robrob74
-
Posts
14,359 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
58
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by robrob74
-
-
2 hours ago, pikey7883 said:
I have been with Cross on this one for awhile that Johnny and Benny should be together. I said that last year before we made any additions to the lineup, with our new mates this is the way I see it
Tkachuk - Money - Mangiapane
Johnny - Benny - Dube
Simon - Backlund - Lindholm
Lucic - Leivo - Nordstrom (Ryan when not on the taxi squad)
The first three lines need to roll steady with a relentless attack. Backs, Lindy, and Nordstrom with Ryan or Bennett are your PKers.#1 Powerplay should be
Tkachuk - Benny - Gaudreau
and Lindholm on the point with Anderson
I know I don’t know that much or see what the coaches see, but a relentless attack is hard to defend.
I agree and have been saying it for a few years now. I got a lot of flack, especially since Benny hasn't shown or been given the chance to play the position enough to show he can.
-
3 hours ago, travel_dude said:
Looks like Stone and Ritchie were both released from their PTO's.
LOVE IT! Stone is probably a great guy and a trooper. He's just not an NHL player anymore, not for the Flames anyway.
-
5 minutes ago, Ward54 said:
Personally I was hoping to see
Tkachuk - Bennett - Dube
Gaudreau - Monahan - Simon / Leivo
Mangiapane - Backlund - Lindholm
Lucic - Ryan - Nordstrom
Number the lines however you like apart from the obvious 4th line.
I guess the coaches' hope is that Bennett can push his way up the lineup? I just don't think it works that way for C as much as it does on the wings. I think sometimes a C is only as good as his wingers. Backlund could push players like Bouma and Colborne up to slight bumps, but not enough to be 45+ points. Can Bennett do that with Lucic and Nordstrom, get them up that high? I guess you wanna see him doing what Ryan does for his linemates.
But I really like the idea of Bennett there, and with Johnny.
-
35 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
It wasn't until the playoffs that Bennett looked like he had taken a step.
It may have been a result of a new line with him over Ryan.
To me, it's a situation that Bennett plays better with better players (big surprise).
Maybe it was not consistent use, but I don't remember him looking as good with Gaudreau.
That may have been due to playing RW.
For some reason Bennett was held out of practice to begin with. Was there simply not enough time to experiment?
If they leave Monahan with Gaudreau, would Mangiapane (or Dube) be enough of a difference maker to provide the missing piece to that line?
Well, that is how it is with a lot of players. They play better with better players. You could use that argument with Monahan. He plays better with better players. He gets more goals playing with Gaudreau and Hudler than he would by not playing with them, and more assists to top it off. Would he be a 70point guy without Gaudreau?
I am not saying Bennett will be either, just that once Bennett was put with better players they were able to push the play more than when he was with lesser players. Plus, I think you can only improve your linemates so much when they were guys like Brouwer, Jankowski, or Neal or whomever else Bennett as played with. And who knows, maybe Bennett could have played with Jankowski had he played C over Janks.
I dont think that putting someone with the Monahan and Gaudreau will necessarily make them better. Lindholm did for about 50 games. Since then, Lindholm gets some points, but with them he seems rendered misused, and quiet, or unused. Will that happen to either Dube or Mangiapane. Maybe that's where Cross's analysis of the situation comes in. But Johnny hasn't really been using the RW player all that often since the All-Star break of the 99point season. It is like it's only the two of them.
If they can't play 5v5 then they need to be split up. Play them only on the PP together.
-
2 minutes ago, cross16 said:
It was an experiment for sure that i wanted tried. My rationale was I really think Gaudreau needs someone who can help bring the puck up the ice or dive the net and open up the seem so he can move East-West. The reason I really wanted him and Monahan split up is this is the flaw I see. Gaudreau is elite at brining the puck up the ice but he does it on his own becuase Monahan can't keep up and it's taken away Gaudreau's ability to move east - west in the zone which is what makes him so dangerous. I think Bennett would have been a nice answer there to open up more options. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't but I don't see why the lineup they are using right now is going to work better than their lineup last year so what are we trying to do here?
