robrob74
-
Posts
14,359 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
58
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by robrob74
-
-
6 hours ago, jjgallow said:
Matvei Michkov
Connor Bedard
Kaden Galatiuk
Roman Turcotte
The identity of the current Flames, and more specifically current Flames management is not much now, but they will historically be known as the group that inadvertently ended up putting a Flames Jersey on one or more of the names above (as well as others we don't know of yet).
The Stanley Cup is making its way back to our Great City.
But we have another rebuild ahead of us to get there, and that rebuild will be what current players and management will be known for.
Patience. Gonna need it.
nope! I agree with what you’re saying as Gaudreau and possibly Monahan will not be here. We will be a one line team when that happens as there’s not a contingency plan yet. Where I don’t agree is that they will be willing to suck enough to get that low for the better players.
we needed another suck year and luck at the lottery.
-
18 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
There's never any guarantee that a drafted D will become that #1 for you.
Ras was a offensive machine in junior.
He's also been solid on the D side of things since he got here.
Kulak was not a top player here, and while I would have like to keep him, he isn't a big loss.
Many of those guys out there in drafts or in FA.
Really what we have is a few years before we know what players will be.
Kylington could figure it out, but he needs to be consistent.
He didn't have much of a chance at camp, but he needs to show up in practice.
At this point, he may be a #7, but that's a testament to who is above him.
Ras and Hanifin have room to grow.
First year Hanifin doesn't have leg irons attached to him; Tanev affords him stability.
Or Ras gives him a solid defensive player to pair with.
Fox, if you believe that he was ever going to play as a Flames, could have looked as good here or fade into just an offensive player.
As a Ranger, he's afforded top PP time.
In a deep defense, would he get that here?
Or on most teams?
I'm not saying he's crap, but you have to look at the big picture.
A lot of points (13) scored on the PP last year and 4 out of 5 this year.
yup! I don’t think Fox was ever coming here. But I will leave it at I just think a separate deal was what was needed, others see it as a good add to the deal.
I am like everyone on here that are Flames fans, I want the Flames to be the best team in the league. We all just debate how to get there. Lately, we’ve seen being the best doesn’t last very long. So I will settle for being one of the best on a consistent basis.
I think we’ve taken a step with Markstrom, we just need more time with this D core and hope it is also a bit better than last year.
I hope Valamaki can improve. He should. I see how good Tanev has been and just hope he stays healthy. -
24 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
Great to see so much discussion on what should pretty much be one of our top 2 most important threads, and I'm sorry I lost my cool lol, although if it helped kick things off maybe it had its purpose.
Anyway I'm not writing off our young defencemen by any means, but there's nobody who right now would be projected to be on the first line of a contender. That's all I'm saying. In fact, I seem to be the only one who thinks we're writing off Kylington Far too early. So I kind of feel I'm the only one Not writing off our young defencemen right now actually. Kylington like Many of our young prospects was mismanaged and promoted far too early. We'll see how things go there.
I see a Lot of rationalisation on here explaining moves we made etc.
Look here's the facts:
After our rebuild we had Two defencemen projected to be first line D on nearly any team (Hamilton and Fox). Plus we had Giordano and Brodie.
Since BT's moves the last few years, we have:
Zero defencemen who could play on the first line of a contender. Zero defencemen projected to ever do so.
We can rationalise all we want about how we did it on purpose, how it made sense in a moment in time, but facts are facts.
I think that Kylington is a player like Kulak. He needs a refresh with another team. We will have to walk away from Kylington in order for him to move on, or be a throw in on a deal, but I think he could be good #6 on a team as-is. I think the team has done great at drafting Andersson and Valamaki, but we need to get a few more first round D to get more chances at it. AND THAT's where I say, we shouldn't be trading away our 1st and 2nd rounders because we need them to turnover the roster... Kulak needed a place to play, and I think Kylington does too.
Would we like a Roman Josi? Yes, he was drafted in the 2nd round... How many more were? Our own Andersson was... I for one would have liked to draft a D in this previous draft, or a RWer, but I was hoping for another D to transition into the future. I think there were some really good D in our original draft position. Maybe they'd have only been projected as top 4 but top 4's are also a bit hard to draft. Hopefully Andersson continues to rise as Giordano did and we get a guy who is a 2/3 for a lot more years...
I think that's really where all of the talk has come from... Talking about how we get to a top pair D, how we lost one, and how do we draft or trade for them?
