Bill Peters - 17th Flames Coach

[JTech780]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

These owners... man just so so frustrating when you don't believe in your owners. 

 

 

 

Sutter is a very good coach, but the fact that his team's have always had trouble scoring, and that that was one of our biggest downfalls the last two years, kind of scares me. The plus side with Sutter, is that I don't think it really matters who are goalie would be, as his systems will make an average goalie look great. At the end of the day he wouldn't be the worst choice, but I don't think he is the right fit.

 

[cross16]

Just now, JTech780 said:

 

Sutter is a very good coach, but the fact that his team's have always had trouble scoring, and that that was one of our biggest downfalls the last two years, kind of scares me. The plus side with Sutter, is that I don't think it really matters who are goalie would be, as his systems will make an average goalie look great. At the end of the day he wouldn't be the worst choice, but I don't think he is the right fit.

 

 

Don't disagree with any of that. The frustration is more about the idea that ownership is getting involved in the decision, or could be involved in the decision. 

[JTech780]

24 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Don't disagree with any of that. The frustration is more about the idea that ownership is getting involved in the decision, or could be involved in the decision. 

 

I agree, but that seems to becoming the norm. Of course the situation in Carolina seems to be the extreme case, I think owners are starting to get more and more involved, especially with coaches now that coaches salaries are starting go through the roof. For better or for worse owners are going to be getting more and more involved with hockey teams. Here's hoping that ownership is just asking that Sutter is looked at as a candidate and given a serious look, but at the end of the day Treliving gets the final say.

[zima]

Funny I mention bringing back Dutter awhile back was kidding because I can't see him wanting to come back as long as it is same ownership. Saying that I don't have any idea what kinda terms Dutter left on. I sure wouldn't mind having him back if he can do what he did for LA.

[cross16]

Maybe it is, but my counterpoint is so far across all sports, the teams that are the most successful do not have involved Ownership. So while It may be becoming more common i' not sure it's becoming more common in a positive way. I don't think you can win championships with owners like that.  Owners should hire people they trust, that are experience, and let them do their jobs. If you don't trust them then they should not be employed. 

 

They run the team so they for sure get a say in what the coach gets paid but once they set the budget parameters it should be entirely up to the hockey ops team to hire who they want. Make a recommendation fine, but if Treliving says no they should back out. I'm not convinced that is how these owners work and yes I strongly believe it is at the detriment of this franchise if i'm right. 

 

May seem like an overreaction but when you hear these stories for as long as we have with this club and then you see the inconsistent results it's hard not to get frustrated. 

[zima]

I'm' curios who on this forum believe that BB is a positive to this team or just a figure head other than convincing BT to bring in to big guys like smith and carol who have become wasted picks what else has he done?

[bosn111]

Darryl Sutter was released due to GM change needed. It had nothing to do with his coaching and that decision rests with the team president on behalf of the ownership. Sutter has obviously been around the game long enough that he knows it is simply a business and releasing him was a business decision. Something was not working right, the team was no longer improving and therefore a change was needed. While King is still around, they brought in Burke to look after the hockey side of team management. Sutter is definitely a Burke type of guy, maybe not so much a Treliving type though. I would not be against bringing Sutter back as head coach.

 

I don't know a ton about what coaches do off the ice, only what I see on the ice, at pressers and what is talked about a little on the news. I do not follow other teams coaches enough to know what they are really like, nor do I have time to look at all of the players on other teams, and how they are or are not used by coaches to see what they do for the team compared to what the team does for the coach.

 

You can look at systems all you want. Sometimes it is the coaches systems that help players, sometimes players succeed despite systems. Sometimes players and systems work perfectly and it is awesome. That is why it is so hard to assess coaches. Sometimes the coach simply can't affect the players and success is lacking. Some coaches look really good due to players they have but they have little to do with it.

 

No matter the numbers, is Babcock really a great coach or has he benefitted from the players he has? I would say that the answer is in the middle. Could Babcock take a mediocre team and turn it into a contender with his abilities, I personally don't think so. The Leafs have talent and he knows how to use them well enough to have a good team. Did he personally turn around the team? I don't give him that credit after last year, but he is not a bad coach for sure. He is a very capable coach who has had success with good players. As the Flames have the skill needed to be successful, I would love to have Babcock here with this team, but he would not be successful with every team.

 

I look at Vigneault and think that his numbers are inflated thanks to the rosters he has coached rather than his abilities as a coach. He had the Sedins in their prime, Luongo and Schneider in net along with other talented players yet he was never able to win the cup with them. He has not been able to have success with the Rangers, even with King Henrik in net and some skilled, veteran skaters.