The critique of Bennett not using his line mates is fair but it's also interesting that is seems to die down quite a bit in the playoffs. I didn't hear that critique as much (insert small sample size warning here) so it begs the question is that Bennett or is that his situation?
I think the part of the new lineup that works better is having Lindholm at C to create a top line with Tkachuk. I agree with your theory on Gaudreau and needing a guy to help push the play along with him. I think the extra line of Tkachuk will be good, but at the same time I don't believe that Gaudreau and Monahan will regain their magic due to your analysis. I think the coaches and the team believes Tkachuk and Lindholm combo will force other teams to play their best pairs against them, thus leaving Johnny and Monny with easier options and creating further depth scoring. I think in theory it works, but it is assuming that most team's second pairs can't defend. Backlund probably stays the same... I think you probably already understand it.
But I agree with you that Monahan just isn't the right fit. I think that having the other option for Johnny would push his game forward, and having Mangiapane or Dube with them would keep the play going. I really like your lineup suggestion up top!
-
9 minutes ago, cross16 said:
It's a combination of 4th line and being saddled with 2 players he needs to carry. It's a continuation of what they've done with Bennett he's entire career that has not worked so the Flames have just continued to do exactly what has not worked in the past.
It just confirms my belief they are going to use him as fodder for the expansion draft.
I wanted to see something like this.
Tkachuk - Backlund - Lindholm
Gaudreau - Bennett - Mang
Dube - Monahan - Leivo
Lucic - Ryan - Simon
And a lot of the posters on here don't believe that Bennett can play those minutes and with those players. From what I remember about Bennett, as I don't look at the fancy stats that often, is that he is really good at pushing the play to the neutral zone. I think that the problem lies in the shift from the neutral zone into the offensive zone. He either butted heads with his line mates or tried to do it all himself. For me that points to separation and his line mates' ability to keep the play moving in that direction. I am probably a bit wrong in my theory, but for me, that's where I se the problems with his game. He gets the puck to that area and then his line mates can't do anything beyond that and then the play comes back the other way. It then looks horrible on Bennett, especially when he tried to do it all on his own after all of the other stuff didn't work.
We see last year with Dube that when guys he plays with are natural at puck distribution he can help maintain play going the other way. I could be way off, and it's just me that thinks this. I understand why others would see that he has his faults because when they'd try him a few games or just a few periods with other players it is much the same. But my problem has been that they never stuck with the changes they try with him for more than a small handful of games. If they wanna play him with Johnny, keep him with Johnny more than a period, or more than a game. I don't think sporadic games cut it as there's no continuity. I think he'd benefit from continuity.
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
Out of curiosity, what was your suggested lineup based on who we have available?
Is your frustration with Bennett's use because he is still with Lucic or the 4th line?
For me the frustration lies in the fact that he looked good with both Lucic AND Dube. Can Lucic still help pushing the play forward? How much better, worse, or the same would Nordstrom be compared to Jankowski? Or do we compare Jankowski to Lucic? For me, giving Bennett guys who can take and do something with the puck would really help develop him as a C. Without that, he might look as useless as he has in the past. I think he still pushes the play forward, but with people who can't do anything with the puck, it'll look like it always has. He will end up trying to do things on his own and get himself into trouble.
Maybe Nordstrom will be a good fit? Maybe that fit could be Simon as well?But the reality is, the team has: Lindholm, Monahan, Backlund ahead of him. He is going to be the 4th line C. Giving Dube those minutes is good, but at the same time, play him with Benny and have them earn more ice, and I think they would.
I still think we will sell low on Bennett and he will flourish elsewhere. My bet is the Flames trade him at the Deadline this year... Or can they see him as a Backlund replacement in the future? If so, play him like one.... But I think he should play some PP too, get his confidence up.
-
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:
I'm more visual, so I can't listen to hockey unless it's like the way Danny Galivan did them. You didn't have to watch to know where the puck was or the danger areas.
I'm lucky to live in the same province as my team. I'm from the east, so SN only broadcasts SENS games there. And that was back when they sucked (hint - they still do).
Get to watch every game played, and only have to use streams once in a blue moon.
I don't care for Cassie, but once the play stops she has valid but annoying thngs to say.
Debrusk always sounds like he is trying to find something nice to say about the Flames, unless they are laying the Oilers.