It's either instant gratification - Hamilton which cost us a lot, or it is a slower build? Either way we got here, we got two serviceable players and something out of Ferland... I think Ferland could have been worth more, but in the end he needed to change his game from a rough guy to a guy who has hands and some finesse. Which he did have. Poor kid though...
I've really started to lean toward using draft picks to draft players and now hate trading them away. The organization has been decent recently in the draft. I'd just like them to start expanding their player type a bit more. They find NHLers, but seem to be a certain type that we have too many of lately. Either that, they need to start investing in development more, or figure out ways to keep some players developing. It's on the players, but also on the team... I dont get why players like Bennett, Kylington and other stunt in their development, while others like Dube, Andersson and Mangiapane prosper... I have a feeling it is their drive... or lacktherof. But also, they got time in the AHL, while Kyller and Benny probably could have used more or some time there.
-
But now I would really think about going:
Giordano, Tanev - allows Gio to be a bit more offensive...
Hanifin, Andersson - Andersson has already shown he can play well with Hanifin
Valamaki, Nesterov - Valamaki seems to not quite be there, isn't playing poorly, but is just getting his feet wet. I was excited at the possibility of a Calder trophy, but he's not quite there, but has a bright future.
-
3 minutes ago, cross16 said:
And to be fair I was really upset about the deal at the time too. I was really high on Fox, as I was Hamilton, so to lose both in 1 trade was hard. As i said if I could have it my way both of them would still be playing for the Flames and i'd undo the deal if I could.
But once you analyze it I just think you realize that wasn't an option, so given all factors I think the Flames did well in the deal even if I would prefer to have both of those players instead.
I like Lindholm and I am on the fence about Hanifin. You're right, I would prefer to have the other two, but I think Lindholm does push the forward group a little deeper. We would be a touch deeper on the backend with Fox and Hamilton. We may still not have Brodie, but it does look a little deeper on the backend if the Flames could have kept them. The Flames have done well at drafting D, all things considered. I was suggesting the other day that we went a few years without drafting one more to highlight a bit of gap. Could they have turned into high end if we drafted one? I love Andersson, so you never know. But it would have been 5/6 homegrown D...
Here's the D if we were able to keep all of those at the time of that deal:
Giordano, Hamilton
Brodie, Fox
Valamaki, Andersson.
-
4 minutes ago, cross16 said:
so literally no one is saying that, nor anyone making Treliving out to being a god I agree that acquiring both of those players and locking them up long term was a gamble on his part as there is no way of knowing, these are people so futures are never certain, they were going to improve. It's a gamble but a pretty calculated one when you are looking at 2 players who were both top 5 picks fairly recently (at the time) and that is why draft position is relevant. There were plenty of people, even the Canes coach Brind'Amour, at the time who said that in a different situation Lindholm could blossom. It was a risk but IMO a very smart one given the pedigree and skills shown and it warranted locking them up at a fair number and one that any GM should get credit for. Many people, including some on this board, wanted to bridge them so it's also not like he made what was an obvious decision.
And I only brought this into the discussion because it seems like many seem to think Adam Fox was just thrown in for the heck of it, or that his value is a big swing in the deal. Fox was worth 2 2nd rounders on his own, and I happen to believe very strongly that the cost certainty that the Flames acquired and the contract flexibility they gained, are well worth 2 2nd rounders.
That is very fair. And I think it's where we really differ. Because I just think that Fox should have been traded on his own. He'd probably only get a 2nd rounder for us, but I still think that the Flames would have done decently just to get that extra pick, especially since I think they've gotten more confident in the way they were drafting. Hamilton was a good player. For some reason didn't fit in here, which I think is just because he's a strange kid, likes his alone time, but also seems very fun in Carolina. Maybe the Flames are too business-like? But I think he should still have garnered more... or got what we got what was deserved in those players all in the deal, aside from Fox...
When I heard that Fox was in the deal at the time, I felt a tad gutted. All I knew were stories that he was a good D, so what do I know? But just from all accounts, thought he should be on a deal on its own. And we now know that his projections were legitimate.
Am I happy with the trade overall, Yes, I am now. I just now forget Fox being in the deal.
And yes, good on BT for gambling. ANd I think that's the GM's job to. He has won and lost on his gambles, and those contracts were good ones to. They paid off, particularly Lindholm's.
