robrob74
-
Posts
14,359 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
58
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by robrob74
-
-
I think the Canucks got it right. Both Demko and Holtby can go 1A/1B for the next few years. Demko seems to be pushing the needle and is bound to have a bad game here and there. I thought he played fine against us last night. In the 1st he made some good saves. The Flames PP ended up really beating the Canucks again. The Flames also outplayed them in the 2nd and 3rd and being in penalty trouble takes them away from their game. The Canucks ended up on their heals in the 2nd and that kind of pressure can really affect the goalie.
I also think that for what we had going for us, we probably made the right call too. How many years away would Wolf be if he does become starter material? 2-3 years, maybe 4? That gives him time to play another year of Jr (Just this year?) Then he plays about 2-3 years in the AHL. Then he comes in and backs up in Markstrom's 5th and 6th year. At least we don't have the albotross of a contract in Florida in Bobrovsky. If Markstrom can provide the kind of goaltending he has so far throughout the season, I think it bodes well. I love how he makes the first saves and is mostly ready for the rebounds!
In discussions with my brother, we talked about what we've been discussing on here, that the confidence a goalie can give the team. I like the demeanour of our group so far. Game 1: 1 of 3 periods effort. Game 2: 2 of 3 periods effort. Game 3: 2 of 3 periods... I think if they can play 2/3 periods effort, it could be good. The other team is going to push, and if the Flames can continue to have the push back that they've shown against the Canucks that will be great. I just want effort. I am okay with losing if there's effort and the bonehead plays are kept to a minimum.
I heard the radio guys today talking the Canadiens and how they have attention to details. Maybe attention to details can be a result of good goaltending? Let the players do their thing and the goalies do theirs.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, cross16 said:
I didn't like the hire but even saying that I am really shocked how things have gone under Tippett. Usually the one thing you can count on when Tippett is your coach is your team is going to play tight defense and do the little things right in the d zone. Oilers are a far cry from that.
Talent plays a part for sure so i'm not blaming Tippett it's just a surprising observation given his track record.
i think the look on his face says it all, they’re probably not following the plan.
-
3 hours ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:
Sadly this is the by product of faster players and the clamp down of the clutch and grab that Mario campaigned against back in the day. Not entirely sure how you can catch every infraction or remedy the issue itself but maybe harsher penalties correlated to lost time may be an option.
For me, any stick that isn't on the shins is a slash. Any stick that touches anything above the thigh is either a slash or a hook. That will open up more ice too and keep the game fast. There just isn't enough protection in some areas of the the arm that is vulnerable. Sure it sounds like a weak penalty, but if it's called every time then the players will stop doing it.
-
40 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
So, now we get updates from someone not on the Flames staff suggesting what it might be?
He went out for a 30 second shift in the 2nd, so I doubt he would be doing that with a fracture.
Then again, I'm inclined to wait for the actual announcement from the Flames.
regardless, I still don’t think those hacks belong in the game.
monahan, three surgeries in one off season, at least one of those due to slashing. Could ruin a guys’ career. Luckily he still had a good shot.
-
6 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:
cross posted in the game day! And I said it there but will say it again! God I hate these sticks to the arms or hands. In no way shape or form should there be anything like sticks on that part of the body. To me it is just as bad as a high stick.
so what if you have guys that play that way, it doesn’t make it right. Monahan needed surgery for it, Johnny gets it every game and who knows what it does to shooting for the game or few?
-
Wasn’t here in Minnesota for awhile or something like that?
-
I’ve noticed the best coaches have been depth role players. Gretzky was the greatest player of all time and wasn’t the greatest coach.
I wonder what Yzerman or Sakic would’ve been like as coaches? They’ve been pretty decent GM’s so far...
My theory is that the depth role guys have made good nhl players had to start to shape their games by studying how to be that role player. Good students if the game. Also, it would be guys who are talkative in the room maybe? But they played as “the man” all their lives until they had to change to make the nhl...
I've regarded Quinville, Vigneault, cooper, as some of the best coaches now coaching. What kind of players were they?
-
I didn’t realize that we got a new goalie coach!
-
38 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Talbot at 33, going on 34....
Markstrom a "young" 30 who hasn't had as much wear and tear.
I agree that he could have been better with a better team in front, the same way Talbot was pretty good last year.
Overall, I think Markstrom is a better goalie by a wide margin.
Talbot had tendencies for 1st shot goals.
And he really play that much.
SHort of giving up assets for a good young goalie (how many are really out there), drafting or UFA is the only realistic way to go.
We drafted two guys that could be starters, but I think it's closer to just one.
3 years out, and we drafted him over a year ago.
I give Markstrom about 4 good years.
That is the least, IMHO.
He may not be elite, but I haven;t seen any that I would describe as elite right now.
Any that seem close are over 30.