He doesn't belong on a national broadcast.
Neither does Hrudey, but that's because he's not that professional.
He knows stuff, but really isn't a gifted speaker.
Ball is just okay.
Better than some, doesn't sound like a homer.
Quinn is the worst.
Agree, It's why I loved Peter Marr. He did a great job of keeping to the play by play.
On TV, until he got really old, I felt that the CBC Bob Cole was really good at keeping to the play by play. Better than a lot of the guys announcing now. The ones these days just wanna chat while watching a game. Cole would cut Harry Neale off as soon as the play would start. Once he got old he stopped remembering a lot of the player's names.
-
14 hours ago, travel_dude said:
Honestly, I have no idea how you can listen to hockey and get anything out of it.
I watched tonight with Loubo and the other guy.
Doesn;t do the game justice.
I'm the type to watch a game with the sound off just to enjoy the sport without the talk.
Had to do that whenever I watched the Oilers play.
Quinn was Mr Catchphase who would announce the McD or Drai goals even when they missed or the goalie made a good save.
Worse homer I ever listened to.
Glad they moved Debrusk to full time Oiler shill.
And got rid of Quinn.
The old radio guys were good. They can paint the picture really well, and having played and watched it enough, if the announcer is describing where they're at and who passes the puck and to whom, I can kind of watch it in my head, envision where they're at. With Loubo and (Kerr?) they're just all over the map with talking between passes.
On TV they can get away with it, but you're right, even the Flames commentators on TV can get high on other team's players over the Flames, like Cassey Campbell does. Hrudey does the same but isn't as bad as she is. I think the Flames broadcasts might be then only ones where the commentators don't blow smoke up their team's Hash Rate. But it's fun to listen to if it's a good broadcast, or on a drive and you can't watch the game. Although, I end up with road rage when I hear pucks in the background and have no clue where the play is going.
-
6 hours ago, rocketdoctor said:
Think a lot of you are missing the point of the Ryan waiver.
BT is making use of the taxi squad to accrue cap space over the season.
Placing Ryan on taxi squad makes perfect sense. ".....you can only bury a maximum of $1.075 million of his contract, the Flames’ cap benefit for sending him to the taxi squad between games would be $1.075 million divided again by 116. That amounts to $9,267 a day" from Hailey Salvian's excellent piece in The Atheletic - on how the Flames could save 72k of cap spce in 5 days. Moving Dube & Valimaki, as waiver expempt, back and forth to the taxi squad would also accrue the Flames cap space but unlike Ryan they are on a 2 way contract they would therefore be paid AHL money when on the Taxi squad and they may not like that!!!
I don’t think we are missing the point. I think we are just having a hypothetical discussion and debating on the merits of him being placed on waivers and the possibility that he’s claimed. Do I think he will get claimed? Most likely he won’t be. I am just justifying reasons he might be somewhat expendable, the positive side of losing him. Am I denying his positives? It sounds like I am, but I understand that he’s really good for the team, yet at the same time just pointing out the lack of development beyond top2Cs and finding time for our young C’s to play there to get the experience.
I think we are seeing how it is like for someone to get used to playing C again in Lindholm. He is valuable on the RW too, but might bring more to the table as a C. Either way, I think they need to keep him with Tkachuk.
Ryan, I’d like to see shift to RW and play on Bennett’s line and start mentoring him. They can both take draws, and before Bennett’s injury he was ok at it. -
14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
I'm not suggesting you are wrong to develop C's, just that forcing the issue may not be wise in a short season.
I get it, go for broke and hope it works out.
Other teams do it all the time and it works out.
Or it doesn;t.
Let me put it another way.
Are you willing to risk missing out on the playoffs becuase you traded an effective C and your replacements couldn't get to the right level fast enough.
It can be a two year strategy.
Better draft picks.
Owners are PO's because you traded away depth you actually needed.
I watched Bennett and Ryan play the same position tonight.
One was okay, the other was regular season Bennett.
Neither was a big difference maker.
Maybe you are right.
Trade Ryan and Bennett.
Insert Gawdin (RW) and Ruzicka (4C).
Roll 3 lines and about 8-10 for 4th line with Lucic.
