Gulutz-end

[Anglesmith]

To expand on my previous comment, I think Gulutzan knows the Xs and Os of the game quite well, he's a good tactician and I think he has a clear understanding and knowledge of that aspect of the game.

Where I think he needs help - and where I think an associate coach would be helpful - would be on the "intangibles" side of things. Stuff like player usage (wrong lines out at the wrong time) mental and time management of players - maybe calling a time out when the team is frazzled or "crumpling" and pulling obviously tired guys off the ice contrary to what they're saying. Equally frustrating is the attitude that going 0-0-4 is just as good as going 2-2 (recent radio interview). I don't see him as being a leader that the team actually wants to follow/listen to, but a "pal" that they want to hang out with. And generally just don't see the responses to the small nuances of the game that you would see a seasoned, "old school" coach do.

I have to disagree with you there. Going 0-0-4 is just as good as going 2-2 IMO (well, almost as good because you can't get any ROW).

But going 2-2-0 means that two of those games you flat out lost. You were outscored at 5-on-5 hockey. The two wins could be any combination of regulation wins and regulation ties with the bonus point.

When you go 0-0-4, it means none of the four teams were able to outscore you in regulation. If you were to continue that trend, the law of averages would eventually reward you with half of those OT games. There isn't that same room for improvement when you lose half of your games outright.

 

[djpatm]

You still lost.

 

[Anglesmith]

You still lost.

True, but not at a kind of hockey that has any pertinence in the long run. Losing at 3-on-3 or in a shootout is irrelevant to the playoffs. And given how fickle those two things are, it also isn't really even relevant to future OTs or shootouts.

Losing in regulation, however, is pertinent as it is exactly the same type of hockey as you'll be playing in the playoffs and every game, and repeatedly losing in the present foreshadows more losing in the future.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I agree with LB. You cannot solely look at our record, it’s a cop out. The trend and the level we were playing to during this last stretch is very concerning.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

I have to disagree with you there. Going 0-0-4 is just as good as going 2-2 IMO (well, almost as good because you can't get any ROW).

But going 2-2-0 means that two of those games you flat out lost. You were outscored at 5-on-5 hockey. The two wins could be any combination of regulation wins and regulation ties with the bonus point.

When you go 0-0-4, it means none of the four teams were able to outscore you in regulation. If you were to continue that trend, the law of averages would eventually reward you with half of those OT games. There isn't that same room for improvement when you lose half of your games outright.

Yessir, the math checks out.

Four losses is four losses, even if you get the loser points. Are the players okay with the loss as long as they get the loser point? Should they be? Seems like the coach is. That's the part of it that's concerning to me.

In this case though even "average" success of the PP (1 in 10) could have resulted in a record of 1-0-3 or 2-0-2 rather than 0-0-4. In a tight race, even one or two points (indeed, even the number of R/OT wins) might end costing the Flames the playoffs.

 

[Mobiandi]

Going back to the Columbus game:

We are 13-9-8 in our last 30 games.

And honestly, of those 17 losses, we should have won at least 9 of them.
-Dallas: Pissed away the game in the final stages
-Edmonton (2x): That Dome loss is more embarassing than the Vegas one
-Philly: On a 10 game losing streak, they light us up at home
-4 straight OT losses after we scored first and coasted afterwards
-Vegas: In my gut, I could honestly feel a goal coming. We sat back way too much in the final stretch.

If we weren't the epitome of a bubble team, we could be 22-5-3 instead. That is 13 points we've thrown out the window when the game was there for the taking. How great would it be if we even had 4 or 6 of those?

We now have to go 19-12-1 in our remaining games to reach 97 points. I don't see it with this team. They need another 5 or 6 game winning streak soon to get back on schedule

 

[Anglesmith]

Yessir, the math checks out.

Four losses is four losses, even if you get the loser points. Are the players okay with the loss as long as they get the loser point? Should they be? Seems like the coach is. That's the part of it that's concerning to me.

Yes, but you're comparing that 0-0-4 to being 2-2-0, not to being 2-0-2. Obviously, you want to win those games in overtime, but when you're settling extra points by a gimmick, you have to accept that sometimes you're going to roll snake eyes and lose a few in a row, just like we won a bunch in a row earlier in the year. Not being beaten in regulation is definitely something to strive for if (importantly) the alternative is regularly getting beaten in regulation.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

My only concern was the (apparent) lackadaisical attitude in which the 0-0-4 record was brushed off, especially when the record should have been better than that.

Apologize if that wasn't clear.

 

[Anglesmith]

My only concern was the (apparent) lackadaisical attitude in which the 0-0-4 record was brushed off, especially when the record should have been better than that.

Apologize if that wasn't clear.

Yeah. Of course I didn't hear the clip myself, but you definitely want the coach looking at those games and seeing how much room for improvement there is, not the opposite.

 

[JurassicTunga]

Craig Button criticizes the system the Flames play and the PP
Is coaching an issue for the Calgary Flames? Our NHL insider Craig Button breaks it down. - Sports Talk with Jock Wilson - Omny.fm

Nails it. Come on, Gulutzan. Figure it out.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

That moment when you realize Craig Button would make a better coach then what you have...

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Yeah that interview was really good. I don’t disagree with anything really.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Yeah, whatever, I'm on board. If we miss the playoffs, send him packing. If we squeak in but Quenneville's available, send him packing anyways.

 

[DFF]

 

[JGaudreau]

Worst coach in the NHL? I think so and I usually try to be objective. He makes bad decisions in game and refuses to change his coaching philosophy.

