cross16

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you here, but I will say I thought Monahan played well on the road trip. Was probably their best center to be honest but at the same time acknowledge that would also been seen as an indication of how the team played....

I like Lindholm back there, for me he is a RW and I would end the center experiment if I were the Flames. I get the counter argument, but as i've said before the biggest strength of Lindholm is his shot and that doesn't play as well in the middle. I like the potential he could have with Sutter by being to come off the half wall with possession (a big problem with Ritchie on this line) and also the ability to have him find open lanes/area to get that shot off.

That is the way I see it too. Started in the bubble where he seemed to publicly try and take the fall for the team and then it carried into this year with comments like how he was going to be the guy to turn it around and it was on him to get it going etc. Feels like a guy who is trying to lead by example but really just needs to play. I'm not a big believer that puck flip thing is an issue or was an issue. It it was it sure says a whole lot of negative things about their locker room.

Interested to see how this plays out. Lindholm was pretty public that he was okay with either but just wanted some consistency but then Sutter praised Lindholm as a center. Could just be a bump to try and get going

Gaudreau and Monahan didn't play well but yes I would absolutely argue the team did. That's the problem I have with this idea "the downfall started at the ASG in 2019" idea, it's only true for Gaudreau and Monahan it is not true for the rest of the team. The first half of that season was not the norm and I don't think anyone would argue it was. As i've said before I think a key reason for the success of that team in the first half was having the best line in hockey (for that time period) because they were a rush team. That line thrived on being able to break the zone early, come with speed, drive wide or hit the trailer for opportunities. Even as good as they were offensively that year you still saw little in the way of zone time or 2nd chance opportunities for that line. It started at the ASG that year and has been happening ever since but the Flames have moved away from being a rush team to more of a forecheck, grind it out style. It started last year under Peters, Ward put it back in for the playoffs and now they've hired Sutter. Gaudreau-Monahan have just very adjusted very well to it because for me they don't have the right mentality to play that system. Monahan is coming around but he's also held back by a lack of foot speed. Compounded further by Gio's decline, Tkachuk seemingly taking a step back, what feels like a locker room issue and here we are.

I don't know... we heard a lot of rumors about Gaudreau and Monahan being available in the off season. That doesn't sound like a GM who thought he had a contender on his hands. I don't think anyone would argue this is close to the 100 pt team they were under Peters, but I also think it's wroth pointing out they were 17-12-2 in the 2nd half of the season (were top 5 i'm pretty sure) and were a bounce away from going up 2-0 on the Avs in that series. What we are seeing now is a pretty big fall from that team.

Not really surprised at this. I think its crappy that the NHL is making an example out of Tim Peel because there is no way he is the only ref that does this he just happened to be caught saying it. This has happened in the NHL, and quite honestly in the game of hockey, for decades. There is no way the NHL has not known about this for decades so the fact that they are making an example of Peel is pretty low IMO. They've absolutely enabled this type of behavior and I think the Wideman effect was clear example of this. I don't think the Flames are still suffering from the Wideman effect but there was no question that in that season it was a thing. The NHL has flittered with this idea many times over the years but honestly it's just as simple as call the rule book. Stop with this bs about making sure things are even, the ridiculous playoff standard officiating, throw that all out. Here is the rule book, call it exactly how it's written and if a team gets 10 penalties in a game tough for them. McDavid draws 5 penalties on his own, good. All of these unwritten rules are what really damage the game IMO. But i will also say officiating problems are not contained to just hockey. Officiating isn't very good in any professional sports league IMO, but the NHL does seem to have the biggest issue with the "unwritten rules" and that is a drag on the game IMO.

Named captain of the Blazers.

The downsize to the system under Peters was two fold. 1 while they didn't give up a high volume of chances, when they did give up chances it was usually of high quality and in particular they gave up more odd man rushes. 2 the problem with being a team that lives off the rush if what's plan B when you shut it down? (see Colorado series). It's just not Calgary either that struggled with it as both Tampa and Winnipeg last year were teams that really lived off the rush and got exploited in the playoffs. It's tough to execute when space gets tight. I'm not sure you can be great at both. While I do think Sutter's system is limiting offence for the Flames it's not stifling it completely. I think the Flames will be able to score under Sutter but they are going to have to really start pushing through checks in the offensive zone, be willing to initiate contact, drive the net and crash the net. it be great if the Flames could adopt more of the tampa style o zone play which involves more puck movement, player movement, and using open space but that would mean getting away from point shots and net front presence which are 2 Sutter staples.

I don't see it the same way myself. I actually think this club has been a solid defense club for several years now, and under multiple coaches, and for the most that area has been much improved under Sutter. They fall apart a bit under Ward What I don't see is the commitment or buy in to what it takes to score consistently. They don't retrieve dump ins well, they don't rush the net anymore, they don't fight for space in the net/slot area, they tend to be quite stationary in the o zone and they seem very content to just move the puck around like a good time of possession is going to win them the game. They really settle for the easy areas and easy plays in the o zone. The only time this club exploded offensively is when Peters turned them into a rush team and they were lethal on counters, they drove the net, D drove down for multiple opportunities etc. Other than that though they've struggled to score for years because they don't do the little things well in the offensive zone. When it's easy they are good but when things get tight they fold. I'm not sure Sutter can change that mindset but that is what is needed IMO. I don't think defense first is the issue for me

And i would say the same if someone is expecting Treliving to be gone too. He is 1 year into a what is apparently a decent $ extension and they signed Sutter to match his contract. I think they will run this partnership for at least at least another season.