Pray there is no injuries to Mony, Lindholm and Backlund.
Make a TDL trade for a couple of weeks of Hall or a decent C.
Win maybe a round in the playoffs.
or trade for Gustafson and Forbort and not win. If there are that many injuries to the C’s, Bennett will surely have to play C anyway, if they still keep Ryan.
what I don’t get is why they changed the Lucic, Bennett, Dube line when it was effective.
-
I wish we could get new radio announcers. As guys, they're some of the nicest you could get, but they talk too much and far more into nostalgia than what is actually happening on the ice at the given moment... Which is supposed to be what theyre talking about...
-
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:
One reason I like Ward is he's playing Bennett at C. He's willing to move Lindholm to C. He's willing to bump Backlund down the depth chart. So far so good.
exactly! It has been too long that some haven’t been given the long look enough to develop at the position. -
37 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
I think what you have to consider is the perceived depth at C versus the actual depth.
Actual = full time C's or those that have played a good portion of NHL games at C.
We have Lindy, Bennett, Dube as part-timers.
Monahan, Backlund and Ryan are the full timers.
An injury to any of the top 2 leaves us short.
Lucic is the problem much more than Ryan.
But I digress.
well, that’s part of the problem is this team is against development of players in positions they were drafted in. Not all can play C when drafted there, but the fact they don’t develop some there is their own fault.
bennett should have been developed there. They gave up on a player they adamantly put in the position over him. Dube was a C and could’ve been developed as one.
Ryan is great to have, but young players have to play C to become a Cs in the NHL.
it is time to stick with someone and develop them into the spot.
-
33 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Stone is not a great example.
He played 19 games on the original deal, and was decent enough.
Maybe not worth 3.5m but there were not a lot of deals at the time.
He was bought out when it became apparent he was not the same player.
Brought back for cheap.
My problem with Stone is that he appears to be effective but for me the impact is the puck stays in our end a lot.
He does some things that make you think otherwise.
When I watch, I see ineffective breakouts and clearing.
For the money, I would rather see Yelesin or Kyl play.
I think Stone is a good example. BT has shown a history of signing some players for too much. Stone played with the Flames before he re-signed. I get the talent comparisons are a bit off. The difference is, in no absolute universe should Stone have gotten the 3M. Even I knew at the time of the signing it was Satoshi Nakamoto, and most of the posters on this forum.so yes, I worry BT will give Ryan a poor contract and have to buy it out. Ryan will look ok going forward and that’s what I worry about. He does all of the little things that will add up to 2.5+ to BT.
anyway, it’s a bit off topic. It’s why I don’t mind him getting claimed. Some here argue that the Flames keep vets from youth taking a spot. There’s no where to learn to play in the NHL if there are no spots on the NHL team. But guys have got to also take the opportunity or push others out. I get that too. Someone has to learn to play those roles. Ryan isn’t a spring chicken anymore.
I with Peeps! He is on the 4th line, along with Lucic, taking up 8+M of cap. Some could argue Looch is a 3rd liner and Ryan gives you depth to move up when need be. But he’s also going to be using that as a negotiation tool.
save his cap, trade for a big ticket item come TDL, maybe Hall? Maybe someone else?
-
48 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
As of December, he was talking like he wanted to re-sign.
I think he would be a good guy to re-sign to a decent deal.
He wouldn't be getting $3m+ this time around.
Expose him during the draft.
Doubt he gets chosen, but you never know.
Especially when Bennett may be the guy to not be protected.
He's effective and would be a smart choice for a building team, but it depends on what else they select.
If his salary was $1.5m or less, then he would be a decent risk.
That number makes more sense, but i do worry about how BT tends to reward his guys, like Stone. There was in no way shape or form a reason for the player to get that contract when he signed him. BT is good and bad at signing players. If Ryan came in at 1.5, then that is ok...
-
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:
Ryan is a good player, just not cap wise. If the plan was to replace him then that should've happened on day 1 of off-season.
- target RHS C for the bottom 6
- target PK specialist
Evidently, none of this was done unless the moving of Lindholm to Center was the team's idea of replacing Ryan's RHS C. And we can only assume Backlund is moving to full time bottom 6 given Lindholm's move to Center and so therefore Backlund replaces Ryan in a slight of hand circular logic.