Most play on good defensive teams.
And that's just it, exactly what I am trying to say. Markstrom didn't let in bad goals, but did let in goals. Every goalie is going to. It's best if they can save the first one. You're right, Rittich and Talbot didn't do that on occasion. Some were stinky goals.
But you're just not getting them unless they get to free agency or drafting.
There was no plan for after Kipper, or even before him for that matter. Kidd was rushed, then we didn't keep Giguere, and then had a few place holders before and after we lucked out on Kipper. It is just much the same for us. I don't know if the team is putting enough resources into scouting goaltenders. There are some teams that have been decent at it. Is it luck, is it scouting, or is it developing? But there just isn't much of them out there either.
-
2 hours ago, The_People1 said:
When Bennett worked himself to the front of the net wide freaking open with the puck only to once again for the hundredth time, sail the puck 2 feet over the net, I think that's all there is to say about Bennett. Keep him in the bottom 6 where he belongs.
We need to find one more top 6 RW. Dube has looked good but we need another.
Personally, I feel that Bennett doesn't get enough looks/opportunities to shoot in that spot so when he does it goes wide. I think if he had more opportunity he'd eventually adjust. The speed of the game is different, and the fact he got to that spot was good, then there is the "do I have to rush a shot, do I have time?" that factors into it. For me, it's just not having the reps in that kind of position. He is hardly ever in the position to have that chance unless it's with guys he hardly ever plays with.
-
16 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
I think so.
Not if they're not backed by a solid goalie, there isn't no. Nobody's ever had a remarkable NHL career (in my books) without being backed by a remarkable goalie.
And goalies take the longest to develop. So... unless this whole "let's overpay for a 30 something average goalie" system we have all of a sudden starts working even though it's never worked, you need to stock up on your goalie prospects if you want anyone else to have a hope in the future imho.
I think the bigger problem is, there aren't 32 starters in the league. There are more who start games, but true #1 goalies, there aren't that many anymore. Either the game has gotten too wide open and it has shown a lot of goaltender's flaws, or it's harder to develop them these days. For whatever reason, from the 10th ranked goalie numbers-wise, there are a lot of average goalies.
Unless the Flames draft Carey Price, they're not getting Carey Price. Markstrom's numbers are horrible because he's been on horrible hockey teams. In some stats metrics he did not give up a bad goal at all last year. He has made a save on every save-able shot. They say every goalie lets in a bad goal, but last year, Markstrom did not.
If he is a first and second save goalie, then to me, to me that's all you need. Rebound control plays into a goalies game, but to me, if a goalie can make every first save, they D has a responsibility to take away rebounds.
I think you're just a tad too harsh on the goalies front. I mean, I get it, as I am pissed at throwing so many assets at trying to fix the problem. We've given up way too much without a fix. I am glad for once that BT didn't use an asset to acquire Markstrom. Right now, he's better than what was available, and probably including Talbot. Were his numbers good? no. But you gotta look deeper into what team he was on. My bet if he was able to stay in Vancouver that they'd win the division this year with their upgraded D.
Me, I might have stuck with Talbot on a 2-3 year deal. Out of all that was available to the team now, it was either Talbot or Markstrom. I am glad we got one or the other. I am tired of wasting assets on goalies that don't pan out.
-
Just now, The_People1 said:
What hurts the most is based on the season opener with the Jets is that if the Jets had Laine and Scheifele healthy the entire series, the Flames would've lost and drafted Askarov.
I edited it for you!
Would Askarov been the way to go though?
I guess that Wolf is still up in the air.
Askarov being a probable true #1 is probably the right move.But is there a difference maker in that slot of the draft that could be a first line forward/C or first pair D in the long run?
I think we still lack the proper fit for Monahan and Gaudreau, and now lack a top liner for Tkachuk and Lindholm. Dube is awesome for what he is, but is he a first liner (yet)? Maybe he gets there. He made a nice play last night.
-
5 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
Yeah, it's only one game.
I just wanted to be the first on here to say that as my guess is we're going to be saying "It's only one game" a LOT in this thread.
I still don't think the Flames problems have been goaltending. Ok, Smith, sucked, Rittich is a 50/50 goalie. But Talbot was good. From what I saw last night, that breakaway goal is what I've come to expect from the Flames. They're going to give up grade A chances every game and other teams find ways to capitalize on them. It's a back breaker... Albeit, the goalies we've had in the past were probably 3rd tier goalies in the NHL, but Elliott came with great numbers to fail. Talbot gained some good play, and the team flopped on him.
Markstrom is a starter, but I think the Flames will still help him look a bit better than average. It is the style they play...
-
2 minutes ago, cross16 said:
Some good stuff here I agree with especially your last point. To date, yes the success of that line has been they are a rush line and they do their damage off the rush but I also think that's part of the reason they've become easier to defend. There is no plan B and there needs to be.
