Glen Gulutzan-16th Flames Coach

[The_People1]

44 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

 

Now can someone tell me how to embed a tweet, because I'm dusty. lol

 

Just copy the whole url link from the web browser of the tweet.  Or you can find the COPY LINK on the tweet itself.  Then paste from clipboard into the reply window here.  Wait a couple seconds for it to update and voila, Trump's your President.

[conundrumed]

+1 peeps. Now on that other hockey pool website, could you kindly get off my Hash Rate!! (that's what she said moment) lol

[conundrumed]

Thanks peeps, I'm probably still dusty, but this helps!!

[cccsberg]

58 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Pretty tough question 1 when you build in those adjectives with your own opinion. He isn't inexperienced or he never would have been hired in the first place. Mediocrity is how you think the team has evolved which is middle of the pack, average at this stage. This would tell me he is nowhere near reaching his peak. This is why I say this is a group that could go forward and improve together.

In regards to your 2nd question my answer would be not yet because one of your better pieces Tkachuk is only going into his 3rd season, Bennett has not evolved as expected and Jankowski is still a rookie. Outside of Backlund, Frolik and Ferland the support group/experience level has not been good. Defensively we have a very good top pair in Giordano and Hamilton and now know Brodie and Hamonic are not great together. The question I would be asking is do you think Brodie and Hamonic could benefit the team in a positive way playing with other partners. Kulak has developed this season and is deserving of a spot next season.

I think it boils down to waiting out a few more of the core pieces to evolve fully, support them with better players and figure out the PP for better results.

1/ Has GG reached his peak and has his coaching inexperience/mediocrity been detrimental to the team's success?

2/ Is this core good enough to consistently win, and then be a top challenger for the Cup, even with the best of coaches?

 

My adjectives are due to the fact that GG only has 1.5 yrs NHL head coaching experience along with some assistant coaching experience and coaching at lower levels.  In every single one of those terms his team was mediocre, at best, never excelling or achieving any sort of consistent winning.  I guess I should have stated "excellent/proven coaching" inexperience.  Secondly, his results are exactly in line with his career numbers, which is mediocrity by definition.  If you wish consider last year's team, we added an elite-level goaltender and a very strong 3/4D, and the top line are all having career years, but the results this year are actually worse.  His coaching insisted on some seriously bizarre player usage and it took over half a season to figure out a few basics like the PP squads, so again, I'm thinking the term fits.

 

Regardless, I get that you still support him and believe the team is Cup-capable with this core and a bit seasoning of some of our younger guys.  On the second front I am torn, but I believe its worth considering.  Not that you can really do much about it, you have to make the best with the cards you've been dealt... so to speak.  

 

 

[cccsberg]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

So what is lacking here? What strengths is the system minimizing?

 

I ask because i'm not seeing it. I see a team where half the players are having career years or at least career norm years, 1 of their key players very snake bitten in Backlund, and the part of the roster that isn't very good you can look at them on paper and say they just aren't very good. 

 

I can see where this opinion would hinge and that would be on the 2nd pair of Brodie-Hamonic. I guess if you want to point to them as an example as the system not working I could see. personally i think it's more on them than they system but I could see where people would go with that. 

Calgary does have one of the best offensively-gifted and mobile D corps in the league, whether you think they can play D or not.  That is not being utilized too often which seriously degrades our chances every game. 

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Calgary does have one of the best offensively-gifted and mobile D corps in the league, whether you think they can play D or not.  That is not being utilized too often which seriously degrades our chances every game. 

 

How do you mean?

 

I ask because this is a change I saw Gulutzan make around Dec/Jan. prior to, the Flames only moved up the ice as 5 man units and D held back. Since then i've seen them get the green light and now you see that 2nd wave of Dmen coming up frequently, even leading the rush. See Kulak doing it a lot more too. 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, cccsberg said:

Calgary does have one of the best offensively-gifted and mobile D corps in the league, whether you think they can play D or not.  That is not being utilized too often which seriously degrades our chances every game. 

 

I think they’re being misused. If it were Hartley, the D would have career years.

 

it would be nice if we would activate some D more often, especially since we have the talent to. 

 

Why spend so much and then not play your best offensive D on the PP?

 

for a gifted D team offensively, they sure play boring hockey, aside from the defensive breakdowns that is...

[Cowtownguy]

4 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Calgary does have one of the best offensively-gifted and mobile D corps in the league, whether you think they can play D or not.  That is not being utilized too often which seriously degrades our chances every game. 

