Geoff Ward... Keep him or find someone else?

[2023FriendshipTour]

I'd like to see him stay as an assistant, but please bring in one of the big 3 FA coaches... Gallant would be a god send.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Gallant.

 

[DFF]

not only Ward but BT has to go as well. That is a must.

His skills as a manager and saleman mask the obvious flaw that he knows very little about hockey talent.

6 yrs is more than enough

 

[flamesforcup]

On the Fan 960 Eric Duhatschec (i think) said that the Flames arent going to pay 3-4 million to a high end coach like Gallant in this economy. Expect them to get some cheap coach for 700k and he said he expects Ward to get it. So i have no hope for next season if this is true. Ward is not a good coach. He reminds me of the Guletzen era.

 

[DFF]

On the Fan 960 Eric Duhatschec (i think) said that the Flames arent going to pay 3-4 million to a high end coach like Gallant in this economy. Expect them to get some cheap coach for 700k and he said he expects Ward to get it. So i have no hope for next season if this is true. Ward is not a good coach. He reminds me of the Guletzen era.

lol.. they just want your money

 

[super6646]

On the Fan 960 Eric Duhatschec (i think) said that the Flames arent going to pay 3-4 million to a high end coach like Gallant in this economy. Expect them to get some cheap coach for 700k and he said he expects Ward to get it. So i have no hope for next season if this is true. Ward is not a good coach. He reminds me of the Guletzen era.

And who is surprised about this?

 

[Mobiandi]

I would gladly have an internal cap if it mean we could use that money to get an elite coach.

That being said, Ward isn't the end of the world. What would Gallant tell our leaders/top forwards to do in the playoffs that they didn't already know?

I could see us getting Darryl Sutter out of retirement tbh

 

[Anglesmith]

I would gladly have an internal cap if it mean we could use that money to get an elite coach.

That being said, Ward isn't the end of the world. What would Gallant tell our leaders/top forwards to do in the playoffs that they didn't already know?

I could see us getting Darryl Sutter out of retirement tbh

In the playoffs? They need to improve overall; playoffs is merely a result of shortcomings that also exist in the regular season.

The idea of a new coach is to get everyone on the same page and remove the uncertainty from their game so that the way they were playing last game becomes routine instead of being once in a blue moon.

 

[Mazatt]

I like Ward. He put players in position to succeed, and by all accounts the players like him. Doing that in a half year following Bill Peters is good imo, and I think he had good systems in place, the team just didn't pull it out. That 3-0 lead is what Ward's coaching did, he changed the breakout and the team did it from the start, they challenged the Dallas D, but this is a team that runs on confidence and without Chucky they don't have a lot of guys who can pull them up and tell em to get back out there. I don't think there's a coach in the league that could change that. So when Lucic took a dumb penalty and the Stars scored it took the the Flames out of the series and the systems Ward had in place were screwed.

In essence any issue I have with Ward will persist with other coaches. In my mind this loss is on the players for no internal motivation and losing their abilities when the going gets rough time and time again. Ward mentioned how he wanted the team covering the points against Dallas more--the team collapsed into the slot and Talbot couldn't see a thing. I don't think there's a way to get the D harder in front of the net outside of spiking their drinks with steroids so they can actually move Dallas forwards. I'd be completely fine with Ward coming back as a head coach next year. Adding a high-end coach is only going to hurt more when the team pulls the exact same stunt again.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

On the Fan 960 Eric Duhatschec (i think) said that the Flames arent going to pay 3-4 million to a high end coach like Gallant in this economy. Expect them to get some cheap coach for 700k and he said he expects Ward to get it. So i have no hope for next season if this is true. Ward is not a good coach. He reminds me of the Guletzen era.

I’m gonna cheer for the Nucks.

 

[Mobiandi]

In the playoffs? They need to improve overall; playoffs is merely a result of shortcomings that also exist in the playoffs.