If the idea from the beginning was to park $3.15-mil on the taxi squad, what a failure. This reeks of a lack of planning or a failure to sign the target UFAs this off-season.
I agree with your logic. I feel like the center depth is equal to or even better now with moving Lindholm to C.
What column would we prefer?
Lindholm - OR - Monahan
Monahan - / - Backlund
Backlund - / - Ryan
Bennett - / - Bennett
I prefer Lindholm, Monahan, Backlund and possibly Bennett.
Although, I am sure that Cross actually means having Ryan at C over Bennett on the 4th line is the his better situation here. I guess there could be a third column of
Lindholm
Monahan
Backlund
Ryan
That's definitely better than having Benny there, but what then, and when are they ever going to develop young centers to play C?
I would hope that Bennett can actually grow from his experience playing C. Though, I wonder if they're going to put him with lower end guys and then he becomes a poor #4C, which I think is the fear on my end. I think sometimes guys can play well with better guys but when given guys crap to play with, can't boost them. I think Bennett is that kind of player. It's why I wish they would have kept him with a young Dube to allow them to grow together.
Do the Flames re-sign Ryan? I don't think they're going to, which really makes him sort of expendable. But then, he could be of use and help the team push forward. The Flames have got to start developing the kinds of players that will kill penalties, or play certain role positions. That's something they've should have done with players like Bennett.
-
21 minutes ago, cross16 said:
Here is your cautionary tale for those who seems to think losing Ryan would be no big deal. Based on tonight's scrimmager here is likely how the season looks to start
Tkachuk-Lindholm-Dube
Gaudreau - Monahan - Simon
Leivo - Backlund - Mang
Lucic - Bennett - Nordstrom
That is a scary as heck 4th line and not in a good way. The Flames will be paying 2.2 million, in stead of 3.1mill for for their 4th line center, have no RS center, and will have lost 2 important Pkers in 1 offseason with one outside replacement.
It's just stupid business when you add it up.
do you think they’ll re-sign Ryan next off-season? -
29 minutes ago, cross16 said:
so 2 things.
1 - I totally disagree and have demonstrated many times. I don't know how you can be one of the least cost effective players on the roster and outscore more expensive players at 5 on 5.
2- great they create cap space at the expense of weakening their roster, so what do they do with it? Cap space is only good if you have a plan to use it otherwise what's the value?
I think the value is in the trade deadline, having the space to soak up a higher value contract that can help you win.
I get it, he helped the player, but he also didn’t seem to move the needle either way 5v5 during any of the playoffs he has played for the Flames. He’s a good guy to have for the regular season. But like most Flames players, he becomes moot when it counts most.
-
1 hour ago, cross16 said:
I think Pelletier is close but he needs to play so I would not be in favor of him on the taxi squad, that's a bad move. They need to keep him playing and for me I don't see the point of 6 games other than for fans. He won't factor into the team this year so 6 games is pretty irrelevant to me.
the only way I see the 6 games as beneficial for him is to allow him to see what it takes to play in the NHL, to give him a taste. The hope would be to work on what he thinks he’d need to afterwards.
But I like the idea of young players getting a lot of minutes. play them in their natural positions to develop them.
-
2 hours ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:
What gets me is the fact that Bennett has proven that he can be a n effective center but the push to move Lindy there seems to be the priority. It's still an unknown if any of the new guys can effectively replace Lindy if he moves to the middle. I guess not having any pre season games makes evaluations tougher but it seems learning from past results isnt an option yet. I'm sure the locals get alot more info on camp results, and general feel for the team than I do so maybe there some stuff I'm not seeing.
Fun Fact: For some reason the Jets (media anyway) seem to be really high in Forbert. Ya sure there werent alot of deals done over here and their D lines were a little soft but they seem to have questionably high hopes for him. He's their 2nd pairing with DeMelo.
I get that Lindholm is our best RW. I just don’t think he is as effective with Monahan and Gaudreau. I think his talent is wasted with those two. Numbers will say they’re great with them, but for me the fact Johnny doesn’t use his line mates effectively enough makes Lindholm’s game quiet. I notice Lindholm’s game more when he’s apart from them. When they had the most success with him on their line, Johnny was using Lindholm a lot more. But that has been silent, I think 5v5. Maybe the PP is a different story.