 

[Fig]

Worst coach in the NHL? I think so and I usually try to be objective. He makes bad decisions in game and refuses to change his coaching philosophy.

Saying Gully is worst coach in NHL then try to claim you're objective is pretty contradictory IMO.

I don't disagree with the Gully hate, but he's definitely no Dallas Eakins abysmal.

 

[FerklundCGY]

The hate for GG is ridiculous.

Yes, he's pretty poor for the most part when it comes to in game decisions and his player usage is brutal, but he has us playing excellent 5v5 hockey and the last 2 games (against the 2 best teams in the NHL) show that.

What was he supposed to do the last 2 games? We really outplayed Vegas before an incredibly dumb Frolik play and an awful sequence after the faceoff. Then we dominated the best team in the NHL but Smith responded with probably the worst game of his career.

It's not like he was in Frolik's head telling him to set up Vegas for a tap in or in Smith's head telling him to s*** the bed. Yes, he could've called a timeout or pulled Smith a goal or 2 earlier but that's where the bad part of him comes in.

At the end of the day, this is the best 5v5 hockey the Flames have played in probably a decade. What we need to do is fire Cameron and hire someone who has even the slightest idea of how to run a PP.

These last 2 games are incredibly frustrating and GG certainly deserves some of the blame but his 5v5 results speak for themselves. It's our special teams and in some cases pathetic individual efforts that are killing us

 

[Baxterman]

Worst coach in the NHL? I think so and I usually try to be objective. He makes bad decisions in game and refuses to change his coaching philosophy.

It would be hard to argue that he isn't.

All the other "contenders" all seem to have something in their past coaching careers to point to to indicate that they are at least competent. GG has a history of bad coaching mixed in with some very mediocre results as highlights.

It was a puzzling hire at the time and now even more puzzling consider the 1.5 years of crap we have seen from him. I overall like Treliving and think he is a good GM but if he were fired over this hiring (and continuing to keep him on now) I would have to say it would be justified.

As god awful as the Brouwer contract is GG is by far the worst move Treliving has made.

 

[DFF]

These last 2 games are incredibly frustrating and GG certainly deserves some of the blame but his 5v5 results speak for themselves. It's our special teams and in some cases pathetic individual efforts that are killing us

This is funny. They are on a 6 game losing streak....They play well enough to lose....there is nothing to be proud of....They could barely scored when they really need a goal ....Yeah Smith f***ed up tonight but he saved their butts in the other 5 games.

 

[Baxterman]

The hate for GG is ridiculous.

Yes, he's pretty poor for the most part when it comes to in game decisions and his player usage is brutal, but he has us playing excellent 5v5 hockey and the last 2 games (against the 2 best teams in the NHL) show that.

Unless he is the best coach in the league at every other aspect shouldn't that assessment of his abilities in those areas be enough to have him fired?

 

[FerklundCGY]

This is funny. They are on a 6 game losing streak....They play well enough to lose....there is nothing to be proud of....They could barely scored when they really need a goal ....Yeah Smith ****ed up tonight but he saved their butts in the other 5 games.

And before that they were on a 7 game winning streak. A losing streak sucks and Smith was the only reason we got points in those OT losses, but that's a 6 game sample size.

Prior to the last two games, the Flames were 50-0-3 heading into the 3rd period with a lead under Gulutzan. That's beyond fantastic. If these last two losses were spread out, nobody would bat an eye

 

[FerklundCGY]

Unless he is the best coach in the league at every other aspect shouldn't that assessment of his abilities in those areas be enough to have him fired?

99% of fanbases hate their coaches' decision making and think they could do better. People like to overreact just like how 80% of this fanbase overreacted by saying Hartley was a great coach after we made the playoffs one season under him even though everyone in the "garbage stats" community knew the collapse the following season was inevitable.

Results tend to eventually balance themselves out and if the Flames keep playing the way they are (with good goaltending) then they're in great position as long as our PP figures its s*** out (even though it won't because Dave Cameron)

 

[DFF]

And before that they were on a 7 game winning streak. A losing streak sucks and Smith was the only reason we got points in those OT losses, but that's a 6 game sample size.

Prior to the last two games, the Flames were 50-0-3 heading into the 3rd period with a lead under Gulutzan. That's beyond fantastic. If these last two losses were spread out, nobody would bat an eye

They were horrible before and after the winning streak...so I would say the winning streak is not the norm.

I for one would not trust GG to coach this team to a win when it really matters.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I’ve seen enough, he needs to go.

 

[JGaudreau]

Saying Gully is worst coach in NHL then try to claim you're objective is pretty contradictory IMO.

In what way? If he's actually the worst coach then how is it not objective? Any stats on the average number of timeouts used per season and how many Gulutzan has used? Any stats on who is effective with last change?

Gulutzan has a philosophy that results in decisions far from the norm such as a guy on the fourth line wearing the A.

Explain the fact that he never calls a timeout when the momentum is shifting in a game of momentum. When the game is 4-3 and the opposition is pushing why not call a timeout? When the the game is tied and the team is falling apart why not call a timeout? The game is sliding through their fingers, plenty of opportunity to calm the team down and get them back to playing how they're supposed but no. He just stands there.

Smith lets in a sneaky shot from a bad angle, looks at the bench and doesn't get pulled. The previous game he leaves out Frolik and misses Smith going to the bench to get an extra man. What evidence would convince you he's a bad coach? The moments when a coach can have an impact on the game, during the game, he rarely makes the right choice.