The idea of a new coach is to get everyone on the same page and remove the uncertainty from their game so that the way they were playing last game becomes routine instead of being once in a blue moon.

I think coaching was a huge problem in the Gulutzan era, where everyone was eventually on the same page once they learned his 1000-page system manifesto. Yet things would only click for 7-10 consecutive games out of 82. That was an awful hire from day 1 and set the team back a lot.

Coaching was also an issue with Peters, although that era feels like a blur to me now. I don't really know what went wrong there but his man-management probably alienated the players to the point where all of them started under-performing. We never snapped out of that post-ASG malaise and he was well on his way to being on the hotseat before his past caught up to him and accelerated the process

I also did not like Ward's work in the regular season either. But at that point, he was probably helping the team recover from Peters and had to keep things light to re-build the players' confidence. As a result, I think Ward just let the players play to their instincts during that string of games and didn't impose any new ideas of his own. It's probably why he didn't really touch the lines other than moving Mangiapane up and down the middle 6. He wanted to see if the players could re-elevate their game in a familiar setting, with a less toxic environment

Playoff Ward had a de facto pre-season to work with and he was able to finally implement his own lines and tactics. We had cohesive, aggressive performances in 3 of 4 games against the Jets. We were also really comfortable against Dallas until the series got away from us in those dying seconds of game 4. But I can't completely fault the coach for the result because this time we didn't completely fall apart as a team. There were still players playing the system to perfection but we were let down by our top guys having meltdowns.

Can Gallant tell Gio to stop taking silly penalties? How does he teach the top line to move the puck better when the middle 6 is doing just fine? How do you teach our top 4 forwards to elevate their effort in the playoffs when the other 8 are? There's deficiencies in the games of specific guys that are insurmountable at this point. And they get magnified under repeated viewings of a 7-game series especially when they have the lion's share of ice time. If you can't hide them anymore, you have to move on.

An elite coach is nice but it's more a luxury item as this point when the staleness of the roster has to be addressed first

 

[Kranix]

How about being the first team to ever play a season with no coaches.

 

[Anglesmith]

Playoff Ward had a de facto pre-season to work with and he was able to finally implement his own lines and tactics. We had cohesive, aggressive performances in 3 of 4 games against the Jets. We were also really comfortable against Dallas until the series got away from us in those dying seconds of game 4. But I can't completely fault the coach for the result because this time we didn't completely fall apart as a team. There were still players playing the system to perfection but we were let down by our top guys having meltdowns.

By and large, I disagree with this analysis. There are lines like 3M that have good shifts no matter what the team around them is doing because of the fantastic chemistry they have, but over the course of these playoffs, when the team wasn't playing good hockey it crept through the entire team. The entire team got its teeth kicked in 5-on-5 through most of games 2 through 5. Finally, in game 6, we saw the team play effective hockey, and lo and behold the top line was creating the most chances out of anyone.

I think there is a great deal of bias in how we evaluate different lines, and it is no more present than in the case of Gaudreau. Watching the shifts when we're getting caved in by the other team, and that first line spends more time in their own end than anyone else. The reason? They do not effectively break up the cycle. It is what it is, but with the least mobile of our centres on that line, if he isn't busting his ass into every battle, it is hard to get ahead of the other team when the puck goes to the corners. I am, at this point, pretty exasperated how such a significant group of fans repeatedly watches this movie with the long cycles in our own end followed by Gaudreau being tossed the puck while everyone else looks to change and thinks "boy, Gaudreau just can't play this kind of hockey." No shit. There isn't a winger in the world who will succeed in that situation, and that carries through to how the other lines also can't generate anything playing that kind of hockey.

There are so many people who seem okay with the idea of Gaudreau going to a team that will play to his strengths and get more out of him, with Eric Francis certainly leading the charge. I just don't get it. Why leave it to other teams to do the smart thing? Why not make this the team that plays to Gaudreau's strength and benefits from an elite player? Why do we want to be the victims yet again? How about giving ourselves the most talented roster we can so that we have the best chance of making a winning team out of it? It seems illogical to me.

