Gulutz-end

[Mobiandi]

This team doesn't play with enough mental fortitude to be a serious contender. But this is still roughly the same core as the 14-15 team that was able to manage all of those comebacks and beat up on the SC-winning Kings. Maybe they were able to perform like that because there was no pressure and are having trouble rising to the occassion now that the stakes are raised.

Management has also made an effort to seek out players that were part of winning teams to try to help pass on some of their knowledge to our young talent: Frolik, Brouwer, Versteeg, Jagr (although one can argue that this failed for the most part). We also added a big character guy in Hamonic and a guy who would do anything to help his team win in Tkachuk.

So I'm inclined to say that this coaching staff is hugely responsible for the issues we've been having on the mental side of the game. People can say that hockey players should be able to morivate themselves to play because of all the millions they earn but they're also kidding themselves if they think a coach's words (or lack thereof) don't play a big role too. As it's been stated before, Gulutzan is a great X's and O's guy but I don't think he has it in him to be more than an assistant coach at the NHL level. A team with all the character guys and leaders it purports to have shouldn't consistently be looking like a deer in headlights, especially at home.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Seems like he's more interested in hockey theory than winning games. Sick of watching this team play not to lose. The way you win consistently in this league is by having the hammer down attacking and forcing your opponents all the time. Not for half a period here, or 2 weeks in January. That's one thing I liked about Hartley, his teams skated as if their roster spot was on the line week in week out.

I think he's a good coach, but in this league you often need a great one to even be relevant. Maybe he can grow along with the team and get there, but it for sure needs to be sooner rather than later. Preferably April-June of this year.

Wouldn't really want Tippett or Sutter, honestly that's just more of the same. Quennville or Ruff would interest me, as would a rookie coach looking to make his mark. Doubt he's fired, possibly if they miss the playoffs, but even then unless someone really desirable becomes available I can't see it.

This board is funny, 14-15 everyone was calling for Hartley's head pining for someone to come in and get the team to play with defensive structure. Enter GG who does exactly that and people whine he doesn't have the gumption and doesn't adapt.

 

[tmurfin]

Seems like he's more interested in hockey theory than winning games. Sick of watching this team play not to lose. The way you win consistently in this league is by having the hammer down attacking and forcing your opponents all the time. Not for half a period here, or 2 weeks in January. That's one thing I liked about Hartley, his teams skated as if their roster spot was on the line week in week out.

I think he's a good coach, but in this league you often need a great one to even be relevant. Maybe he can grow along with the team and get there, but it for sure needs to be sooner rather than later. Preferably April-June of this year.

Wouldn't really want Tippett or Sutter, honestly that's just more of the same. Quennville or Ruff would interest me, as would a rookie coach looking to make his mark. Doubt he's fired, possibly if they miss the playoffs, but even then unless someone really desirable becomes available I can't see it.

This board is funny, 14-15 everyone was calling for Hartley's head pining for someone to come in and get the team to play with defensive structure. Enter GG who does exactly that and people whine he doesn't have the gumption and doesn't adapt.

Double edged sword for sure. But it would be nice to see a coach adapt. Hartley couldn't tighten up the D and Gully can't straighten out the offense. I know it's not that simple, but just going back and dissecting and picking up some of Hartleys offensive stradegies would go a LONG way with this team. But, every coaches team just has to have "their identity", whatever ours is..

 

[The Gnome]

My biggest issue with GG is in game adaptation. It's non-existent. We play our way, good teams figure it out and we're cooked. The Flames are very static under this coaching staff, and I don't see any sustained improvement. At this point in the season we'll just ride it out, and that is likely our best plan. But we are nothing more than a bubble playoff team with hopes that we catch lightning in a bottle heading into a potential playoff berth.

I'm not happy, I look at the players we have and feel this team is not living up to expectations. You cannot lay all the blame on the coaching staff, but I feel it is the best place to makes changes in order to see improvement...that and a RHS winger who can play in the top 9.

 

[Anglesmith]

My biggest issue with GG is in game adaptation. It's non-existent. We play our way, good teams figure it out and we're cooked. The Flames are very static under this coaching staff, and I don't see any sustained improvement. At this point in the season we'll just ride it out, and that is likely our best plan. But we are nothing more than a bubble playoff team with hopes that we catch lightning in a bottle heading into a potential playoff berth.

I'm not happy, I look at the players we have and feel this team is not living up to expectations. You cannot lay all the blame on the coaching staff, but I feel it is the best place to makes changes in order to see improvement...that and a RHS winger who can play in the top 9.

I mean, we just watched a game against probably the best team in the league currently where we were getting dominated, worked our way into the game and then had them completely on the run from the start of the third period onward. This game, at least, did not fit that narrative at all. If anything, the Flames adjusted to what the Bruins were doing and figured it out, and the Bruins were the ones without answers.

To me, it doesn't really look like the system is what gets us into trouble. It really seems as simple as whether or not our guys are skating better than the other guys. Last night, the Bruins were all over us in the first because they were skating harder. When we had the puck, we had no time, because they were on us immediately. They were anticipating plays and skating hard to shut them down, while we were constantly on the back foot trying to survive. In the third period, we were skating on the front foot, putting pressure on them, and forcing them to play to survive.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Sutter (.565) , Tippett (.563) , Hartley (.554), Ruff(.561) > Gulutzan (.551)

Pick one.