 

Trotz holds interest for me, as long as he has / can adapt to the faster, modern game. Peters sounds good but I know little about him. I will leave my faith in Treliving for now.

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

These owners... man just so so frustrating when you don't believe in your owners. I don't put much stock in what Dreger says, but more than 1 person is running with this too. 

 

 

The only downside to this , even its not true, if if Sutter does get hired it will always be a story 

I do believe it comes down to Sutter and Peters though. We should have a better idea tomorrow if Peters opts out or not .

[ABC923]

One benefit to Sutter as I see it is he commands respect.  He might have a shortish shelf life, but one of the problems I see with this team is a lack of respect for the team and coach itself.  They all liked GG, but did they respect him?  The played pretty well after the whole stick throwing bit, but that only lasted a couple weeks before everything was back to normal.  Sutter would never have to pull a stunt like that to get his team's attention, and players on Sutter teams generally play for the team rather than themselves.

[JTech780]

It's looking like it's getting interesting in Carolina. It sounds like Peters wants out and Dundon wants him out. The things is, if you are Peters are you better off using your out clause and losing out on $1.6m, or do you wait and hope that Dundon fires you so can collect the $1.6m and go to another team. The risk in waiting is that Dundon doesn't seem like the type of guy that likes paying guys to not work for him, so he might just reassign Peters somewhere else in the organization. I don't think Dundon has fired anyone yet just reassigned them.

[cross16]

Boy if I was a Canes fan would i ever be depressed. Whether or not you think Peters is a good/bad/great coach who is going to want to line up to work for Dundon? I get it there are only 31 jobs but it sure looks like he's going to have to go off the beaten path to get any staff. 

 

Could be wrong but I don't get the sense we'll get any clarity on the coach before tomorrow. Treliving is all about process and due dilligence so even if he wants Peters I don't think he'd do it without process and I think he'll want to talk to other coaches too. Maybe Peters is the guy but I strongly suspect it won't be announced in the short term. Not how Treliving works. 

[kehatch]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Don't disagree with any of that. The frustration is more about the idea that ownership is getting involved in the decision, or could be involved in the decision. 

 

I guess we will see what happens.  Right now there are limited reports that ownership would like to see Sutter back.  There is a big leap from that to them to being inappropriately involved.  

 

If it is Sutter it will be an interesting experiment.  I think Monahan would find a new level under him.  I also think guys like Hamonic and Ferland would be good.  He could be what Bennett needs as well (or it could go the other way).  There are a few guys that will see their stat lines drop (like Gaudreau and Hamilton) but I don't think he is necessarily a bad fit.  In fact, his brand of effort and structure might be what this young team needs to evolve.  

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

 

Sutter is a very good coach, but the fact that his team's have always had trouble scoring, and that that was one of our biggest downfalls the last two years, kind of scares me. The plus side with Sutter, is that I don't think it really matters who are goalie would be, as his systems will make an average goalie look great. At the end of the day he wouldn't be the worst choice, but I don't think he is the right fit.

 

they actually talked about this on the Fan today and they reminded the 2012 Kings steamrolled the playoffs at nearly a 5 goals per game average , 2013 was a bit lower at about 3.5.  his regular season teams were below league average , but not by much . about 2.5 gpg

The team he had here , was  not a skilled team, it was a lunchbucket team. by the time he injected more skill into it (Tanguay, Cammaleri etc) he was no longer coaching it (his 1st GM mistake)

The Sharks had skill and toughness, but he still has a track record of managing skill. 

I don't get the " he only knows how to coach big heavy teams"  his teams had skill players and he used them as skill players .. but it came down to , if you're not scoring you better be pulling your weight another way 

In the end LA was  stuck with Ugly contracts , and declining skills -   a side effect of winning cups

In 17 years , his team missed playoffs 3 times.. and one of those , he came in mid season and almost pulled the prev coachs tire fire out of the gutter , in the 3rd, he lost his All Star goalie for most of the season 

Bottom line , he wins.. and his cups have come in the "new " NHL. hes not one dimensional . just don't ever let him be a GM again 

 

[kehatch]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Could be wrong but I don't get the sense we'll get any clarity on the coach before tomorrow. Treliving is all about process and due dilligence so even if he wants Peters I don't think he'd do it without process and I think he'll want to talk to other coaches too. Maybe Peters is the guy but I strongly suspect it won't be announced in the short term. Not how Treliving works. 