Burying them in the d zone because that's what they use to be good at is not an effective strategy to try and create that plan B.
This is where I have a problem with the coaching. They're the strategists and aren't coaching them to try new things. Gaudreau does the same things, skate in, gets double teamed and then lose the puck. Or they aren't negotiating what to do in the offensive zone to keep pressure on... Like you said, no plan B.
-
54 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Tanev was good.
Nesterov seemed solid.
Valimaki only struggled a bit.
Hanifin was an adventure at times.
I actually feel like Gio needs to be deployed less often. Minimize his minutes. He can't play the top pair minutes anymore. He is still good at everything, but not great. Is he still the best defensemen the Flames have? I might say he is top3, but he's starting to lose battles, and position. Maybe should play some PPs but not every PP?
Has Andersson surpassed Gio? Tanev was probably the 2nd best D last night after Andersson. Maybe they need to start minimizing Gio's minutes, and if they want him on in the end of the game he'd maybe still have the energy to play D.
There were a few times it seemed that Ward deployed some players right away after a shift, and were possibly tired.
-
1 hour ago, cross16 said:
So Monahan - Gaudreau faced 33% O zone starts last night. Only Bennett and Lucic started less the O zone (per Kent Wilson)
that is some bizarre deployment and makes the line configuration for me make even less sense. I am really trying hard to give Ward a chance but the more I see the less I like. There really seems to be a lack of plan/vision for this team from the head coach.
The only rationale I can think of is that he thinks that Johnny and Monny are a rush line. Starting them in the offensive zone means they can't get the momentum up the ice, plus if they lose the draw, they don't have anyone to go and get it for them. I really think it speaks to how flawed the line is and the need to try something new. On the PP they're great because they have the room to pass it around, but at 5Vs5 they just can't seem to do that anymore.
But then, I wonder if they can get used to playing with the puck in the offensive zone if they have more offensive zone starts.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Thebrewcrew said:
I have no idea either. The Flames don't have an identity. I don't think the coach even knows. This was also a big criticism of the team, prior to the pause.
Are they physical? No, they aren't really built that way.
Are they like CBJ, will they outwork teams? Meh, not really since Hartley left.
Are they a defensive team? No. They don't have the buy-in from their best players to play that way.
I think they should be an offensively inclined team, that uses their speed and skill to take advantage of their opponents.
It seems like the coach wants them to be a little bit of all 4 items I listed. In theory, that would be the perfect team, in reality though that's not how the Flames are built. Have to make use of what you have, which is offensively inclined players.
I would add in:
Are they a pressure team? Which I guess could be another version of the CBJ, outwork. I think that pressuring could mean out work, but I also think that pressure in the offensive zone leads to good defensive habits. If they're engaged there, they can and will be engaged in the Dzone. Maybe I am wrong and that's just how I like to play hockey. I am not a good skater so i have to make up for it in the "try hard."
Could it be that the team is just too skilled? They don't need the "try hard" factor because they've never had to. They could always rely on their skill?
-
1 hour ago, Sobieit said:
I agree. I think he isn't a strong skater and he plays a similar game to Monahan. They need a good skater, someone who can forecheck, hit and wear opponents down.
Have they ever tried Gaudreau Monahan Bennett? I can't remember if this has ever been done with all three together.
Then Mang Backlund Leivo would be alright.
They have, but they only try it for a period or two and then go away from it if it doesn't work. They don't let it gain any traction. Plus Bennett tends to change his game with those two, much like how Ferland did. They need to coach him and ask him to play the dog after a bone style with them, and not to change. It's what will make him successful with that line. I honestly think that Monahan isn't the guy for Gaudreau, they both have the same demeanor on the ice, too passive. Johnny needs a few guys who will keep the play going, much like Mangiapane and Bennett did last night in the 3rd. Johnny and Monny are going on a break-in, but teams have figured out a way to stop that and then they can't sustain pressure once they get into the zone. I would like to see more sustained play in the offensive zone, pass around and keep possession. They do it well on the PP, but can't seem to do it on 5vs5.
-
1 hour ago, cross16 said:
so I don't disagree with this rationale and that is it likely true but here is my problem and it spins into the whole "what is the Flames identify" question I have right now. If you want to set the tone fine but this is not a physical team. So what is the value is going out and setting a physical presence when you don't have the rest of the team to back it up and what do you gain? Not to mention you need to look at the risks in that situation. You are starting your worst line so you are preparing to spend time in your own zone AND you just handed a match up win to your opposition.
It all makes no sense to me. The Flames identity, and what you saw in the first period, is not let's go out and be the more physical team. it should be let's go out and be the faster team and put them on their heels, which is where I agree with you on what line should have started.
It's just really inconsistent messaging to me.