-
10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Well, I don't think we can look at salaries back then and suggest that they were overpaid.
The market was set.
Look at any top 6 C/RW re-signed back then.
And that's what I am saying. He was getting paid that because he was a 2nd liner and he was averaging 2nd liner numbers. Like I edited in the last post, he scored 39, 39, 45 and 44 points. They had modest jumps, and he wasn't improving fast enough for the Hurricanes. That's all I am saying. Do I think it's great that he's on this amazing contract. YES. We will all have differing views on trades and their value. I am just saying, to make BT out to be this god for signing them to these contracts is wrong in my opinion. He signed them to what they were worth at the time of the signing, and I think were betting on some improvements. They caught one with a big jump and the other with modest top4...
Were they going to improve, yes. Do I think one of them is on an amazing contract, yes!
But also to suggest, top 5 or 6 in a draft automatically makes them amazing players is wrong. We are finding that out ourselves in Bennett, and then there's Yakupov, Puljujarvi, Hanifin, Reinhart, and so on. A few of them are good players, but 3 of them are total busts!
-
1 minute ago, travel_dude said:
We traded a struggling #1D, who barely surpassed Gio in points when he was here.
He has issues in his time here.
Playing defense was one of them.
Gio managed to hit 74 points and 31, while Dougie had 39 and 40 points since he left here.
Not trashing him, just saying he wasn't the stud we are making him out to be.
I get that. But at the time, top pair D were/are worth a lot. THey're very rarely available. What he does after he leaves calgary has nothing to do with Calgary anymore. It's what he did when he was here. Look at Subban and Weber. Everyone thought the Canadiens were idiots to trade Subban for an aging Weber. Who's laughing now?
I look at it this way. If Carolina knew Lindholm would turn out the way he did in Calgary, do you think they'd have traded him? I am sure they saw value in him, but I don't think they saw #1C at the time.
I don't think that Marcus Naslund gets traded out of Pittsburgh if they knew what he'd become in Vancouver. The Hurricanes got what they wanted out of the deal, a top pair D. And traded a guy (Hanifin) who wasn't needed there anymore and a C who was averaging about 40 points or less per year. He had two years at 39 points and then the next two were 44 and 45 points. While he made a modest jump, it wasn't that big.
-
6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Many players with similar results were signed for more than we paid.
Reinhart was paid more and signed short term, and he's up for another raise.
We paid Ras almost as much as Hanifin, and that's for potential.
D get paid. Young D get paid.
We locked up two potential break out players for less than $5m.
One is already showing that potential, and he was underused in CAR.
Ya, and he was underused by the very coach that the Flames had when they traded for Lindholm.
All I am saying is that the numbers that they were getting stats-wise is the number used to sign their contracts. In fact, I think they signed a bit higher than what they were actually worth to make up for some modest improvements. Then it turned out that Lindholm got better than what those improvements were projecting at the time. So yes, that's great! But that was probably the reason Carolina didn't keep them. They weren't willing to pay that little extra that the Flames could afford.
I still don't think Hanifin is that great!. He might be playing a bit better this year. Maybe he just needed a better partner all of these years.
-
3 minutes ago, JTech780 said:
Calgary got a number 1 two way center (small sample size warning), and a defenseman who led the team in ice time last year, both making under $5m. Both of whom, as Cross said, were under 24 years old and were top 5 picks. What exactly is the issue with that trade?
They gave up a defenseman, who IMO is largely over rated, and by all accounts wasn't a fit in the locker room, a 3rd line winger with serious injury issues and a prospect who was never going to sign in Calgary.
I would say it was very good asset management by Treliving, especially because after this season Carolina probably won't have any of the players they acquired in the organization, and Calgary will still have two high value assets on cost effective contracts.
At the time, they were average players with average numbers. And Hamilton was a #1 right shot D. It's great to look at it now and see it hindsight. But whenever we look at other trades or signings, hindsight isn't allowed? Come-on with the double standards here!
It's not like Lindholm was Taylor Hall at the time.
-
6 minutes ago, cross16 said:
I'm sorry this makes no sense to me. They traded for 2 guys who were under the age of 24, top 5 picks and there was no indication they could get better? There is no credit to the organization for locking up 2 young players long term that had talent which turned into good contracts? They could have easily bridged them.
It's fair to say that Lindholm exceeded expectations to a certain degree, but that doesn't diminish the fact they acquired a lot of cost certainty in the deal.