 

You could be right, and I agree we probably won't see anything today. But given how quick they moved on firing GG I think they have a guy in mind.  If Peters is available and he is there guy my guess is they move as quickly as they can.  I am also speculating, but I have to wonder if they feel they moved a little slowly last time and missed out on the guy they wanted as a result.  

[kehatch]

4 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

they actually talked about this on the Fan today and they reminded the 2012 Kings steamrolled the playoffs at nearly a 5 goals per game average , 2013 was a bit lower at about 3.5.  his regular season teams were below league average , but not by much . about 2.5 gpg

The team he had here , was  not a skilled team, it was a lunchbucket team. by the time he injected more skill into it (Tanguay, Cammaleri etc) he was no longer coaching it (his 1st GM mistake)

The Sharks had skill and toughness, but he still has a track record of managing skill. 

I don't get the " he only knows how to coach big heavy teams"  his teams had skill players and he used them as skill players .. but it came down to , if you're not scoring you better be pulling your weight another way 

In the end LA was  stuck with Ugly contracts , and declining skills -   a side effect of winning cups

In 17 years , his team missed playoffs 3 times.. and one of those , he came in mid season and almost pulled the prev coachs tire fire out of the gutter , in the 3rd, he lost his All Star goalie for most of the season 

Bottom line , he wins.. and his cups have come in the "new " NHL. hes not one dimensional . just don't ever let him be a GM again 

 

 

All fair, and it is why I won't be upset if he is the guy.  But there are legitimate concerns as well.  Some of the teams he coached had skill for sure, but they ALL had size.  They also all saw a drop in scoring while he was there regardless of the skill.  Also (putting on tin foil hat) you have to wonder if hiring him will undercut Treliving.  I don't see him and Treliving having similar ideas on building teams, and I could see him having Burke's and the owners direct line.  This is especially concerning if he isn't Treliving's choice.  That said, i don't think Treliving hires him if he doesn't want to so I am not truly concerned.  

[JTech780]

19 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

they actually talked about this on the Fan today and they reminded the 2012 Kings steamrolled the playoffs at nearly a 5 goals per game average , 2013 was a bit lower at about 3.5.  his regular season teams were below league average , but not by much . about 2.5 gpg

The team he had here , was  not a skilled team, it was a lunchbucket team. by the time he injected more skill into it (Tanguay, Cammaleri etc) he was no longer coaching it (his 1st GM mistake)

The Sharks had skill and toughness, but he still has a track record of managing skill. 

I don't get the " he only knows how to coach big heavy teams"  his teams had skill players and he used them as skill players .. but it came down to , if you're not scoring you better be pulling your weight another way 

In the end LA was  stuck with Ugly contracts , and declining skills -   a side effect of winning cups

In 17 years , his team missed playoffs 3 times.. and one of those , he came in mid season and almost pulled the prev coachs tire fire out of the gutter , in the 3rd, he lost his All Star goalie for most of the season 

Bottom line , he wins.. and his cups have come in the "new " NHL. hes not one dimensional . just don't ever let him be a GM again 

 

 

Over his tenure with LA, LA is 24th in GF/GP, I would call that we'll below average.

 

I wouldn't be upset with Sutter but he isn't my first, second or third choice. I just don't see a fit here. 

 

His systems take any and all offensive creativity out of the game. Defense is encouraged to rim the puck out of the zone instead of skating it. As much as he has helped Doughty become the defenseman he is, I think Doughty would have a few more Norris trophies on his shelf if some of the restraints were taken off him.

 

Edit: just to add to this; over his tenure with Calgary we had the 29th best GF/GP, with San Jose they were a bit better at 16th, and with Chicago they were 20.

[cross16]

So just to be clear the reason I reference that quote and voiced frustration is purely based on the quote about ownership, it had nothing to do with Sutter. I'm not a fan of these owners, well 1 in particular, and how they operate so it becomes frustrating when you continue to hear their involvement. Personal thing, not against Sutter. 

 

I think the idea of fit is being a little misinterpreted though. I agree that the concept that Sutter can only coach a big heavy team is incorrect. Sutter is a much smarter coach then many give him credit so I don't agree that guys like Gaudreau/Bennett or even Backlund wouldn't succeed under Sutter. The players who can't play for Sutter are not the skilled guys, its the guys who can't take the demanding work ethic and two way style he wants, but I personally don't see a guy on the roster that wouldn't be ok with that, especially if you win. Remember, Sutter went out and traded for guys like Tanguay and Huselius. Not fair to say he ignores skill.