Can Gallant tell Gio to stop taking silly penalties? How does he teach the top line to move the puck better when the middle 6 is doing just fine? How do you teach our top 4 forwards to elevate their effort in the playoffs when the other 8 are? There's deficiencies in the games of specific guys that are insurmountable at this point. And they get magnified under repeated viewings of a 7-game series especially when they have the lion's share of ice time. If you can't hide them anymore, you have to move on.

The short answer is yes. A coach can have a big impact on individual mistakes (like penalties). I don't imagine it can fix whatever Bennett and Lucic have going on, but if you have players on the ice who always know the plan, the structure, and what the next play should be, you can really cut down on flailing, indecision and panic.

But again, when that kind of bad hockey is going on it is not unique to that line. Those moments when the third line was clicking in game 1? Our top line was generating chances at that time, too. You want proof that the roster doesn't have "insurmountable deficiencies?" Look at game 6 (ignoring goaltending). Every line, but especially the top line, was supporting the puck defensively and offensively, generating smooth transitions and using the time and space to create offensive chances. You get to see why keeping Gaudreau is a good idea as soon as the team is supporting him and playing a system. You want evidence that the problems we face when we aren't playing well are systemic and not based on individuals? Look at the ineffectiveness of all four lines as we were getting our teeth kicked in during games 2, 3, 4 and 5.

It's true that individuals can break free from the lethargy of the team and generate a good shift now and then (sometimes it's even Gaudreau believe it or not, but often Backlund, Bennett and Rieder did this during the playoffs). But what I want is to try to avoid those stretches through better systemic play. I'm not a fan of how us tying the game in game 2 was in spite of how we were playing instead of being a result of it. Almost surviving in game 4 is not an effective game plan, to me.

Having a goal of "fixing the roster" is fine, but short of someone handing us talent that is better than Gaudreau, Monahan and Giordano (which I'd be all for), there isn't much room for improvement at the top end. It makes a lot more sense to try to play better hockey with the current roster than to rely on new players to try to play bad hockey better. The suggestions that people (esp. Francis) are throwing out aren't to improve the roster. They are to banish scapegoats and ignore the bigger issues.

...

Now, with all that said, it's entirely possible that Ward is a coach capable of getting more out of the Flames. It is possible that, given time and a full training camp, he can make the hockey from game 6 the routine and the foundation for this team. If that is true, I will be extremely happy with him as a coach. At this point, though, given that the Flames have the flexibility to choose and aren't on the hook for a pre-existing contract, I think it makes sense to take the more reliable option for once.

 

[flamesforcup]

By and large, I disagree with this analysis. There are lines like 3M that have good shifts no matter what the team around them is doing because of the fantastic chemistry they have, but over the course of these playoffs, when the team wasn't playing good hockey it crept through the entire team. The entire team got its teeth kicked in 5-on-5 through most of games 2 through 5. Finally, in game 6, we saw the team play effective hockey, and lo and behold the top line was creating the most chances out of anyone.

I think there is a great deal of bias in how we evaluate different lines, and it is no more present than in the case of Gaudreau. Watching the shifts when we're getting caved in by the other team, and that first line spends more time in their own end than anyone else. The reason? They do not effectively break up the cycle. It is what it is, but with the least mobile of our centres on that line, if he isn't busting his ass into every battle, it is hard to get ahead of the other team when the puck goes to the corners. I am, at this point, pretty exasperated how such a significant group of fans repeatedly watches this movie with the long cycles in our own end followed by Gaudreau being tossed the puck while everyone else looks to change and thinks "boy, Gaudreau just can't play this kind of hockey." No shit. There isn't a winger in the world who will succeed in that situation, and that carries through to how the other lines also can't generate anything playing that kind of hockey.

