jjgallow

May 4

15 hours ago, travel_dude said:

As a Mod, I normally created threads barely in advance of a game, if I noticed nobody had created a thread.

RocketDoc was usually early, so I would know those days it was covered.

The sign-up thread was used for some time, but once the Flames started dropping out, it stagnated a bit.

The idea of incentives is great. Maybe have more than one willing to do a GDT.

I have some trouble doing justice to the thread quality, but that's what I have to work with on my PC.

For the last 10 years or so it's mostly been you and peeps holding the fort up so to speak. and I mean...with duct tape.

If there is an actual effort to get these forums going again, it could be pretty great and a lot of fun, but also very good timing.

In terms of the rebuild we're not having, this is usually a time when you get a dropoff of the prestige and fairweather fans. Good riddance.

But some may have noticed that Calgary is growing REALLY fast. Cause our city is awesome.

There will be an influx of new, interested hockey fans in these coming years (there already is). They won't have these high ridiculous bars, they're just interested and think it's a fun sport, maybe one they play maybe one they don't. I feel like this forum was actually built from the young guns era players, and its height of popularity was the result of those rebuilding years.

Crazy times.

May 4

8 hours ago, The_People1 said:

I agree Yakemchuk is not elite at skating but i just feel his style of play doesn't require level 10 elite skating. Something like 7 is good enough. Right now he's a 5 and still needs work. I think the gap to get from 5 to 7 is not as difficult than going from 7 to 9... I think Yakemchuk can get to NHL-levels.

In terms of agility, again, his style of player isn't ever going to be agile. 6'-3" 220 lbs... grit, intimidation, clear front of net, etc. That's like asking Johnny Gaudreau to be physical. It's not what he needs to play his game.

Totally with you man. We know this style of player well and have had great success with them. Maybe not off ice lol. But character wise Yakemchuk seems solid.

I am not set on him, but I am set on getting elite Something. And that means warts at our pick. I would be disappointed with a player that is just good at all things without any elite skills.

On top of the elite offense, Yakemchuk has the size, position, compete that would be ideal for us, plus I would actually be Really PO'd of if we passed over 2 Calgarians and then saw them both out-perform our pick. Very real chance of that.

If he's really as bad a skater as some feel on here, then I would say pick Tij with our first pick (sorry), and then upgrade our our 1st pick to get Yakemchuk.

But...I think it would have to be one hella big upgrade, because I really don't think that assessment of him is ubiquitus. I think there is a lot of interest and a lot of teams that actually have good player development who are more than happy to work on his skating with him.

May 4

50 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I'm kind of tired of getting guys who have to work on skating, or they tend to be small, just want guys who don't need to concentrate on having to build as a skater. I think it keeps our team full of pluggers. While gaining NHLers, we aren't getting super top end talent, enough required to compete for cups.

The reality is that we needed to trade Markstrom or one more player ahead of the tdl if we were gonna get top end talent this draft without warts.

The way I see it, we are currently just under that cutoff and will need to either upgrade our pick, take someone who drops unexpectedly ( a lot ), or...

Choose

Between top end talent with warts

And safe players without top end talent

If we want top end, elite talent with our 1st pick, we will have to compromise on one or several of:

Size

Position

Defensive play

Skating

If we are unwilling to compromise on any of those then we will have to pick a "balanced" player who is good at everything and great at nothing.

There will be no quick fixes.... I don't think we can avoid the projects. But they can be exciting projects all the same

May 3

Wow @Kulstad. that's awesome.

Is there legit interest in reviving these boards to their former glory? Don't tease me lol

May 3

17 minutes ago, Sarasti said:

Weber was not the best skater but overcame that with tenacity, a big body and that legendary slapshot.

If I remember correctly he also wasn't more than average defensively until his mid 20s. Which helps perpetuate the idea that defensive instincts can be taught later on, but being gifted in other areas cannot.

Man I miss Weber. Fun guy to watch.

Nothing to learn from that I am sure lol

May 2

31 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I dunno if that's the case all the time, if it was that easy guys would learn it. phaneuf's downfall was that he felt the team should be happy with him as is and he wasn't willing to grow beyond that.

if they're willing to learn, or are able to pick it up is one thing, but you waste a pick if they don't catch on. Similar with E. Poirier, he had all kinds of speed, but wasn't able to put it to use. He was a goal scorer, but when shutting it down he had nothing else.