No No, I am saying at the time they had average numbers in their careers. There was no lock for them to play at higher levels. Bennett is a top 5 pick too, and is he going to get better? Maybe, but not on the Flames. Hanifin is still a very average defensemen. He's not the kind of D that you're going to win a cup with.
I didn't say that they didn't acquire any cost certainty. All I said was that to be fair that they were players that had average numbers. All of the talk from reporters were that Hanifin sucks and it was a dumb idea to trade for him and Lindholm could improve, but has shown to be average in his career to that point. Which meant that he hadn't reached expectations. THat's all I was implying. BT made a good bet on their contracts, more so on Lindholms. I still don't really like Hanifin. He plays fine, but I'd be happier if he was just a little bit cheaper for what he brings. He has a decent first pass but tends to make errors that even though he's a great skater, he can't skate himself out of. Maybe he still has room to improve. It just hasn't shown so far.
-
29 minutes ago, cross16 said:
I don't think the win-lose component is that important. If we really want to keep score I actually think it was a really fair trade where both teams got what they wanted.
The only thing that I think people continue to miss in this deal, and what drives me crazy when people say Fox shouldn't have been in the deal, is ignoring the impact of contracts. Hamilton is probably going to sign for almost what Hanifin and Lindholm make combined. The contract value that Lindholm and Hanifin provide the Flames is easily worth the 2 2nds that Fox netted the Canes when they dealt him.
It also ignores that the trade had to happen. Fox wasn't signing here and it's been pretty well documented that Hamilton wasn't happy here either. In a perfect world, heck ya give me Hamilton and Fox over Lindholm and Hanifin but perfect worlds rarely exist.
well, to be fair, their contracts were what they were worth at the time they signed them. They were both average players at the time. Lindholm didn’t pan out until he played with the Flames. Maybe that’s usage and being a team player. Hanifin also is bout right and maybe even overpriced for what he provides. He’s an average 4th D probably making about .5-1.0M too much. There’s nothing special about him.
there was no indication that Lindholm was becoming this player when we got him. If there was, he’d have held out for more money.
-
I agree on Fox, he needed to be a deal on its own. I get there’s no signing here, but get what he was worth. I would’ve dealt directly with NYR.
that trade was near fair without him in it, and an overpayment with him. I actually thought it was Carolina who needed to add, especially if Fox was in the deal.
I get it, it is beaten to death!
Speaking of bearing a trade to death, I just read an old article on SN about why Gilmour was traded. He opened up and the arbitrator awarded in favour of Gilmour and it pissed Riser off so he dealt him.
Gilmour just had a few points and then was going to go play for team Canada. It sounds like he was pretty hurt and excited to almost have a dynasty. Too bad we didn’t keep Cliff.
someone just said trade the GM and then get him to trade their best. Similar idea but...
-
57 minutes ago, sak22 said:
He didn't draft one in 2018 and 2019, but tell me who would be a top 4 and a difference maker right now that we could've drafted, and ignore the beaten to death Hamonic trade. He had no chance on Heiskenen, Makar or Dahlin, even if he didn't make the Hamilton or Hamonic trades he had no chance on Hughes, Werenski or Provorov. So what, don't draft Sam Bennett and take Hadyn Fleury instead, take Sergachev instead of Tkachuk, no thanks. But again who were the high end d that he inherited, the guys drafted in the 2008-2012 are the guys in their primes right now. Those years produced Brodie and Kulak, and thats it. But lets blame all the defense issues on BT.
well, there’s also not doing the total rebuild the way some have thought we should have, or how some other teams have. Sure it hasn’t worked for the Oilers or the Sabres. But we were in that position in those rebuild years where we should have been bad enough to draft those players you talked about. You’re cherry picking draft years here as well. There were other times they missed out on drafting players, or trading picks when they should keep them.
a few on here think we should have gone a different rebuild instead of trying to hop a few steps. We missed on Bennett (a poor draft year anyway) but hit on Tkachuk.
I get what you’re saying but there’s a reason teams tank. Heiskanen was a top 3 or 4 pick. Some are high picks others not as high.
that’s your and other’s opinions on how to build a contender but only a few of us believe otherwise.
we got a good one in Andersson, got a good one in Brodie but let him go. Probably should have kept Hamilton. It cost us the opportunity at a true #1C, but that is hindsight.
