jjgallow
-
Posts
9,032 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
79
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by jjgallow
-
-
4 hours ago, conundrumed said:
I remember looking into this with others quite some time ago. I was quite shocked to see studies.
Imo, it can be improved by optometrists focusing on what you want to accomplish, how to train your eyes type-thing. But it still comes down to how quickly you can process, or more generally, hockey IQ. Then your teammates kinda feed off of what you're doing.
I was quite taken aback at how no stone gets left unturned in studies, though.
https://www.ovpjournal.org/uploads/2/3/8/9/23898265/3-2-5.pdf
"45% of players had never had an eye exam"
wow
lol. That is a cool study, thanks for sharing.
Would not be surprised if 20 years from now vision is actually taught from a young age. Probably by another name.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, The_People1 said:
"Good players go to where the puck is.
Great players go to where the puck is going to be." - Great One
There is no standard measure but you just have to watch the kids play. Making fakes and smart hesitations is all part of having vision... Because you see one second into the future, you want to fake a pass/shot and hang onto the puck one second longer for that play to develop. Buying time, etc.
Vision without the puck as well. Understanding who is about to receive a pass or how a puck is about to bounce off the glass. Make adjustments to positioning in anticipation.
I agree it's arguably the most important attribute to have but it's hard to measure properly. The obvious ones are ranked top 5 prospects. Some mid-rounders do have vision but maybe too skinny or too short at 17 to attract the eyes of scouts and coaches.
This is why the best Oilers players always skate towards their own net
-
1
-
-
Often we see and hear about players who have great "vision".
It's not well defined. But....I think it should be a major factor in rankings. Maybe higher than skating and shot. After all, best player to ever play the game relied almost entirely on this.
I feel like some players have it and others don't. That it's not very teachable.
Or probably more accurately, we don't yet know how to teach it effectively. If there are coaches who are exceptions to this rule, we should definitely hire them lol
-
19 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
Willing to invest in a 10 year rebuild is no longer considered a fan of a team?
100%
Means nothing if you can't do 10.5 years
-
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:
Trues. Sutter squeezed so much out of so little. Flames weren't ready for him. He was the wrong hire at the wrong time. But great coach.
wrong time for sure yes.
-
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:
There's that regular season "win now" mode kicking in. Hopefully he fully recovers. They're certainly not the only team in this boat.
Usually by round 3, half the teams are on backup goalies.
-
1 hour ago, Thebrewcrew said:
I think LA is being really overlooked. I didn't like them last night, but it's only game one. They've been right there with the Oilers the past two years. Lead 3-2 in 2022, in 2023 they were an OT goal away from a 3-1 lead.
VAN is in trouble without Demko. I don't think DeSmith can steal a game.
I've seen a lot of "Edmonton has a cakewalk to the conference final". That is definitively not true. The past two goalies to eliminate the Oilers have been backups.
I would be shocked if they get past the Kings. Even after that 1st game.
I would be double shocked if they succeeded in the 2nd round.
Even in that first game... you just don't succeed in the playoffs letting 4 goals fly by you.
-
man.
Congrats to.... @cross16?
If I read this correctly.
I don't think I've ever been so destroyed in one of these before. I really should have read how the points system worked lol. I figured I nailed it. nearly got the (Flames) standings right. Correctly guessed they wouldn't make playoffs. But no nearly dead last lol 😅.
Starting to wonder if I should have read the instructions
-
21 hours ago, conundrumed said:
Thank you. I agree. We have a solid scouting team that actually scouts in real life, not by internet opinions from god knows who. The internet is a great place to find precisely the slanted echo chamber that fits your preconceived notion.
I would hope they are doing both scouting and analysis. My guess is they are.
21 hours ago, conundrumed said:I'll add Conroy's also done a swell job of shoring up the NHL scouting dept.
And as you alluded to, we just haven't had enough picks in the past. That's in the past.
Lots of reasons to be optimistic right now. I prefer to be optimistic because of reasons, not for the sake of being optimistic. Right now, I am. In general, optimistic. And a tentative fan of Conroy (check back after the draft).
Shoring up the scouting dept is big. The addition and serious scouting of Russians, as one example, is big.
Not everything is perfect. our draft selection, and failure to trade Markstrom stand out as the big two there. Doesn't mean Conroy is a slouch because I have seen lots of positives that outweigh this. But there's also no reason to turn a blind eye to it. Pointing it out doesn't mean we hate Markstrom, or Honzek. Just means we are being honest and transparent. Because everyone sees it including you. And nobody's giving up on Honzek, nor should anyone here need constant reassurance of that.
21 hours ago, conundrumed said:The staff aren't a bunch of slack-jawed yokels. Some folks should try harder to not embarrass themselves.
I think some people here just get low on sleep is all.
21 hours ago, conundrumed said:Re Honzek and the, "shoulda taken Sandin-Pellikka" crowd. I very highly doubt the Wings org will remove him from the SHL next year. He still has a ways to go. When he does come over, he'll be in the A for at least a season. There are no shortcuts. 2 years out at very best. I'm sure that we can afford Honzek that kind of leeway also.
This is as it should be and hopefully not a revelation for anyone here. Nor is it in any way relevant to who we should have drafted. Not even part of that conversation. Anyone we draft should be afforded time. Pretty straightforward. Let's keep that in mind when we take our top 10 pick this summer.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, The_People1 said:
Very same feeling as when the Flames hired Darryl Sutter the second time. Go with what worked ages ago.
I personally think Sutter did amazingly well with what he had lol. As a coach, that is.
But I'm equally bewildered by Ruff.