I think it's ok to have an energy line. I actually wouldn't care if every line had it's own identity as long as each line was engaged and playing to their ability. How do these guys get sparked? They started off great last night, but they just stopped skating in the 2nd and then the third was ok, but they lost all of their momentum. I wonder, starting Lucic, Bennett and Nordstrom is a problem because they weren't fully used to playing on the same line? They're still new and I thought they seemed to be in their own end more than not in the first. To me, it feels like Ward doesn't necessarily have a feel for who's going, or he still thinks he needs to get Lucic going.
But you're also right, what is the identity? Is that Ward and coaching that determines it, or is that BT?
We have players with skill who could be good players, I just havent put them in the good category because they're inconsistent.
I think that that line of Bennett didn't have to be aggressive. When he got moved to Backlund's line, he and Mang really put some pressure on and created turnovers, and that's how I saw Bennett with Dube last season. Hitting was part of it, but they also got energy from the pressure they put on by skating. Youre right, the team is full of skaters, but they don't use their speed enough for most of the game. There's going to be pushback by the other team, but how do you respond? I don't know if coaching is sending the message to sit back and absorb it, because that's what it seems like they do. It kills everything theyve worked up to.
For me, I'd just much rather be in the other team's zone. I think the best defense is a good offense. You exert less energy by pressuring, and in turn, the other team gets tired out. I would like them to defend from the offensive zone to our blueline, and of course in our end, but the team has good transitional D that our own end will still be ok and important. So I guess I'd want our team to be a pressure team. Gaudreau is a good defender in those 2 zones. He sucks in the defensive end though. In his 99 point season he was playing an all-round game in those two zones, which made him successful. He's less effective when he's only playing with the puck in those two zones.
-
Here is my stab at the roster:
Gaudreau, Bennett, Dube
Monahan, Lindholm, Tkachuk
Mangiapane, Backlund, Leivo/Simon
Lucic, Ryan, Nordstrom
I want Gaudreau with guys who can hold it in for him, help him play a cycle game and open up ice. Both Bennett and Dube are good at moving and digging out the pucks and keeping the play alive, especially when they have guys who can do something with it when they do their work.
I still think we are missing a RW, maybe that’s still Lindholm, but I wanna believe he’ll end up better as a C. C is just as or more important than RW. But I think that a top 6 RW would help the team.
-
27 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
And 3-on-3 OT... We don't have Brodie anymore.
and Wardo keeps rolling these guys regardless. -
My biggest problem with how Ward deploys his players are these:
-The loyalty of Lucic and Lucic on the PP.
- Playing the 4th at the beginning. I get he wants them to try create energy but I just don’t think they can without Dube. Dube helps push up ice and it gives Lucic more room. Without Dubes, there is absolutely no room out there.
- Playing Gio no matter what, in all three spots, PK, PP, & 5vs5.
Gio would be a really good 2nd pair these days.
-
3 hours ago, cross16 said:
yes but then that frees up either the Lindholm line or the Backlund line for more offensive opportunities or better matchup's. In particular the Lindholm line.
It could work. I hope so. For all of the depth the Flames have had the last few years, I don't think in the end that it was used very well. The Flames have been a stop Gaudreau and you stop the Flames team. Maybe this year will be different?
Last year the Flames were pushed early by Tkachuk and Lindholm but they didn't stick with it. I hope the complimentary players can solidify the pairs they have created.
-
2 hours ago, JTech780 said:
I will say that the small bits that I have seen of Tkachuk and Lindholm together I liked a lot more than I thought, and it actually gives me a lot of hope that we can have a true two way number 1 line. Which would hopefully put Gaudreau and Monahan in a position of seeing lesser lines and more offensive situations.
I am definitely in the split Gaudreau and Monahan up camp, but I do get that we are in a short season, with basically no training camp and that Ward is leveraging familiarity in this situation. I can't say that he is absolutely wrong in going in that direction, and since he is, I like that he is trying to maximize their effectiveness. I think Leivo brings some of the same elements to the table as Lindholm so I get why he is starting on that line.
I didn't want them to split them up last year. I felt Lindholm was trending towards being a very good C. Not a lot were giving him leeway to get back up to speed on the position and wanted him on RW. I get that the need was there, but the Flames really need someone to step up as a true #1 C. Monahan puts up offensive numbers as an elite goal scorer, and by theory is a first liner, but as a C, he falls short on his overall game.
Who knows, maybe his game takes a step and last year was his learning curve in the process of becoming more complete and he can add the offence back to his game. Although, was he really that much better defensively? I might be biased about that side of his game due to the lack of production offensively.
Jacob Markstrom
in Flames Talk
Posted
It looks like we have a Canucks goalie in our net! They almost look like the Canuck colors. The V. I guess the angle down is telling players, "Shoot HERE!"