There are so many people who seem okay with the idea of Gaudreau going to a team that will play to his strengths and get more out of him, with Eric Francis certainly leading the charge. I just don't get it. Why leave it to other teams to do the smart thing? Why not make this the team that plays to Gaudreau's strength and benefits from an elite player? Why do we want to be the victims yet again? How about giving ourselves the most talented roster we can so that we have the best chance of making a winning team out of it? It seems illogical to me.



The short answer is yes. A coach can have a big impact on individual mistakes (like penalties). I don't imagine it can fix whatever Bennett and Lucic have going on, but if you have players on the ice who always know the plan, the structure, and what the next play should be, you can really cut down on flailing, indecision and panic.

But again, when that kind of bad hockey is going on it is not unique to that line. Those moments when the third line was clicking in game 1? Our top line was generating chances at that time, too. You want proof that the roster doesn't have "insurmountable deficiencies?" Look at game 6 (ignoring goaltending). Every line, but especially the top line, was supporting the puck defensively and offensively, generating smooth transitions and using the time and space to create offensive chances. You get to see why keeping Gaudreau is a good idea as soon as the team is supporting him and playing a system. You want evidence that the problems we face when we aren't playing well are systemic and not based on individuals? Look at the ineffectiveness of all four lines as we were getting our teeth kicked in during games 2, 3, 4 and 5.

It's true that individuals can break free from the lethargy of the team and generate a good shift now and then (sometimes it's even Gaudreau believe it or not, but often Backlund, Bennett and Rieder did this during the playoffs). But what I want is to try to avoid those stretches through better systemic play. I'm not a fan of how us tying the game in game 2 was in spite of how we were playing instead of being a result of it. Almost surviving in game 4 is not an effective game plan, to me.

Having a goal of "fixing the roster" is fine, but short of someone handing us talent that is better than Gaudreau, Monahan and Giordano (which I'd be all for), there isn't much room for improvement at the top end. It makes a lot more sense to try to play better hockey with the current roster than to rely on new players to try to play bad hockey better. The suggestions that people (esp. Francis) are throwing out aren't to improve the roster. They are to banish scapegoats and ignore the bigger issues.

...

Now, with all that said, it's entirely possible that Ward is a coach capable of getting more out of the Flames. It is possible that, given time and a full training camp, he can make the hockey from game 6 the routine and the foundation for this team. If that is true, I will be extremely happy with him as a coach. At this point, though, given that the Flames have the flexibility to choose and aren't on the hook for a pre-existing contract, I think it makes sense to take the more reliable option for once.

I agree. I would not want to trade Gaudreau he is a great player. I would rather try getting him a new centre first. By all means i want Monahan gone and hopefully we can acquire a top 6 centre that is good in the playoffs. It is possible as we have seen players like Kadri, O'Rielly, Duchane traded. We just have to be smart and fix our centres.

With a new centre and goalie plus maybe Hall i think were a good team. No need to blow it up.

 

[DFF]

I agree. I would not want to trade Gaudreau he is a great player. I would rather try getting him a new centre first. By all means i want Monahan gone and hopefully we can acquire a top 6 centre that is good in the playoffs. It is possible as we have seen players like Kadri, O'Rielly, Duchane traded. We just have to be smart and fix our centres.

With a new centre and goalie plus maybe Hall i think were a good team. No need to blow it up.

how do get anything good with just Monahan?

 

[Ace Rimmer]

How about being the first team to ever play a season with no coaches.

Player-coach Mark Giordano.

Worked for the Chiefs.

 

[Mobiandi]

By and large, I disagree with this analysis. There are lines like 3M that have good shifts no matter what the team around them is doing because of the fantastic chemistry they have, but over the course of these playoffs, when the team wasn't playing good hockey it crept through the entire team. The entire team got its teeth kicked in 5-on-5 through most of games 2 through 5. Finally, in game 6, we saw the team play effective hockey, and lo and behold the top line was creating the most chances out of anyone.