I would agree with you. I believe that GG and BT have to lose this notion that you have to connect defensive pairings on the basis of which side they shoot. Pair them on the basis of how well they gel together. Brodie is an important asset and I suspect that he would perform far better if paired with Gio again. He might only need more mentoring for a bit to regain his confidence. At times, you need that mentoring on the ice during the play, not afterwards on the bench. If that works out, you turn a problem into an asset. At the same time, you can see if Hamilton can find some chemistry with Hamonic, Stone, or Kulak. 

 

It also seems to me that we need the defence to be a little more aggressive by shooting more. I realize that GG wants them to remain in the zone and not turn it over, but it makes sense to shoot sometimes too. Some teams tend to score rather often from the point. We used to be one of them. There is no problem losing the zone if it is because you scored. 

[redfire11]

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

So what is lacking here? What strengths is the system minimizing?

 

I ask because i'm not seeing it. I see a team where half the players are having career years or at least career norm years, 1 of their key players very snake bitten in Backlund, and the part of the roster that isn't very good you can look at them on paper and say they just aren't very good. 

 

I can see where this opinion would hinge and that would be on the 2nd pair of Brodie-Hamonic. I guess if you want to point to them as an example as the system not working I could see. personally i think it's more on them than they system but I could see where people would go with that. 

Excellent 75 million dollar question cross. Yes I wish I could answer it. I would need to break down each players strengths and weaknesses and the impact of a player on another s strengths and weaknesses. Then identify specific roles for players within their S and W.  I would end up with blisters on my 2 fingers for what??. To change your opinion(I don't want to do that I respect your POV and insight cross). So in my opinion I don't think GG gets this and feel that to move forward as an organization we find a coach that "gets it" or replace a % of our team core.  

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, redfire11 said:

Excellent 75 million dollar question cross. Yes I wish I could answer it. I would need to break down each players strengths and weaknesses and the impact of a player on another s strengths and weaknesses. Then identify specific roles for players within their S and W.  I would end up with blisters on my 2 fingers for what??. To change your opinion(I don't want to do that I respect your POV and insight cross). So in my opinion I don't think GG gets this and feel that to move forward as an organization we find a coach that "gets it" or replace a % of our team core.  

 

It's not too hard to explain because the trade off for team play comes at the sacrifice of individuality.

 

At one extreme end, if a coach allows his players to do literally whatever they wanted on the ice, then those who are great individual players will be able to showcase their incredible talents.  5 highly IQ'd players will be able to flow both offensively and defensively with one another fairly well.  Unfortunately, the opposite is true when you have players with low talents.  You will have massive break downs all over the ice.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, when a coach is too strict in structure, then individuality is lost in favour of team unity.  Everyone has to zone defense all over the ice in every situation and attack as a 5-man unit, often against better instincts.

 

3-on-3 is an excellent example of coaches letting their players play.  5-on-5 is often when the opposite happens where a team works together to set traps, chip and chase, cycle in sync, etc.

 

So what i gather is we have great individual talents on our D and it's not being utilized.  The counter argument to that is of course, we have a lack of talent elsewhere and team play is the only way to get everybody up to average.  Anyways, just a backwards reach around to add more blame to GG for really unreasonable reasons.

[MAC331]

19 hours ago, cccsberg said:

1/ Has GG reached his peak and has his coaching inexperience/mediocrity been detrimental to the team's success?

2/ Is this core good enough to consistently win, and then be a top challenger for the Cup, even with the best of coaches?

 

My adjectives are due to the fact that GG only has 1.5 yrs NHL head coaching experience along with some assistant coaching experience and coaching at lower levels.  In every single one of those terms his team was mediocre, at best, never excelling or achieving any sort of consistent winning.  I guess I should have stated "excellent/proven coaching" inexperience.  Secondly, his results are exactly in line with his career numbers, which is mediocrity by definition.  If you wish consider last year's team, we added an elite-level goaltender and a very strong 3/4D, and the top line are all having career years, but the results this year are actually worse.  His coaching insisted on some seriously bizarre player usage and it took over half a season to figure out a few basics like the PP squads, so again, I'm thinking the term fits.

 

Regardless, I get that you still support him and believe the team is Cup-capable with this core and a bit seasoning of some of our younger guys.  On the second front I am torn, but I believe its worth considering.  Not that you can really do much about it, you have to make the best with the cards you've been dealt... so to speak.  

