other than offer opinions, as none of us were there.  There was some comments that surfaced that implied he did lose the room, and there was a positive spin provided by Gio.  Sure, as a coach he will command respect.  But we don't know how the room was or what players felt about usage.  What is a little cooincidental is that the decision to fire him came in May, after the garbage bag day.  Every player would have provided comments.

 

I don't want this to spiral into another Hartley debate, just saying that in a good year where players put up career numbers, he looks like a genious.  In a year where we regressed in everything except a few player stats, not so good.  I can't argue either way for Bennett or Ferland or Spoon being "nurtured", as there isn't a lot of proof.

[MAC331]

I don't think we can do anything other than offer opinions, as none of us were there.  There was some comments that surfaced that implied he did lose the room, and there was a positive spin provided by Gio.  Sure, as a coach he will command respect.  But we don't know how the room was or what players felt about usage.  What is a little cooincidental is that the decision to fire him came in May, after the garbage bag day.  Every player would have provided comments.

 

I don't want this to spiral into another Hartley debate, just saying that in a good year where players put up career numbers, he looks like a genious.  In a year where we regressed in everything except a few player stats, not so good.  I can't argue either way for Bennett or Ferland or Spoon being "nurtured", as there isn't a lot of proof.

Of course they are only opinions however I have been in a few of those rooms with both winning and losing seasons. the players never quit on him and that was obvious right to the end of the season which indicates he didn't lose the room or his players. management wanted a different coach and a different style of play so they made their decision. I don't have a problem with the decision because I believe they are correct. This has nothing to do with "losing the room" suggestions being made.

As far as the "nurturing" aspect BH has always had his favorites and pushes them to have the team win as much as possible. Did he make some mistakes with the players mentioned I believe he did with Bennett and Ferland but have no idea where you are coming from with Spoon. He got a fair bit of ice near the end and looked good.

[cross16]

I don't think he lost the room but he was darn close to losing it. Based on what i've heard it sounds like the players fought through 1 more year but weren't interested in another year under Hartley. I think they were leaning towards a new coach anyway but I think feedback form the players put it over the top and made it a necessary move. 

[MAC331]

I don't think he lost the room but he was darn close to losing it. Based on what i've heard it sounds like the players fought through 1 more year but weren't interested in another year under Hartley. I think they were leaning towards a new coach anyway but I think feedback form the players put it over the top and made it a necessary move. 

Could be

[travel_dude]

Of course they are only opinions however I have been in a few of those rooms with both winning and losing seasons. the players never quit on him and that was obvious right to the end of the season which indicates he didn't lose the room or his players. management wanted a different coach and a different style of play so they made their decision. I don't have a problem with the decision because I believe they are correct. This has nothing to do with "losing the room" suggestions being made.

As far as the "nurturing" aspect BH has always had his favorites and pushes them to have the team win as much as possible. Did he make some mistakes with the players mentioned I believe he did with Bennett and Ferland but have no idea where you are coming from with Spoon. He got a fair bit of ice near the end and looked good.

 

I think you may be forgetting the games where Spoon was watching from the stands the times he was called up.  Or that he played mostly due to Russell's injury and trade, or Wideman's suspension.  

 

 

I don't think he lost the room but he was darn close to losing it. Based on what i've heard it sounds like the players fought through 1 more year but weren't interested in another year under Hartley. I think they were leaning towards a new coach anyway but I think feedback form the players put it over the top and made it a necessary move. 

 

That kinda sounds like "losing the room" to me 

 

Actually, I was saying that comments from the players at the end may have been just another nail.  To a player giving 100% every night, it must be frustrating to hear comments from the coach about not playing 60 minutes or pressers that take any responsibility away from the coach.  

[cccsberg]

I think you may be forgetting the games where Spoon was watching from the stands the times he was called up.  Or that he played mostly due to Russell's injury and trade, or Wideman's suspension.  

 

 

 

That kinda sounds like "losing the room" to me 

 

Actually, I was saying that comments from the players at the end may have been just another nail.  To a player giving 100% every night, it must be frustrating to hear comments from the coach about not playing 60 minutes or pressers that take any responsibility away from the coach.

Thankfully hockey is starting up again within the week. Hearing you guys go on and on with no actual knowledge whatsoever is a bit much.

[MAC331]

I think you may be forgetting the games where Spoon was watching from the stands the times he was called up.  Or that he played mostly due to Russell's injury and trade, or Wideman's suspension.  