It's never clear cut, you take a risk either way for sure.

Phaneuf is interesting because we're at the 10 year mark, and a little past.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10084254-re-drafting-patrice-bergeron-and-the-top-10-from-the-historic-2003-nhl-draft

https://www.sportsnet.ca/2010/20-years-of-hindisight-the-great-2003-nhl-re-draft/

on the other hand Phaneuf is not interesting in the sense that he had a whole lot of unrelated off-ice issues.

Basically in a redraft, he's unchanged. Would we have drafted him again knowing what we do now? Hell no. But assuming all the other teams also had hindsight, we wouldn't have gotten much better in that spot.

It was a very low scoring era for D. No 30-goal scoring defencemen to compare to. So sadly, the "wait 10 years and look at the redraft) is also frought with difficulties. but adjusting, generally the D who could put the puck in the net did better. Just, 15 goals was a lot back then instead of 30.

Not a lot of strike-outs that year. but, the ones that did strike out are interesting.

Brayden Coburn: 6'5 giant, with great defensive intelligence and skating.
-Couldn't score a goal to save his life
-NHL career was same. Loads learned these skills later and surpassed him.

Beware the giant mature players in the top 10 who can't score. We have a few of them this year, and most will probably go onto have long NHL careers. The question is, will they be remarkable.

The real story of that draft, the big learning, is how Weber got drafted so low imho

May 2

12 hours ago, cberg said:

Heard a radio interview of Wranglers’ Jeremie Poirier, talking about his draft-eligible brother, Justin R shot RW in the Q. 51 goals… 2/3 rounder?

181 lbs at 5'8? That's no Gaudreau. That's a low center of gravity.

16 goals in 12 playoff games?

RHS?

I think you take him for sure if he's available in the 2nd round. Really don't know if he will be. just based on stats, of course. bit of a qmjhl deduction.

The guys who show that level of skill, and then Raise it come playoff time, that's special.

I say you take him. For every 5 of these guys you draft, 4 will never amount to anything, but the 1 that does will change everything.

So draft 5 of them.

May 2

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

We'll get a solid prospect. Then complain about who we should have taken instead. lol

May 2

6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Parekh... based on highlights and limited viewing, his wrist shot is unreal. Will give Cole Eiserman a run for best wrist shot in this draft. He's a great skater with the puck and loves to jump up on the play.

Defensively, he plays average X's and O's. No elite vision and makes average reads. Average awareness. He's very soft too. Only stick checks. He plays no-contact hockey. Below average intensity in the defensive zone. Gets tricked easily by criss crossing opponents. Loses assignments and coverage. Just stands around and watching the puck sometimes.

Parekh is the most high risk high reward in the top 10 because he could put up Erik Karlsson type offense but also Erik Karlsson type defense... And if the offense doesn't translate to the NHL level, then you are left with an Erik Karlsson without the offense.

I question the defensive vision, many aspects of defense, like position can be taught and instructed. Very hard to convince me that this guy isn't talented enough to learn it.

Is he high risk high reward? yeah.

When you've got the picks that we do, and you know only the top 5 will be near guaranteed stars, you have to take that high risk high reward. have to.

6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Yakemchuk... I sort of agree with conundrum that he's nearly a year older than his draft class. He SHOULD dominate and in many ways, he does. But since he's a year older than most prospects, then perhaps his growth trajectory is lower. Yet, his game needs more growing.

I think he's a Jacob Trouba comparable. They both bring the rough stuff, hits, fights, RHS RD, and aren't super slick skaters or anything. Both aren't high end shut down D but instead, some type of hybrid enforcer but does a bit of everything else at an above average level. Yakemchuk has a greater/smarter shot from the point and could be a PP mainstay at the NHL level.

I think we're looking at a 2/3/4 D on the depth chart. Like Trouba, he's not Elite but he's going to be an excellent complement to a D core because of his rare combination of size and skill. I'm not sad if we pick him but it also depends who else is available.

Well, I see it as a half-truth. He's 6 months older than Parekh, as an example. He's got that extra season in junior, yes, but with very limited minutes. I see this mattering maybe slightly more with forwards. But with D, their development is so much further out I think it really loses its relevance. You're looking for trajectory and you're looking for no plateauing. Here's the thing. Of these 7 or so D that we think are special in this draft, about half of them will show zero improvement next year. basically. Just how it goes. And whoever drafted that half will get a little nervous. Dude's showing an insane improvement curve.