The only reasonable basis of comparison is Hartley and Gulutzan, with (mostly) similar rosters. It's unreasonable to think that any of the others would maintain/replicate winning percentage with the same roster.

My biggest issue with Gully is, he was brought in being touted as a "player coach/motivator". And he's struggled handily at motivating this team when we needed it. The team had 10x more work ethic and fire under Hartley. It's a real shame/piss off that every time a new GM comes in he just NEEDS to change his coaching situation.

I thought he was brought in as more of a tactician / technician?

Here's one quote from Conroy:

Conroy: We wanted a young, progressive coach that has some experience in the league. Didn’t have to be NHL head coaching experience but you’d like him to have some affiliation in the NHL. Obviously our special teams weren’t good enough last year so you’d like a guy who’s done a really good job with special teams. I mean other than that, you just want someone you feel comfortable with. That you want to come to work with every day. You’re going to be around whoever you hire a tonne, so you want someone you get along with and you have to be able to coexist. I think that was a big thing for Brad. We wanted the right person, we wanted the right fit, and we had to have someone that’s a good teacher that can work with young guys because we are going to have a young team.

There are a few smoking guns in that statement...

 

[The Gnome]

I mean, we just watched a game against probably the best team in the league currently where we were getting dominated, worked our way into the game and then had them completely on the run from the start of the third period onward. This game, at least, did not fit that narrative at all. If anything, the Flames adjusted to what the Bruins were doing and figured it out, and the Bruins were the ones without answers.

To me, it doesn't really look like the system is what gets us into trouble. It really seems as simple as whether or not our guys are skating better than the other guys. Last night, the Bruins were all over us in the first because they were skating harder. When we had the puck, we had no time, because they were on us immediately. They were anticipating plays and skating hard to shut them down, while we were constantly on the back foot trying to survive. In the third period, we were skating on the front foot, putting pressure on them, and forcing them to play to survive.

Excuse my ignorance on the last 2 games as I didn't get to see a minute of them unfortunately, I was more speaking to the overall theme I've seen this season. When we talk about work ethic, or lack thereof, with this team. I still believe a lot of that has to do with GG and co. I feel like we are always watching the same game on repeat, the continuity in strategy only to get mediocre results has to wear on our roster's overall moral. In addition, his roster decisions are often baffling. Throwing out our 3rd/4th lines with our 3rd pairing multiple times a game, using Brouwer on the PP, not using Brodie on his off side, etc...I mean, who, in their right mind, would put Troy Brouwer out for 90 seconds as our center in a 4 on 3 OT situation?!

Our static coaching is sinking us imo, but again, I did not see the last two games. I just don't see large enough holes with our roster on paper to lay the blame elsewhere. We should have a one of the best defenses in the league, we have one of the best top lines, we have a great shutdown line (With Tkachuk playing at an elite level). Those things alone should get you a playoff spot in our division. We obviously need to fix our bottom six, but we have the pieces to be a playoff team...I'm just not sold on our coaching staff at all.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

I mean, we just watched a game against probably the best team in the league currently where we were getting dominated, worked our way into the game and then had them completely on the run from the start of the third period onward. This game, at least, did not fit that narrative at all. If anything, the Flames adjusted to what the Bruins were doing and figured it out, and the Bruins were the ones without answers.

To me, it doesn't really look like the system is what gets us into trouble. It really seems as simple as whether or not our guys are skating better than the other guys. Last night, the Bruins were all over us in the first because they were skating harder. When we had the puck, we had no time, because they were on us immediately. They were anticipating plays and skating hard to shut them down, while we were constantly on the back foot trying to survive. In the third period, we were skating on the front foot, putting pressure on them, and forcing them to play to survive.

We were shutout at even strength last game. I think it's fair to say no adjustments of note were made as I didn't think we had many grade-A chances outside of the Bennett post, whereas Rittich made a half-dozen ten-bell saves. Even if we carried the play more, I didn't really expect us to score in the third.

 

[Anglesmith]

We were shutout at even strength last game. I think it's fair to say no adjustments of note were made as I didn't think we had many grade-A chances outside of the Bennett post, whereas Rittich made a half-dozen ten-bell saves. Even if we carried the play more, I didn't really expect us to score in the third.

We did have a great deal of chances and were stone-walled by Rask a few times, which is kind of to be expected with how good Rask has been this season. That game is a distant memory at this point, but I remember Monahan having a chance from right in front on a delayed call, a 2-on-1, Gaudreau coming down the wing, and a few goal-mouth scrambles.

I think a lot of your gut feeling in the third comes from what you're conditioned to expect with this team, who seem to need to generate 10 quality chances in order to score. Realistically, that third period for Boston fans probably felt very similar to how the first period felt for us. If the roles were reversed, we would absolutely be expecting to be scored on in that period.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Honestly the problem with this team is really consistency. We’re an elite road team, we’re a bad home team. We’re an awful PP team, were up and down on the PK. We’re one of the best teams holding a lead, then we can’t hold onto to one. This team looks elite at times, then it looks like the most mentally fragile the following one.

Player usage and in game adaptation at times looks horrendous, other teams it looks great. Again I don’t dislike Gully, but I think most of these issues can be pointed to coaching. Our roster with that D, and a goalie like Smith, then toss in a top line like the one we have and a shutdown line like Backs, should be winning the division.