Shouldn't we expect the top line to have chemistry to their advantage by now? The 3M line is successful because they work hard, move their feet, and have the vision to make a pass. It's why the 3rd line caught fire out of nowhere. The top line is unsuccessful because they don't do any of those things in the playoffs. I thought that our bottom 9 played solid hockey all-around in the Dallas series except for game 5. Whereas, the top line was dogging it almost every game they spent in the bubble (I'm only qualifying this with "almost" because I couldn't catch game 6). Even when Gaudreau was able to find Monahan with a pass, he was firing soft shots at Khudobin's chest that you'd expect to see in a game that's reached triple OT. At neutral ice, I wanted to pull my hair out when Monahan or Lindholm kept flipping the puck in for Gaudreau to retrieve it. It's just lazy play from a top line.

I think there is a great deal of bias in how we evaluate different lines, and it is no more present than in the case of Gaudreau. Watching the shifts when we're getting caved in by the other team, and that first line spends more time in their own end than anyone else. The reason? They do not effectively break up the cycle. It is what it is, but with the least mobile of our centres on that line, if he isn't busting his ass into every battle, it is hard to get ahead of the other team when the puck goes to the corners. I am, at this point, pretty exasperated how such a significant group of fans repeatedly watches this movie with the long cycles in our own end followed by Gaudreau being tossed the puck while everyone else looks to change and thinks "boy, Gaudreau just can't play this kind of hockey." No shit. There isn't a winger in the world who will succeed in that situation, and that carries through to how the other lines also can't generate anything playing that kind of hockey.

Hey, I'm all for criticizing Monahan too. I think he's stuck out like a sore thumb in the #1C position for over two years now. I also don't know how to talk about his game in any novel way, anymore. Treliving took a bet on him improving substantially and it blew up in his face.

But the fact remains that Gaudreau was implicated in two easily preventable Dallas GWGs. Is Geoff Ward supposed to do video sessions with Gaudreau and tell him "30 seconds left, maybe don't puck-watch a guy on the right point when your man is gliding in back-door" or "hey it's been a long shift but either block the shot or don't screen your goalie when John Klingberg is shooting the puck". You can't coach that in the NHL - better yet, you shouldn't have to, when someone's been in the league for 6 years now. If you can't contribute offensively, don't hurt the team defensively. That's pretty much what you tell 13th forwards in this league. And that goes for Monahan too, even moreso

There are so many people who seem okay with the idea of Gaudreau going to a team that will play to his strengths and get more out of him, with Eric Francis certainly leading the charge. I just don't get it. Why leave it to other teams to do the smart thing? Why not make this the team that plays to Gaudreau's strength and benefits from an elite player? Why do we want to be the victims yet again? How about giving ourselves the most talented roster we can so that we have the best chance of making a winning team out of it? It seems illogical to me.

I think that Gaudreau's been expected to do too much with too little. Some think that Tkachuk or Hall could step into his shoes and not skip a beat but I disagree.

He's not a must-trade but if there's a market for him that could improve the team past the expiry date of his contract, we'd be foolish not to take it.

Top pieces to move out are Monahan and Hanifin because of the sheer return we could get.

The short answer is yes. A coach can have a big impact on individual mistakes (like penalties). I don't imagine it can fix whatever Bennett and Lucic have going on, but if you have players on the ice who always know the plan, the structure, and what the next play should be, you can really cut down on flailing, indecision and panic.

But again, when that kind of bad hockey is going on it is not unique to that line. Those moments when the third line was clicking in game 1? Our top line was generating chances at that time, too. You want proof that the roster doesn't have "insurmountable deficiencies?" Look at game 6 (ignoring goaltending). Every line, but especially the top line, was supporting the puck defensively and offensively, generating smooth transitions and using the time and space to create offensive chances. You get to see why keeping Gaudreau is a good idea as soon as the team is supporting him and playing a system. You want evidence that the problems we face when we aren't playing well are systemic and not based on individuals? Look at the ineffectiveness of all four lines as we were getting our teeth kicked in during games 2, 3, 4 and 5.