Still wonder if we have staff or players to poach from Buffalo. Nothing really pops out for me other than Dahlin.
Maybe Power? I was never a fan of him though.
Komarov?
amazingly i see very little that we need, other than their draft picks.
-
19 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:
To be fair, they didn't draft Giordano either.
Love.
Yup. Don't get me wrong, I will be very cool drafting a D in the top ten. But we should be on this all the time, any way we can.
I say we don't have an elite D prospect. But, what i mean, is a high probability one. We do have some potential surprises, like Brzustewicz. We just need more.
-
46 minutes ago, conundrumed said:
Alternatively, perhaps we just won't care.
there's a first for everything
-
33 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Clearly, I don't recall my reaction when we drafted him. It's not important what my initial reaction was, since I am not an expert when it comes to player drafts. Would I have preferred a center? No doubt. Only 2 players taken after him have played single NHL games each. In 2021 we got Coronato, while Wyatt Johnson was ranked below him. I think we would have been happy with him.
It's way to early to do a redraft of 2023.
2020 draft? Nobody after Zary is really blowing the doors off.
I'm not seeing the big reaches or poor drafting in the 1st round.
you guys are so mush lol. it's cute.
When they draft Tij, I'm gonna make a Huge thread about how horrible of a pick it was and force you all to defend him lol
-
42 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
When is the last time a young elite D was moved?
Well there's Fox and Hamilton 😅
-
55 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
We need to come out of this retool with minimum one #1 Center and one #1 D. If it takes 3 years in the basement, then do it. Whatever it takes.
my guess is 5-7. and I'm okay with that.
-
3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
When was the last time we drafted an overrated player in the first round?
Last decade, under a GM that made a bunch of miscalculations?
Clutch pearls and you will be okay.
that's only because if we talk about anything other than last decade, the response is "way too soon to make a call"
that's all fine but I remember your reaction to Honzek quite clearly.
-
12 minutes ago, conundrumed said:
Give a guy a chance much?
dude Ortio is still NHL bound, just late bloomer. wait for it.
-
General comment:
There is a lot of talk about how important it is for us to draft an elite D this year.
IMHO, while that's possible, it should actually be more in this topic. The hard nuts of it is, we need to Acquire an elite young D prospect. Quite frankly, two of them would be better, if we set our sights a little higher.
IMHO, the draft is only One way to do this, and if it happens that would be nice, but I really believe the focus at draft time should be "not screwing up". Because for sure, in that top list of D, there are more than a few future duds. We simply need to get the right guy. Whatever position. We need to get the guy that we think will go highest in a redraft 10 years from now.
The need for an elite D is a Real issue, but I don't think it should influence the draft decision in any way unless there is a literal tie between two players. Of course D always imho should be rated a little higher than they are at the draft, but that's a separate convo.
I feel like we should be looking at it like this:
We should be actively pursuing an elite D. And quite frankly should already have them by now, easily before the TDL. We should be actively pursuing it instead of just hoping for the draft. If we acquire an elite D and then we get another elite D at the draft, great. Then we would have two, and something to get really excited about.
We should always be looking to move players to get elite D prospects until we are good here.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, The_People1 said:
Worst case is all the D are gone and Catton falls and the Flames take Catton.
The worst case is the Flames pull a Honzek/Jankowski.
And based on recent history, it is also uncomfortably likely. Flames haven't got the 1st round right since 2016 imho.
You can debate 2017, 2020. And that's totally fine, not looking for a fight there.
But, the chances of them going completely and wildly off the board, are much higher than we'd like. Maybe in the 50% range based on recent.
We are all worried about drafting Tij, and that's a debate for sure, but at the end of the day, I'm worried about drafting a guy rated in the 2nd round lol. We should all just lower our expectations a bit and pray that they do something reasonable with the pick.
-
1
-
-
On 4/20/2024 at 1:36 PM, The_People1 said:
And don't forget 2026 is McKenna's draft year. What a convenient time to have no one who can play at the NHL level for that draft year.
Let's have a multi-year plan for once.
I wonder actually if 2027 could be an even better year. Highly unlikely, but if any team does massively struggle for 2 years in a row you could end up the makings of a modern day dynasty.
-
5 hours ago, conundrumed said:
What about Nashville? Tennessee/Georgia/Kentucky/Mrs Sippy aren't exactly hockey talent hotbeds I tell you what. Or is this purely for selfish reasons? lol
They get the Russians and Swedes and destroy everyone.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, robrob74 said:
would you have a salary cap in your system? If you're creating more stars, you fork out more money.I dunno. Haven't thought that far lol. But I think what you pay is a function of number of fans, not amount of stars. Obviously there is a relationship between the two.
I would like to think that such a system would generate more genuine interest in the sport, and thus more fans, thus more revenue.
I might be wrong. But I feel even in Canada there is room for a lot more growth.
-
6 hours ago, conundrumed said:
Only if you consider cool to be massively unfair. lol
Hamilton should happen. Do some limits, like one player a year. I dunno. I feel it could work better than it is now.
How could it possibly be more unfair than shipping them all off to Edmonton to be slaughtered?
-
18 hours ago, The_People1 said:
Because one player can't turn a whole franchise around in the NFL. Best QBs are usually found in later rounds.
NBA is arguably the most affected by 1 star player. They have a tanking problem too.
@cross16 alluded to this being something about nothing.
I would say, maybe, something about something else.
The reason the NFL and most leagues don't have this issue, is they don't draft 17 year olds.
This whole convo is about the problems around bad organisations drafting kids. Raising the age would solve more than half the problem.
-
1
-
GM Craig Conroy
in Flames Talk
Posted
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.