If we can all agree on one thing here, it's that the current draft eligibility ages are ridiculous. We wouldn't be having 90% of these debates if they just pushed the ages out a year like a normal sports league.

May 1

51 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

It doesn't really say much about their scouting, other than the fact they picked those picks at those draft positions. What were the players rankings? Ok, they draft well. It isn't actually saying what they say, that there is something telling about their picks?

they like their centers

May 1

55 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Well, you named one. lol Parekh is the last guy that I want us to take. Unless you're moving him to wing. Because there is no way on this green earth that he's going up against the opposition's top 3, more likely, top 6.

He is getting overrated. He literally sucks at playing D.

There. I said it.

He plays D to start rushes, he doesn't play D to, you know, play D.

If you'd replaced those 2 with Buium, Dickinson or Silayev I'd have left it alone.

You're way off track.

Yakemchuk. How many times do we need to hear, "great skater for his size"? If you have to add the, "for his size", you've got yourself a not-great skater. That catchphrase is debilitating. lol

You're a great skater or you're not.

it was strange seeing hockey players in person. that ice is very cold. the seats lack cushions.

1/5 stars.

Your assessment is solid, it comes down to what we want in a 1st rounder.

We're totally on the same page here, because I would be fine with moving Parekh to wing. Lord knows we'll need a decent RW. I have zero interest in solving our defensive woes solely in the draft. Especially 1st round. That's trades, coaching, development. He is a +39 lol. Whatever he is doing it is working, on both ends of the ice. The reality of the situation is that he may Not be playing D, or the kind you want to see, but that is a choice either him or his coach is making.

Here's the thing. I'm not looking at this in terms of team building next year. I'm looking at it with cold hard asset value. Kid is talented, more talented than the others. By a lot. Can he play D? At 17 I do not care.

At 19, I start to care. And if I'm not seeing any improvement I am trading him and I am getting a massive, massive return. Or I'm moving him to wing. lol. When does he need to be good at D? Literally in 10 years. I want him to be good at D when he is 27. Although I would want to see yearly improvement to keep him in the org.

Yakemchuk

Was Giordano a great skater at 17?

You remember our fun with MacInnis's skating? sending him back to school lol?

You know who was a great skater? Kylington. the man, the legend. great skater.

Kid's got an insane trajectory. His rate of improvement is way beyond these other guys. I don't care what his skating is like right now, I care how it is compared to last year.

You take the kid with vision, skill, and a demonstrable ability to rapidly improve. That's Yakemchuk by miles. Tij too actually.

May 1

8 hours ago, The_People1 said:

I'm not worried about Iginla. I hope he gets taken before our pick so we don't have to deal with the controversy.

I'm worried about,

MTL - Silayev

Utah - Buium

OTT - Parekh

SEA - Dickinson

This means all the "top D" are gone. Catton, Iginla, and Eiserman are on the board for the Flames at 9. Do the Flames "reach" for Yakemchuk/Jiricek if we want D?

I am starting to think that there may actually only be three elite D in the draft.

Levshunov, Parekh. Yakemchuk.

Not willing to put a list together yet, but if I were to narrow it down today, it's these 3. One of these 3 (Yakemchuk), and possibly 2 of them, will drop to us.

I read on here that Yakemchuk may not have the same elite-skill ceiling as the others. But his stats say otherwise. Due only to proximity, I did something I would never normally do. I very briefly put my keyboard and phone down long enough to watch him play.

He's elite. Straight up.

I ask myself how could we miss elite right under our nose. I am reminded of Makar.

I really believe that of the D available in that ranking right now, there are only 3 currently demonstrating 1st line potential on great teams, and it's those 3. Of the 3, Yakemchuk has the most warts (call it defensive intelligence if you must). All his warts are teachable and removable. But his ceiling is as high or possibly even higher than the other 2. I would have no problems taking him with our pick and I don't think it's a reach.

I think we're looking at Tij and Yakemchuck in our spot, both essentially Calgarians, which is very cool. And I don't think we can go wrong with either one. I think both are Still under-rated with standout trajectories. But rarely does the draft go as planned. Someone will drop, or we will win lotto... much remains unknown.

April 30

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Lousy team, he's still the shortest in his fam by a few inches. Freij and Mews are both borderline 1st rders, Fischer will be in the late 2nd - early 3rd, so not the same range. Dallas pick to our 3rd. Someone will be getting great potential with Fischer. Too funny if it's Detroit. "Sorry son, you were next on our list, honestly".