 

 

Regardless any team has to be ready to win and there is a lot that goes into that equation which is why I try to stay away from the blame game.

What I see and what I like is a good collection of young talents needing some experience in order to take over the leadership of this team. Parts of this are happening now and I expect as we head into next season we will see the transition happen. Right now I would rather see some continuity with the coach and team rather than see a full disruption AGAIN with the young group heading into next season. No I don't think GG has reached his peak because as humans we should always be learning along the way and in all sports the players and coaches need each other in order to be successful.

[MAC331]

13 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I think they’re being misused. If it were Hartley, the D would have career years.

 

it would be nice if we would activate some D more often, especially since we have the talent to. 

 

Why spend so much and then not play your best offensive D on the PP?

 

for a gifted D team offensively, they sure play boring hockey, aside from the defensive breakdowns that is...

Are we watching the same team ? our defense is very involved within the O zone .

[cross16]

I can see where people are coming from with the d to a certain extent. In the O Zone the flames D protect the blueline so you don't see the pinches or coming down for shot opportunities you may with other teams. The flames use their d more as protecting and keeping pucks in and that will minimize some of your offensive opportunities. So if that is the complaint I get it. Hartley gave full reign for dman to pinch and come down low in the o zone but the trade off here is giving up man rushes the other way. Neither is right nor wrong imo it's just a difference in philosophy. You can argue each philosophy on merit. 

 

Where i was more curious is if people are seeing the rushing up the ice. For me Gulutzan made this change in Dec and gave more freedom to the D to join the rush but was pretty rigid for the first couple months. I think you see a pretty active D now when they can, although It's not quite to the Hartley level, so I asked for other opinions to see if I'm missing something. 

 

I get Hartley will still be a comparison here, but let's remember that while the D produced good offensive numbers under Hartley his teams were a train wreck defensively. Not exactly something we should want to go back to. 

[MAC331]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I can see where people are coming from with the d to a certain extent. In the O Zone the flames D protect the blueline so you don't see the pinches or coming down for shot opportunities you may with other teams. The flames use their d more as protecting and keeping pucks in and that will minimize some of your offensive opportunities. So if that is the complaint I get it. Hartley gave full reign for dman to pinch and come down low in the o zone but the trade off here is giving up man rushes the other way. Neither is right nor wrong imo it's just a difference in philosophy. You can argue each philosophy on merit. 

 

Where i was more curious is if people are seeing the rushing up the ice. For me Gulutzan made this change in Dec and gave more freedom to the D to join the rush but was pretty rigid for the first couple months. I think you see a pretty active D now when they can, although It's not quite to the Hartley level, so I asked for other opinions to see if I'm missing something. 

 

I get Hartley will still be a comparison here, but let's remember that while the D produced good offensive numbers under Hartley his teams were a train wreck defensively. Not exactly something we should want to go back to. 

For the most part they should patrol the O blue line but I agree this changed awhile ago and I would say our D are now more involved down low and driving the play lots.

[robrob74]

11 hours ago, cross16 said:

I can see where people are coming from with the d to a certain extent. In the O Zone the flames D protect the blueline so you don't see the pinches or coming down for shot opportunities you may with other teams. The flames use their d more as protecting and keeping pucks in and that will minimize some of your offensive opportunities. So if that is the complaint I get it. Hartley gave full reign for dman to pinch and come down low in the o zone but the trade off here is giving up man rushes the other way. Neither is right nor wrong imo it's just a difference in philosophy. You can argue each philosophy on merit. 

 

Where i was more curious is if people are seeing the rushing up the ice. For me Gulutzan made this change in Dec and gave more freedom to the D to join the rush but was pretty rigid for the first couple months. I think you see a pretty active D now when they can, although It's not quite to the Hartley level, so I asked for other opinions to see if I'm missing something. 

 

I get Hartley will still be a comparison here, but let's remember that while the D produced good offensive numbers under Hartley his teams were a train wreck defensively. Not exactly something we should want to go back to. 

 

Ya but that means forwards aren’t smart enough to cover the D. If a D pinches, these guys should be able to recognize that, and then adjust. 

I dont mind comparing coaching but I find it easier to give Hartley the benefit of the doubt because his teams were in the beginning of rebuilds.

D pinching were reasons we came back so much when we did, that year we made the playoffs...

but still, we had one good D pair, a 3rd line caliber pair and a couple that could’ve been 7th D then. Then we had one scoring line and three 3rd or4th lines.  