-
I am loving what I see from Andersson and he has probably been the best Flames player all year! I would give the nods to him, Tanev and Markstrom. Lindholm has been good, and so has Tkachuk. But they still haven’t fully taken over a game. They’ve had stretches. Johnny and Monny have been good to, mostly.
but I would say beats have been the first bunch mentioned. I think it is a decent sign for a team that has been slow out of the gates. Usually it is only Bennett skating in the first handful of games.
-
3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Wow, pretty negative about Andersson already.
Is he a Pietrangelo yet? Of course not.
This is the first year where he is being used in the top 4 full time.
Not exactly bad results so far.
I am not negative on Andersson at all. I am loving what he is doing and bringing. He isn’t a #1D. I think he’s an excellent #3 and a good #2. He has been awesome on the PP.Even though they’re doing well, I think they could be better, and that’s because of how they set up or where they have certain players.
If it were up to me I would put lindholm at the LW dot and Johnny where he is. Play Monny in front and Tkachuk below the goalie line. They’re moving it well but lack the one timer shooter. Putting Lindholm over on the left might open up Tkachuk for a shot too.
but Andersson has been great! We are just talking about what we think a contender looks like. It’s not a knock on the players as much as it is how the team is built.
I mean BT ignored the D for a few years. We lack high end D that usually gets teams to the promise land.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:
I thought Backlund played well enough, just not able to generate enough.
They had a couple of good shifts, but they ended up with nothing.
Top 6 were on for a total of 2 5v5 goals.
yup, it is how I saw it too. They had some good, but I just felt Leivo and Lucic killed the play whenever the puck touched their sticks.
I don’t think it was that Backlund played bad, it’s that he doesn’t have the line mates to compliment what he does.
This is how I would do his line:
Bennett, Backlund, Dube (when Dube returns). I think Dube will balance that line and give Bennett someone to play off of when driving the zone.
Gaudreau, Monahan, Simon
I liked what I saw from them. I think they skate well together.
I would keep this together:
Mangiapane, Lindholm, Tkachuk
Lucic, Ryan, Leivo/ Nordstrom
maybe Lucic needs half a season to get going? I am not impressed with Leivo. He just seems to get into everyone’s way. He looks tentative with the puck. Is he thinking too much?
-
22 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
Hey man, I was trying to be positive lol. that we me being positive ....😅
I wasn't going to really start dumping on them until closer to trade deadline.
Like you say, give it time. They Have had a couple good games and I get why people are optimistic.
The thing to do isn't to compare our defensive roster to previous flames rosters. It's to compare it with actual contenders.
You're left with Giordano as the big name, but effectively, today, no.
Tanev isn't going to be enough until he finds another gear in his 30's which maybe happens to 2% of defencemen.
Andersson and Valimaki are serviceable, neither one show signs of top 4 on a contender. Maybe Valimaki in a few years, Outside chance.
I realize Klyington's not hot right now and I dunno what happens behind closed doors, but, to put a 23 year old Point-per-game AHL defenceman on waivers is pretty much insane.
You...JUST....DON'T...Doo..that...ever. Unless you're literally stacked with superstar 20-year olds. And we ain't. like we don't got one. What they should have done is left him in the AHL last two years and let him develop into the AHL's top two-way defenceman which he was well on his way to becoming. Rather than using him as a cog on the big team doing 13 minutes of gap filling.
There's nothing expendable about Kylington on Any team, I think it would be a miracle if he doesn't get claimed and ...sure...60% chance he doesn't turn out.
But 40% chance this will go down as one of BT's greatest blunders ever as he continues to screw up our defence core.And someone will say there was no way to know.
sigh
i get what you’re saying but I think you’re right on one thing, to compare to actual contenders.
the thing we don’t have what they have is an actual top pair. Gio is a #2/3 and trending 2nd pair on a contender. I think Andersson is a borderline 2, but definitely a 3/4 on a contender. I think both Hanifin and Tanev are #4D on contenders, and both Nesterov and Valamaki are where they should be, while Nesterov is a 6/7.
But in saying this, the Pens won a cup with lesser D. Mind you they have Crosby and Malkin, and a very good top pair D guy.
I think we have four 2nd pair D. Giordano is a playoff choker. Andersson is the only one that keeps the intensity, and I think Tanev will (if he stays healthy).
I agree I think we really just lack a true #1D.