If he's still available in the 3rd I would do it. I just don't expect him to be because there's always a GM who will be like "big mature player, he'll pay off before I get fired" and draft him early.

April 30

45 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Way more interested in Wings kids. lol

Especially when they're the youngest in the draft, not the oldest:

https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/692910/lukas-fischer

you are super optimistic on 6th round availability yo 😅

I take him in the 6th round for sure. But, for where they're ranked,

This guy, and Dickinson come across as guys who have matured early (even if they're young). 6'3 - 6'4, built, basically men, looking good against children, but still can't...score.

Defensive instincts are super important, but can be taught. I'm on the same page with you regarding the importance of D, but seen a lot of 1st and 2nd round mis-fires drafting guys who can't quite put it together offensively against kids despite massive physical and maturity advantages. Seider upside yes. But not guaranteed and nothing higher. High likelihood of making the NHL but low likelihood of becoming impact players.

In that range, these kids look way more skilled with higher ceilings even if maturity-wise they're further behind. And they're not even in the amjhl lol.
https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/618996/alfons-freij
https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/577193/henry-mews

I'll straight up ask....is it possible to watch certain leagues/teams too much? And start to rate some kids higher there as you do? I think/hope Conroy would say yes, if he looked back on some picks from 2023.

April 30

4 hours ago, conundrumed said:

It's what we do. lol

Hard to not be over-excitable when we have picks for a change! And we're trending towards actually utilizing draft picks as more than trade fodder. What a concept!!

It's actually a very exciting time. We are for sure a bit over-excited in what by all accounts is not a very strong draft, but we have every reason to be over-excited, and all it really means is that we have to "get it right". Even weak drafts have the same winners if you do the homework.

A lot of people felt like "making the playoffs" was the standard where we could sleep at night. And we'd trade so many picks to make that happen each year. I never felt any pride in this, it felt like buying an old Corvette at a shady used car dealer using a lien on their parents house.

I seen this debate on here many times over many years, but for me, pride is when we are meaningfully contributing to the future of hockey at and elite and at a community level. Come the 2024 draft, we will be front and centre and not just in the top 10. If we "get it right", and we let those kids develop properly, it sends us on a whole different path that I can sleep at night with and feel the City is more deserving of.

There was always some fear on here that if the Flames didn't make the playoffs all the fans would disappear. On the contrary, I have some strong feels that this next phase will bring back a lot of people who maybe weren't the loudest but know when they see something worth their free time.

April 29

23 hours ago, cross16 said:

Good on the Wranglers. I'll look forard to checking out a game or two.

William Strongren really starting to heat up and show what the Flames liked about him.

April 29

@conundrumed I got an idea for some of your 30 6th rounder picks this year, since you were desperately looking for scouts there.

My inspiration was your love of recruiting sons of former Flames, like Tij.

https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/599383/lucas-st-louis

For serious though, who is the Gold Standard in undrafted late-bloomers? And the gold standard in exceptions to the size rule?

Now look at what the kids are doing and their trajectory. Most notably Lucas. Mason too early to tell. I won't pretend that they are their Dad. They aren't, this isn't a Tij story. But, interestingly, I came across Lucas quite by accident, looking for undrafted statistical anomalies in the USHL. The exact same kind of screen that would have picked up their Dad. Lucas was at the top of it.

April 29

8 hours ago, Sarasti said:

I take draft comparables with a grain of salt.

Hell, Yakupov was compared to Pavel Bure back in 2012 and we all know how that turned out.

I couldn't stand Yakupov. But that aside, I do believe he was an extremely talented player. Injuries have historically played a major role in "bust" players. Most specifically concussions, but also knees. Yakupov had both.

By rights, he is a classic example of rushing a player into the NHL ASAP. He was quite good his first year but a 5'10 18 year old being put into the situations he was? And brought back on the ice as quickly as he was after injuries? He was clearly never the same after that. It was a very Oilers thing to do.

The next 5'10 Russian sensation, Michkov, will most likely fair much differently. If he ever makes it over sigh. He's been given time to develop that he otherwise may not have, and develop he has, injury-free as his frame fills in and his smarts mature.

In a redraft that year, I would take him #1 or #2 overall, with consideration to Forsberg. Forsberg, btw, who was 6'1 and afforded 2 years of development first.