It's true that individuals can break free from the lethargy of the team and generate a good shift now and then (sometimes it's even Gaudreau believe it or not, but often Backlund, Bennett and Rieder did this during the playoffs). But what I want is to try to avoid those stretches through better systemic play. I'm not a fan of how us tying the game in game 2 was in spite of how we were playing instead of being a result of it. Almost surviving in game 4 is not an effective game plan, to me.

The playoffs often don't have rational results but the bounces tend to even out over a series (result of game 3 vs. 6). I also think it's nonsense that we were hanging on for dear life in games 4 and 5. We looked in control of game 4 until the refs started calling everything against us, all starting with Gio whiffing on a routine exit pass and taking a moronic penalty before the end of the 2nd (again something you just can't coach against). In game 5, Dallas had 1 dangerous chance and scored on it and took advantage of some unfocused play in our zone to score another. Otherwise, they were firing shots from everywhere praying for a Pavelski deflection. They never fully looked in control. If our top guys play to their abilities, we put both of those games away. You can't expect your bottom 9 and goalie to keep bailing you out

Having a goal of "fixing the roster" is fine, but short of someone handing us talent that is better than Gaudreau, Monahan and Giordano (which I'd be all for), there isn't much room for improvement at the top end. It makes a lot more sense to try to play better hockey with the current roster than to rely on new players to try to play bad hockey better. The suggestions that people (esp. Francis) are throwing out aren't to improve the roster. They are to banish scapegoats and ignore the bigger issues.

...

Now, with all that said, it's entirely possible that Ward is a coach capable of getting more out of the Flames. It is possible that, given time and a full training camp, he can make the hockey from game 6 the routine and the foundation for this team. If that is true, I will be extremely happy with him as a coach. At this point, though, given that the Flames have the flexibility to choose and aren't on the hook for a pre-existing contract, I think it makes sense to take the more reliable option for once.

Like I said in my original comment. I would welcome a substantial coaching upgrade. There's no reason to turn it down. But it shouldn't be #1 on the team's list of priorities. #1 should be obtaining at least one top player whose offense doesn't dry up in the playoffs.

I think when it comes to the playoffs, it's all about matchups. A coach probably spends more time thinking more about how he can neutralize the other team's top guys and getting most out of their depth before he thinks about policing his own top guys' style of play. I have a hard time thinking that Bednar spends equal amounts of effort and time on MacKinnon and Rantanen compared to someone like Burakovsky and Namestnikov. You might make subtle tweaks to how your top 5-man unit plays but those guys are supposed to just play and win you games out of their sheer talent and improvisation rather than a clear system.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

On the Fan 960 Eric Duhatschec (i think) said that the Flames arent going to pay 3-4 million to a high end coach like Gallant in this economy. Expect them to get some cheap coach for 700k and he said he expects Ward to get it. So i have no hope for next season if this is true. Ward is not a good coach. He reminds me of the Guletzen era.

I'll coach for 700k

I'll even get us to the second round of the ploffs

 

[Ace Rimmer]

 

[Dack]

My Caps fan friends hated Reirdan. I didn't think he did a good job either.

 

[DFF]

Another proof that BT really doesn't know what the hell he is doing.

 

[Mobiandi]

Rierden sucks

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Another proof that BT really doesn't know what the hell he is doing.

I know what he was trying to do. He was trying to find our version of a Jon Cooper or Jared Bednar. That young "fresh ideas" coach with a warm approach to coaching rather than the icy taskmasters of old. It was always a gamble, and I think he knew that.

 

[Kranix]

Player-coach Mark Giordano.

Worked for the Chiefs.

Reg Dunlop was a bum though

 

[BobColesNasalCavity]

Man that's damning, especially after Rierden got turfed too.