 

however, offensively he's similar to Gulutzan so if people hated that offensive strategy Sutter's is the same. It's possession based, cycle based and won't generate the high quality scoring chances that some complained about under Gulutzan. It won't utilize Dmen and it's more dump and chase based as well. That will hurt Gaudreau but likely help the likes of Bennett/Ferland who I could see having more success in a dump and case based system. However, don't exact the offense to get any better under Sutter than Gultuzan, because Sutter's is more "boring". Now of course maybe he is willing to change. He did change his style from the Flames to the Kings, but kept some of the same core principles and that's why I'm skeptical he would change that much. he has core principles that aren't likely going to go away. 

 

but, as I said earlier about Sutter you can never ignore that this is Darryl Sutter. He is probably the best motivator the league has seen since Bowman. Whatever your thought process is on systems, style of player and their correlation to winning, you still have to acknowledge this strength of his. He gets his teams to play for each, play hard, and be accountable. That alone, with the talent level of this team would yield better results. I think how much better would be determined on what you think of his style of play, that combined with how comfortable you are with the idea he'll very likely have a short shelf life. 

 

 

[DirtyDeeds]

16 hours ago, JTech780 said:

Just to add to Peters resume, he has a WHL championship, a Memorial Cup, an U18 Gold, and World Championship Gold, an U18 Silver as a head coach.

My big concern with Peters is his nhl as head coach playoff experience none.

 

Would BT who has no more outs and has to get this coach right put his job on the Peters as coach line? If it does not work BT is likely next to go

[tmac70]

14 minutes ago, cross16 said:

So just to be clear the reason I reference that quote and voiced frustration is purely based on the quote about ownership, it had nothing to do with Sutter. I'm not a fan of these owners, well 1 in particular, and how they operate so it becomes frustrating when you continue to hear their involvement. Personal thing, not against Sutter. 

 

I think the idea of fit is being a little misinterpreted though. I agree that the concept that Sutter can only coach a big heavy team is incorrect. Sutter is a much smarter coach then many give him credit so I don't agree that guys like Gaudreau/Bennett or even Backlund wouldn't succeed under Sutter. The players who can't play for Sutter are not the skilled guys, its the guys who can't take the demanding work ethic and two way style he wants, but I personally don't see a guy on the roster that wouldn't be ok with that, especially if you win. Remember, Sutter went out and traded for guys like Tanguay and Huselius. Not fair to say he ignores skill.

 

however, offensively he's similar to Gulutzan so if people hated that offensive strategy Sutter's is the same. It's possession based, cycle based and won't generate the high quality scoring chances that some complained about under Gulutzan. It won't utilize Dmen and it's more dump and chase based as well. That will hurt Gaudreau but likely help the likes of Bennett/Ferland who I could see having more success in a dump and case based system. However, don't exact the offense to get any better under Sutter than Gultuzan, because Sutter's is more "boring"

 

but, as I said earlier about Sutter you can never ignore that this is Darryl Sutter. He is probably the best motivator the league has seen since Bowman. Whatever your thought process is on systems, style of player and their correlation to winning, you still have to acknowledge this strength of his. He gets his teams to play for each, play hard, and be accountable. That alone, with the talent level of this team would yield better results. I think how much better would be determined on what you think of his style of play, that combined with how comfortable you are with the idea he'll very likely have a short shelf life. 

 

 

Micro management on any level is not fun. The owners getting involved is agreeable to that it's annoying but Trevling did hire the last dud. The owners wanting Sutter makes sense as he advocates accountability and players earn their pay checks. When your GM publicly addresses media and fans with the point of there was no passion or heart is a difficult 70+ million dollar pill to swallow.

 

Sutter is a great coach there is no questioning that but again is he the right guy for this club? That stated is Peter's, or any of the others. This time around your coaching selection has to meet the roster we have. I agree with you that the interference of owners is awful but this also shows no faith in your GM's choices, which is understandable as well.

[JTech780]

16 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

My big concern with Peters is his nhl as head coach playoff experience none.

 

Would BT who has no more outs and has to get this coach right put his job on the Peters as coach line? If it does not work BT is likely next to go

 

As Cross has been saying for awhile, regardless of who the coach is, if it goes wrong Treliving is out of job. He just has to pick who he thinks is the best coach for his group. I personally think it's Peters, has I think he has the best mix of personality and systems to get the most out of the team. Add in the fact that Peters has experience being a coach in the NHL and coaching NHLers at the World Championships.