April 27

On 4/24/2024 at 11:22 AM, travel_dude said:

Can't remember how long ago I had suggested we would end up with 81 points.

A lot of my threads were emergency basis, since it's nice to comment somewhere about the game on.

I can't recall if I did or said anything to the team to have them lose more than half the games I posted.

I can neither confirm nor deny this allegation.

https://golf.com/news/charlie-woods-shoots-81-us-open-local-qualifier

time is on our side.

April 26

21 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Keep in mind, these are just the player rankings. It doesn't take into consideration team needs... Like, I'm sure one of OTT or UTAH is going to pick Parekh. They want/need RHS RD. Levshunov, no way falls past those two teams. ANA probably takes Levshunov at #3 due to team needs.

SEA and CGY should both take a D due to team needs as well.

April 26

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I'm a bit bias for these guys because I know a few of their scouts from different rinks.

First thing that you'll notice is that they don't follow party lines. They're a good group of guys though and do a fair amount of midget scouting also. So a lot of players aren't new to them.

https://smahtscouting.com/2024/04/07/spring-2024-nhl-draft-rankings-1/

Thank you for this,

To my shock, I am extremely aligned with the vast majority of this list. Although I'm not gonna put my own list on here until much later. They put a value to skill, they didn't see as much elite D as others, they have Tij pegged where I have him pegged (at this moment). They consider Europeans/Russians. But their criteria is more evolved than "plays in pro league cause big".

damn.

The only initial thing that jumped out at me as odd, was Yakemchuck at #20. I thought that was a bit more of a bump-down than I expected, and the review was all "rising fast", without any reasoning for why he'd be that low.

but yeah. I like it.

April 26

April 26

6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

I guess what disappoints me the most is that he said "Dallas" but Dallas didn't win a Cup. So are we mimicking models that bounce back into the playoffs quickly but don't necessarily win Cups? But ya, maybe DAL wins a Cup here this year. Still possible. We shall see.

You don't think....there's any chance at all, he's referring to Niewendyk? It would have been a prominent thing for him when he entered the league. In any case, I don't really care what he says, because he's surely smart enough to not show his hand. I somehow believe he's quite good at compartmentalising conversations and which one goes where. Or he probably wouldn't be able to maintain all the relationships that he does.

April 25

13 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Conroy mentioned the Dallas model.

If the Flames want to fast-track the rebuild, they're probably going to look like LA.

Like the Flames, the Kings had some very good veterans when the team entered it's decline. Better veterans, hall of famers in fact.

The core of the Cup teams got old. The Kings ended up picking top ten for three straight years and top eleven in four of five drafts. The Flames look to be trending that way.

The Kings return to relevance hasn't really been due to their drafting and development. It's been due to (primarily) Kopitar and Doughty still playing well and the organization speeding things along by trading picks and young players for immediate help. Dubois/Arvidsson/Fiala/Gavrikov. They traded a likely Calder finalist in Brock Faber.

On the surface, there's nothing really wrong with the LA model. They've had good regular seasons and made the playoffs three consecutive years. Something Calgary hasn't done since the Iggy/Kipper era.

The LA model is really a matter of philosophy. Do you want to be a playoff team, or do you want to be a contender? LA is a playoff team. They're nowhere near a threat in the West. If you're an owner you're probably ok with your two or three home playoff dates a season. LA relies so heavily on Doughty and Kopitar, when they decline/retire, I think they are a team in no-mans land. I like Byfield but he's not a Kopitar and I like Clarke but he's no Doughty. Because they elected to speed things up, they've traded a lot of futures and haven't drafted all that well recently. They sped it up and it worked, it's just not something built to last IMO.

Very well said.

I would not personally be okay with the LA model, we need a cup. However....

I do think....when you go into a draft, you need to be really honest and say "are we good at drafting this year?"

If for whatever reason the answer is no, sell those picks. But, fix it for next year.

April 25

55 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

That's fair. Conroy can't say the Flames are going to clean house and trade everybody because that just causes every player to feel disenfranchised and you lose trust with the players.

Unfortunately, it's going to get ugly for a year or two before it gets better.

Yeah I am not overly concerned with what Conroy says, but quite interested in what he does.

"Our assets have little value" is something he is unlikely to say nor do I ever want him to say , even if it's true.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Videos

Events

Gallery

Posts posted by jjgallow