 

I don’t think it’s fair to compare the results as much... 

 

This year, if the team team isn’t engaged they look quite stagnant. Is that coaching or players? Both. 

[cccsberg]

23 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Regardless any team has to be ready to win and there is a lot that goes into that equation which is why I try to stay away from the blame game.

What I see and what I like is a good collection of young talents needing some experience in order to take over the leadership of this team. Parts of this are happening now and I expect as we head into next season we will see the transition happen. Right now I would rather see some continuity with the coach and team rather than see a full disruption AGAIN with the young group heading into next season. No I don't think GG has reached his peak because as humans we should always be learning along the way and in all sports the players and coaches need each other in order to be successful.

I agree with your general sentiment, and actually since GG has evolved as the season has worn on and made positive changes I'll give him credit for that.  the GG  issues were rampant at the start of the season and early on, but he has come around in many ways.  If that continues, great.  Now, the primary concern is the seeming inflexibility that can come back to bite in the immediate, i.e. game to game and in-game.  Still a long ways to go there but as I've said, he is changing....

 

An interesting side note to this whole coaching thing is to think back to early on in the season about the teams that were doing great, and we looked at the coaches and said, 'wish we had those guys'.....  That would probably include both the Canucks and the Senators.  Unfortunately both teams have fallen off the map since.  It provides a different perspective on the influence of the coaching, versus other factors, i.e. players, injuries.... and we'll have to wait for season's end to better get the full view of GG here.

[MAC331]

2 hours ago, cccsberg said:

I agree with your general sentiment, and actually since GG has evolved as the season has worn on and made positive changes I'll give him credit for that.  the GG  issues were rampant at the start of the season and early on, but he has come around in many ways.  If that continues, great.  Now, the primary concern is the seeming inflexibility that can come back to bite in the immediate, i.e. game to game and in-game.  Still a long ways to go there but as I've said, he is changing....

 

An interesting side note to this whole coaching thing is to think back to early on in the season about the teams that were doing great, and we looked at the coaches and said, 'wish we had those guys'.....  That would probably include both the Canucks and the Senators.  Unfortunately both teams have fallen off the map since.  It provides a different perspective on the influence of the coaching, versus other factors, i.e. players, injuries.... and we'll have to wait for season's end to better get the full view of GG here.

This is what I mean by this team going through the growing pains together. How many times did we see GG visually upset by the lack of execution and compete by his players, to many times I would say. We are told PIT and other teams work a similar system and could the difference be the experience levels and quality of the players on the other teams for why they succeed ? I don't see this team quitting on GG which IMO says something in his favor.

[JustAFlamer]

Has GG grown? possibly , or could be circumstances

 

finally forced to make some changes so appears is starting to adapt.

however why did it take 4 months into the season and some injuries to force this to happen?

 

However when was the last time EVERY single game you can point to mind-boggling player usages and line ?matchups?

Really last night, got shaky/rusty goaltending to start the game, they score and immediately through out 4th line?

(i actually like the 4th somewhat aside from scoring, they have energy and more defensively responsible that 1rst and 3rd, but why putting them in position to fail?)

 

continuing on with adapting, he stated earlier in year.  1/2 way season stop teaching they know what to do. 

Is that when leash came off the D to activate "when can", is it the players now being allowed to show more initiative?

without being in the room i can only speculate BUT i am very hesitant to give credit for recent "improvements" to GG simply because i still do not see adapting unless forced into it.  And no i dont mean adapt just to adapt, but when something not working it should not take months (years?) to even start to adapt.

 

Is he growing as a coach? perhaps... is the team willing to wait while he learns? (fans obviously not), yet another question no answer to

[electrical_ace]

I’ve seen enough of this Gulutzan clown show. You get what you pay for. If a proven highly experienced coach becomes available this summer, dump GG

[MAC331]

53 minutes ago, JustAFlamer said:

Has GG grown? possibly , or could be circumstances

 

finally forced to make some changes so appears is starting to adapt.

however why did it take 4 months into the season and some injuries to force this to happen?

 

However when was the last time EVERY single game you can point to mind-boggling player usages and line ?matchups?

Really last night, got shaky/rusty goaltending to start the game, they score and immediately through out 4th line?

(i actually like the 4th somewhat aside from scoring, they have energy and more defensively responsible that 1rst and 3rd, but why putting them in position to fail?)