[Blouis]

If it was my choice .... Martin Gelinas    I bet nobody saw that coming.

And Brad no more signing yesteryear players Jagr was a bad move, the only player from the past to sign perhaps Iggy so he retires a Flame! Give him a job managing the Heat or something, I bet Iggy might be interested in Coaching (Heat) and he be a good one. Always in condition!!

 

 

[cross16]

47 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

My big concern with Peters is his nhl as head coach playoff experience none.

 

Would BT who has no more outs and has to get this coach right put his job on the Peters as coach line? If it does not work BT is likely next to go

 

I think BT is likely out irregardless of who he hires if the results arn't there. I don't think if he hires AV or Sutter and it doesn't work out (which CAN happen) the narrative or view from ownership will change then if he hires Peters. Pretty rare that any GM survives 3 coaching hires so for this reason I really don't think this should factor into the decision. 

 

Peters has no playoffs but he's also from a mess of a franchise. There has been 2 consistencies since Peters has been the coach. The Canes have been in the bottom 4 of the league in Save % and bottom 4 in payroll. Really tough for me to blame the coach when those are 2 constants. No other team in the league during his tenure stayed in the bottom 4 and most that were there with them were worse off than the Canes.

 

When it comes to coaches I think you have to be carefully looking at previous records. Past performance is not always indicative of future successes. 

AV was a dud for the Habs. 1 year playoffs, 2 sub 500 years and then was fired in his 4th year when the Habs were behind 2 expansion teams in the standings.

Gerrard Gallant was first before reaching 2 full season in Columbus. win % was sub .450.

Mike Sullivan went to playoffs 1 year, then was fired after a sub .500 season the next year. Now has 2 Cups and could have a 3rd.

Peter Deboer never made the playoffs in 3 years in Florida. Now has been to the finals twice. 

 

In Reverse:

Randy Caryle won a cup with the Ducks. Pretty mixed results since. Missed the playoffs almost as much as he's made them. 

Claude Julien won a cup, but what happened this year with the Habs? Bruins have always taken off since he was let go. 

Ron Wilson - what did he do in Toronto?

 

41 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

I agree with you that the interference of owners is awful but this also shows no faith in your GM's choices, which is understandable as well.

 

Then they should fire the GM. 

[The_Tribal Chief]

Maybe Ownership needs to focus on a arena Deal instead of Interfering with Gm duties

[tmac70]

29 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I think BT is likely out irregardless of who he hires if the results arn't there. I don't think if he hires AV or Sutter and it doesn't work out (which CAN happen) the narrative or view from ownership will change then if he hires Peters. Pretty rare that any GM survives 3 coaching hires so for this reason I really don't think this should factor into the decision. 

 

Peters has no playoffs but he's also from a mess of a franchise. There has been 2 consistencies since Peters has been the coach. The Canes have been in the bottom 4 of the league in Save % and bottom 4 in payroll. Really tough for me to blame the coach when those are 2 constants. No other team in the league during his tenure stayed in the bottom 4 and most that were there with them were worse off than the Canes.

 

When it comes to coaches I think you have to be carefully looking at previous records. Past performance is not always indicative of future successes. 

AV was a dud for the Habs. 1 year playoffs, 2 sub 500 years and then was fired in his 4th year when the Habs were behind 2 expansion teams in the standings.

Gerrard Gallant was first before reaching 2 full season in Columbus. win % was sub .450.

Mike Sullivan went to playoffs 1 year, then was fired after a sub .500 season the next year. Now has 2 Cups and could have a 3rd.

Peter Deboer never made the playoffs in 3 years in Florida. Now has been to the finals twice. 

 

In Reverse:

Randy Caryle won a cup with the Ducks. Pretty mixed results since. Missed the playoffs almost as much as he's made them. 

Claude Julien won a cup, but what happened this year with the Habs? Bruins have always taken off since he was let go. 

Ron Wilson - what did he do in Toronto?

 

 

Then they should fire the GM. 

 They each have options. If ownership does supersede the GM, he may as well resign.

[Davis1891]

Do we think Treliving is professional enough to put aside the emotional aspect of hiring Sutter as coach?

As a manager in my industry of 20 years, I once hired a previous manager and it was a defining and learning  mistake. Would never do that again.

I'm not saying Sutter would undercut him or anything, but if I was BT I'd always have the wonder and fear in the back of my mind.

Would he put himself in that position? 

Would he choose another coach because of that reason?

Maybe that's why ownership is getting involved.