 

 

 

That kinda sounds like "losing the room" to me 

 

Actually, I was saying that comments from the players at the end may have been just another nail.  To a player giving 100% every night, it must be frustrating to hear comments from the coach about not playing 60 minutes or pressers that take any responsibility away from the coach.  

I don't think you know what losing the room even means.

Thankfully hockey is starting up again within the week. Hearing you guys go on and on with no actual knowledge whatsoever is a bit much.

Soon, real soon. How do you know we have no knowledge ?

[conundrumed]

That kinda sounds like "losing the room" to me 

 

Actually, I was saying that comments from the players at the end may have been just another nail.  To a player giving 100% every night, it must be frustrating to hear comments from the coach about not playing 60 minutes or pressers that take any responsibility away from the coach.  

I think the long and short of it is that when your GA jumps by +.5/gm, any coach's job would be in peril.

That increase has a lot more gravity than just goaltending, as I'm afraid we're about to find out...

Ramo had a good stretch of games and Ortio didn't give up much. Yet still, the season sv% and GA were an atrocity.

There isn't a goalie alive that can solve that by himself.

Hartley stuck to his guns and that's why he's gone imho. A decent coach is fine when the W's are coming, but when they're not, you have to adjust the plan, not just constantly shuffle lines and demand more.

I highly doubt exit meetings are, "I don't like the coach", or Roy would've been gone awhile ago.

Is what it is. I believe BT is working hard to find a balance while listening to all opinions.

Some of the exit meetings likely met what he was thinking as far as play and general satisfaction. That isn't hammering Hartley, it's sending BT away to contemplate everything.

Or at least that's what I think of BT as a GM, and he's gained a ton of traction with me (like that matters haha).

Just my opinion. But I should admit the Brouwer and Elliot/Johnson antics are exactly what I can understand.  Unlike Dougie, 2 of these 3 have been around, and Elliot has at least done it once. I see zero "let's trade Dougie as a Christmas gift" rhetoric about these 3 this coming season, highly doubt it.

BT's body of work in the past 2 seasons has been impressive.

 

edit

Just a question. Is it fair for me to say that 2 of St Loo's leadership guys in last year's playoffs are now Flames?

[MAC331]

I think the long and short of it is that when your GA jumps by +.5/gm, any coach's job would be in peril.

That increase has a lot more gravity than just goaltending, as I'm afraid we're about to find out...

Ramo had a good stretch of games and Ortio didn't give up much. Yet still, the season sv% and GA were an atrocity.

There isn't a goalie alive that can solve that by himself.

Hartley stuck to his guns and that's why he's gone imho. A decent coach is fine when the W's are coming, but when they're not, you have to adjust the plan, not just constantly shuffle lines and demand more.

I highly doubt exit meetings are, "I don't like the coach", or Roy would've been gone awhile ago.

Is what it is. I believe BT is working hard to find a balance while listening to all opinions.

Some of the exit meetings likely met what he was thinking as far as play and general satisfaction. That isn't hammering Hartley, it's sending BT away to contemplate everything.

Or at least that's what I think of BT as a GM, and he's gained a ton of traction with me (like that matters haha).

Just my opinion. But I should admit the Brouwer and Elliot/Johnson antics are exactly what I can understand.  Unlike Dougie, 2 of these 3 have been around, and Elliot has at least done it once. I see zero "let's trade Dougie as a Christmas gift" rhetoric about these 3 this coming season, highly doubt it.

BT's body of work in the past 2 seasons has been impressive.

 

edit

Just a question. Is it fair for me to say that 2 of St Loo's leadership guys in last year's playoffs are now Flames?

Yep

[cccsberg]

I don't think you know what losing the room even means.

Soon, real soon. How do you know we have no knowledge ?

...the comments tell all.  Not that you don't have hockey knowledge, just I'm not seeing the insider knowledge that would illuminate all.

[MAC331]

...the comments tell all.  Not that you don't have hockey knowledge, just I'm not seeing the insider knowledge that would illuminate all.

Maybe we are golf buddies with some of the players or owners. LOL Anyways BH is gone and I for one am looking forward to a new look for the Flames style of play.

[Carty]

I don't think you know what losing the room even means.

 

You are losing the room...

[conundrumed]

You are losing the room...

Do you even know what that means? Cuz I don't lol.

I've always hated that mantra, it says nothing, just a vapid, draping, erroneous cackle.

players don't think the system works, they don't have a voice, their feelings are hurt, he cheated the respect/confidentiality, what is it?

Oh, he lost the room...should he check his pockets and try to remember where he left his keys?