The GM is not without blame but for me personally I don't put this all on his feet. I think it's pretty clear this is a core issue and players like Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Tkachuk, Hanifin etc just did not take the steps forward the club thought they would. Fair to blame the GM for perhaps building the wrong vision, acquiring the wrong type of player, or maybe he shouldn't' have believed in them but when I think back to where this club was trending 2-3 years ago i thought they'd' be in better shape than this. That' why I don't put this all on the GM, players stopped performing. Fair arguments both sides I think. I am of the belief that this organization wants to change the core and have been trying, I believe that to be a fact. I think the fact that is has not happened yet is likely 1 of 2 (or maybe both) reasons. 1 they don't want to make futures deals they want hockey deals and 2 they are in a climate that is exceptionally difficult to make trades in. Some of that the club can control some of it, it can't. That's why I think Sutter is here. They can't change the core with trades so brining in a coach with a track record of getting players to change their ways.

I really hate how this keeps being framed as such a binary argument. The coach can suck and the players be a problem too but criticize one or the other and it gets framed as blame or choosing sides. Ward was a bad coach, no question but the problems always ran deeper than the coach. This is a team that plays when it's easy and won't fight and do the little things it takes to win on a consistent basis. Sutter will get them playing better, he already has, and I have no doubt they'll win more games coming up here but I question if he can fix that mentality.

This was so petty and disappointing to see. This does not have the looks of a good group of players. Sure they may like each other but they sure don't act like a close knit team.

Sutter made it very clear last night in his post game he has no plans on splitting up Gaudreau and Monahan. Says it's where he's been most productive. Pretty frustrating because I mean that production goes back almost 2 seasons now.

He was. I watched both those games and he was stellar, especially in his 2nd game. Stockton should have lost that game and Wolf made 3 or 4 incredible saves. Still a ways to go and a small sample size for sure but his last 2 games were stellar and worth noting his first game was the first game he'd played in close to a calendar year. Hard to find fault with how he started his AHL career for me.

4 games is pretty ridiculous IMO but I guess that's hockey for you. Not the worst news given how bad it looked but still awful for a kid who seemed to be taking steps forward.

which is exactly what’s going to happen I think. I think they’ll start playing better under Sutter and they’ll go on a tear at the end and take themselves out of the lottery it was part tongue in cheek when I said it but I wasn’t totally joking when I said the flames would have to be better of keeping Ward. They would have had a better chance at being a lottery team

good comparison. And to top it off they hired a coach who has a system not built for how the team is built. hard for me to see this getting better anytime soon. They’ll win more games but the direction doesn’t look pretty to me

consider yourself lucky

This is where the difference comes in for me, the Oiilers made that trade knowing they could have had Barzal. That trade happened on the floor after Boston passed on Barzal 3 times and with Barzal there the Oilers still made the deal. I might sign a different tune if Treliving made the deal with Barzal available to him but the same time Hamilton was quite a prize and IMO well worth the deal they gave him. If you have a different philosophy fine but if Boston had of picked Barzal (or really several of the teams before the Islanders) this conversation is very different IMO. Would this conversation be had if they missed out on Chabot? Kyle Conner? Boesser? Konency (who BTW many argue would have been the Flames pick)? What about Evgency Svenchinkov or Noah Jullsen?

Well interestingly enough 2013 was supposed to be a very strong draft year. The buzz going into that draft was it was the strongest and deepest in a decade and while it lacks a certain amount of start power outside the top 7-8, it is a deeper draft than most. Certainly a better draft than 2012 and at the very least on part with the likes of 2010/2011. This is why acquiring picks is not what it's always cracked up to be. The draft is not an exactly science so if you are trying to load up in "good" draft years that doesn't necessarily mean you will be right year's down the road. On top of that if it is a good draft year other teams know that too so it's harder to acquire game changing level picks that you would want to really turn around a franchise. Teams don't give up lottery picks so trying to target a certain draft is not exactly a viable strategy either. You can get a little lucky with it (Toronto giving up 2 first for Kessell, Ottawa 1st for Duchence, SJ 1st for Karlsson) and get a team that thinks they are contending to give you their first, but more often that not when you are acquiring picks they are late picks that are very unlikely to meaningfully change the team. It's part of what makes dealing high end players so challenging. This is a bone of contention for me, but it is just simply not this easy of an argument. At the time that trade was made there was no way of knowing Barzal would fall like he did and to this day it still makes no sense why he did. If the Flames waited until he was actually available and then made the trade then totally I would be find with this critique but that wasn't the decision making process. This is a total hindsight is 20/20 argument.

While normally I would advocate for a longer leash, Kylington was really bad in his last game. I can handle mistakes but Kylington's problem was he is playing in the NHL like he's still in junior. He's constantly cheating up higher thinking he has the speed to catch up to people and the problem is in the NHL you are no longer the best skater. On top of that when you do that, you put all the other skaters on the ice in a bind. So not only is that type of play hard to excuse at his point in his career, it runs completely counter to what the coach is trying to install. Nesterov has issues too but at least he plays to the system. I would not have argued if Sutter put him back in but I can also see why he isn't.

Pretty good start to the year across both leagues for Wolf. That after not playing for some time. It's too bad he couldn't have stayed in the A

There has been quite the talent drain in Stockton. Zary off to juniors Best dman to the taxi squad Zagaduilin (who was playing solid) off to taxi squad Posposil Hurt Emilio Petterson didn't play yesterday due to injury. Tapping into depth early on.