 

continuing on with adapting, he stated earlier in year.  1/2 way season stop teaching they know what to do. 

Is that when leash came off the D to activate "when can", is it the players now being allowed to show more initiative?

without being in the room i can only speculate BUT i am very hesitant to give credit for recent "improvements" to GG simply because i still do not see adapting unless forced into it.  And no i dont mean adapt just to adapt, but when something not working it should not take months (years?) to even start to adapt.

 

Is he growing as a coach? perhaps... is the team willing to wait while he learns? (fans obviously not), yet another question no answer to

Everyone seems to have their own take on the team and GG. I would say you have yours in reverse. I have no problem saying GG is stubborn but he has a job to do getting these players to play well together. He has had to over come a number of situations perhaps the largest being the failure of Brodie and Hamonic being able to play well together. Systems are a foundation and it starts with everyone knowing and doing what they are suppose to do. Only then should a coach consider "adapting" or adding in creative ways to enhance the team performance. Injuries hinder all teams which makes it even more important to have every player on the same page. I watched last night's game and couldn't believe the mistakes being made by the players never mind the coach. This team is still growing and maturing which also means they will be going through these growing pains.

Seriously how long does one have to be involved with hockey to know how to coach and be invited to coach at the NHL level.

[cross16]

I am firmly of the belief that if you have a good team then irregardless of who your coach is these are not conversations you are having at this time of the year. Playoffs and being out of them is motivation enough that your coach should not be needing to point things out like this. I have massive questions about this core and their ability and desire to win. 

 

That being said, coaches that act like this get fired just about 100% of the time. I don't blame him, but I will be absolutely shocked if Gulutzan is the coach next year if the Flames don't make the playoffs. heck at this point making the playoffs might not be enough. 

 

 

[MAC331]

8 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I am firmly of the belief that if you have a good team then irregardless of who your coach is these are not conversations you are having at this time of the year. Playoffs and being out of them is motivation enough that your coach should not be needing to point things out like this. I have massive questions about this core and their ability and desire to win. 

 

That being said, coaches that act like this get fired just about 100% of the time. I don't blame him, but I will be absolutely shocked if Gulutzan is the coach next year if the Flames don't make the playoffs. heck at this point making the playoffs might not be enough. 

 

 

I don't blame him for being ticked off given the number of coverage breakdowns last night. Smitty comes back in and is under siege the entire 1st period, not a very good way to show your goalie you care. They need a message like this before the EDM game because this team hasn't done well against them.

[conundrumed]

58 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I am firmly of the belief that if you have a good team then irregardless of who your coach is these are not conversations you are having at this time of the year. Playoffs and being out of them is motivation enough that your coach should not be needing to point things out like this. I have massive questions about this core and their ability and desire to win. 

 

That being said, coaches that act like this get fired just about 100% of the time. I don't blame him, but I will be absolutely shocked if Gulutzan is the coach next year if the Flames don't make the playoffs. heck at this point making the playoffs might not be enough. 

 

 

Imho, these are conversations you have every game of the year.

He spends too much time being the nice guy where his job is whipping them into shape, stop being everyones buddy, you aren't. You're their boss.

They're young for the most part. They need the Hash Rate in the room.

"Oh, no beer on the bus fellas, okay let's have beer and talk".

Stop being everyones buddy, be their boss.

Babcock anyone? Does he ever look anything but pissed?

If there's no beer, I can't see anyone being brave enough to ask him.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

 

They're young for the most part. They need the Hash Rate in the room.

 

 

They did and they tuned him out....

 

It's one thing to have a conversation, but to have to demand your team come up with good starts at this point of the season tells me you don't have a good enough group. for me, coaches don't get you physically ready to play in terms of your energy. The motivation is already there. 

[ABC923]

I remember after the infamous stick throwing incident,, watching a game a few days later.  There was a bit where Versteeg was going around having fun little interviews with his team mates during the skills competition I think it was.  I was surprised how the players were laughing and joking about 'not having as good a throwing arm as gully' or something to that effect.  Now, if this had been a month later after things had improved somewhat, I could understand, but this was two or three games later.  It was a joke to them.  Tells me the players may like the coach, but they don't really respect him as a leader.

 

I think my biggest worry about keeping Gully moving forward is not so much the system he coaches (which is decent for the most part), or the bad decisions he makes from time to time, but the fact that the players appear pretty close to tuning him out if they haven't already.