I also agree that they’ve botched a few player’s development. Kylington, Bennett, Baertschi and maybe others.
we still lack a true #1RW.
-
Today the team played ok considering the long break. That bottom 6 played poorly though. The top 6 were good and creating momentum. Particularly, the 4th line killed momentum whenever we gained it, by not getting in the zone enough or by taking a bad penalty in an area of the ice one should not. Then he was awarded PP time for his effort.
-
16 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:
At the risk of sounding like a total downer but the team has a veteran Norris winning captain for years, did Gio do anything like this?
I think so. Andersson said he tries to mimic his approach and game as Giordano. Hanifin isnt Giordano’s partner, but probably easier to mentor when playing directly with each other.
it is hard to say because this team’s attention to details has been Satoshi Nakamoto. And that, I think, is what I think is keeping them from becoming a good team.
-
3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
The Flames said early on that there was no way they could afford it.
This is a drastic situation where the county won't even let them play.
There would be almost zero revenue for the cost of hosting their games.
SJS's team is playing in Tuscon, which makes more sense.
Since we are in the same division, why not play somewhere similar.
Utah or somewhere else.
i still think it makes more sense to play in the host cities because of the quarantine thing. Money is important but AHL teams won’t be making any and the need for players to continue to develop is important for long term NHL stability. So prospects need to play.
plus players won’t need to quarantine if called up. They should just piggyback the schedules to the nhl teams.
-
See! I thought that this was the only logical solution this season. I get there needs to be a bureaucracy involved but it only makes sense.
no one ever listens to me though lol
-
3 hours ago, pikey7883 said:
I think that this could be a fantastic experiment.
If mang can prove (which I think he can) with tkachuk and Lindy. It allows Dube and Bennett to be back together with Backlund (much better than lucic).
which pushes Leivo down with Ryan and lucic on the fourth.starting to round out a very good 4 lines
I actually think that’s how it should have been drawn up after all. I’d have kept Dube with Bennett the whole time. He’s looked really good with Lindholm and Tkachuk but I think Mange plays better with Tkachuk than he does with Backlund.
Mange hasn’t played bad, he just doesn’t look as effective as he had in the past.
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
#Flames lines and pairings at practice:
Mangiapane-Lindholm-Tkachuk
Gaudreau-Monahan-Simon
Bennett-Backlund-Leivo
Lucic-Ryan-Nordstrom/Rinaldo
Giordano-Andersson
Hanifin-Tanev
Valimaki-Nesterov
Kylington-Mackey
Okay, so I am fine with moving Mangiapane up, siince I think he has been great with Tkachuk in the past.
Leaving Simon on the Monahan line is fine.
Leivo with Backlund, also fine.
Not impressed with the 4th line.
We aren't playing a goon team, so no need for 4 minutes of Rinaldo in a game.
I suspect Ritchie would be a better fit than Nordstrom as well.
Well, I think that's the depth. Who goes in instead? Dube is injured at the moment, so it creates a tiny hole on that 4th.
Lucic helped with a goal the other game, but I see him still getting rewarded even though he's played horribly. He gave the Canucks all of the momentum in the first by taking that stupid penalty, yet he was still given that extra ice time after some bad play too.
Ward has respect for some of his players. Maybe it's why they like him? I wouldn't be rewarding Lucic for his play so far this year. I will admit he looked ok off and on, but when he is off he looks horrible.Edited in:
TO add to the Mangiapane moving up, I was thinking that he plays better with Tkachuk. He hasn't looked good with Backlund yet this year, aside from a shift or two, and that's with a few other wingers other than Bennett. I guess that's also learning to play well with others.
WHO ARE THE CALGARY FLAMES???
in Flames Talk
Posted
I think teams are starting to figure out the PP. it is starting to get stale. I think they will still score but it’s looking easier to shut down. I think they need to look at the set up. It could have been that it was the first few games and the Canucks or Jets but how they passed and set up was so quick and constant movement. The movement seems a lot slower. I would love to see them put Lindholm over in a shooting position. Trade the sides both Gaudreau and Lindholm are on. That way both Lindholm and Gaudreau are in a position to shoot or pass. Lindholm has a quick release. Why waste it like they did on that great pass. While waiting to get it on his forehand the goalie had the split second to get into position to make the save...
the threat isn’t as dangerous as is.
i think the lack of tap ins are because we don’t set up in the area for it. And teams collapse onto Monahan to take away his tap ins.