I just think Lindholm is better used to creat more depth throughout the lineup rather than keep a stale line together rendering him ineffective. With them he becomes their defensive player only. At least with Tkachuk they can both dictate play.
if you keep Lindy as a RW, I still think it needs to be away from Johnny and Monny.
Tkachuk, Bennett, Lindholm
?
-
3 hours ago, cross16 said:
i don’t disagree with any of this, even if personally don’t like it. The only thing for me is my desire to try splitting up Monahan and Gaudreau is not to increase depth. I think the Flames have enough depth I just think those 2 have some flaws that have been exposed and will continue to be exposed. It’s more about maximizing potential and less about depth. I’m pretty convinced that even with trying a new 3rd member, that line will just never be what the flames need them tobe.
I agree and I’ve been saying break them up for awhile. I saw this even in the year Johnny got 99 points. They went sour post all star break and it hasn’t looked any better since. Maybe the Flames need to hire Jagr as a motivational consultant/coach as he seemed to light the fire under Johnny... but still they’ve been figured out and they’ve not changed how they play since. They’re talented enough to get points on sheer skill, so to me it’ll look better on paper. People can say, they got 8 points in 13 games, among team leaders in points. But what is their game on the ice actually showing?
a lot of people are dead set against it.
for me, if they keep them together, can they be coached? Can they be shown a new playbook to get them utilizing their skills in different areas on the ice, Having more distribution of the puck? Can Johnny still be a play driver by not having the puck on his stick as long? If I remember correctly, didn’t he use Monahan and Hudler a lot more often in his first year?
They remind me of the Sedins without the size. Monahan has it but not Gaudreau. What I mean is, other teams whack and hack them, hit them when they can, but they don’t or can’t retaliate. I want to say soft, but also think it’s not as soft to play through abuse. Mentally, Monahan is really tough. That kind of play gets Johnny off of his game. Monahan started playing a bit heavier last year. Can he take another step in that direction? I always thought that the way he’d pass up on hits would be a detriment in the long run. Maybe they’re not connected as much as I believe they are, but I feel if other players need to watch out for you, they’re less inclined to play the whack and hack, or hitting game. Other players therefore have to look out for him now if he continues to play that way.
for me, I just wouldn’t be able to keep getting that abuse without doing anything about it.
maybe it’s not exactly what is holding them back, not a lot on here think the intimidation game is a thing anymore. But I think it is a part of it.
I do see that it’s also keying in on Johnny and defending him a specific way. It’s why I wonder if the coach can try change it up.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, jjgallow said:
I liked what I saw.
I think I am finally warming up to Pelletier after world juniors, seeing what he can do at that level.
I don't see him being a game changing dynamo at the NHL level but I do see him having some pretty high potential as ... a role player, but one of the better role players.
For a 26th overall pick, while I might want more I can't really expect more than that.
and I think that is what the Flames have been lacking. I don’t know if it’s the coaches not assigning roles or the lack of players to fill roles, the team has little to no guys to play certain roles. We need players with energy, guys who can go out to outwork other team’s players, kill a penalty and do what it takes to win. We have two or three players who are like that, maybe four:
Bennett, Andersson, then Dube and/or Mangiapane.
maybe the additions this off-season could add to that. That’s just not enough. I hope the core can learn to play that way. Lindholm is a guy who I hope can step up. A lot say Tkachuk’s that kinda guy but I don’t think he’s gotten there yet in the Playoffs. Play-in was good. He’s still young and he can’t do it alone. He needs his line mates to push too. Hope Lindholm can step up.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, cross16 said:
It appears there is no appetite, or even a thought, to split up Gaudreau and Monahan. That’s extremely disappointing.
Since they aren’t going to entertain splitting them up, I think Dube on their line could be the best option, or possibly Mangiapane.
has there been any word on what is ailing Bennett?
Calgary Flames 20/21 Roster and Lines
in Flames Talk
Posted
I totally think that's the theory behind the approach. At home it could work a lot more, but i think on the road they'd still get the oppositions 1st or 2nd pairing.