robrob74
-
Posts
14,355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
58
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by robrob74
-
-
I think it’s one thing to lose in the playoffs but compete, and another thing to lose and not compete at all. If the team played their hearts out and lost i would still be proud, regardless of the round, but the biggest difference is how they play.
BT has built a team that is skilled, but a team that lacks full compete. You can only blame youth and playoff experience for so long.
you guys might be right, having a small team might not be the problem as I see it is. But I think that one thing is a few of the guys tend to play different (smaller) against bigger teams. Some guys try to prove they can play up to it, thus taking them off their games, others cradle. They haven’t found the right mix yet, or the guys to allow players like Johnny to feel big enough.
and it’s not like Mang and Dube didn’t try, but it’s bad when it’s just them, Benny and Lucic who try...
-
2 hours ago, Horsman1 said:
for as long as hockey has beenn played.. , There is no secret formula to winning the cup.. Every year a different team wins.. and when by chance a team wins multiple cups in a row.. it's with different players in different circumstances.. Sooooooo.. The goal is to be competitive and give your self a chance to compete.. and play entertaining hockey for the fans.. Are we competitive?? mostly// yes.. Are we entertaining?? That's debatable.. are we more competitive than entertaining?? Yes!!! thererin lies the problem.. Entertain the fans.. Get them behind you and you can have the world in your hand
i actually think that the big difference is having a competitive core, or a good mix of compete through the line up. The Flames haven’t had that at all as so far, every playoffs they’ve been in, especially recently, there have only been 3 or 4 guys pulling the weight. None of the first line has done that. I don’t think getting points is the same. The top guys are able to get points when playing bad, but in the process still aren’t being difference makers. They’re losing these series as a full team, but I think the first line or top lines need to set the tone or just look engaged, which they just don’t. That’s even with Tkachuk playing (against the Avs, and was pretty quiet in game 1 vs Stars).
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, jjgallow said:
Therein lies the problem, it has been so long since the Flames were dominant that the rules have changed and one can rationalize that it is no longer something to strive for. Being the best team in the NHL wasn't any easier then. It may have even been harder. But sure it can be rationalized to oblivion.
I think there is a universal rule in effect that any of us can, if we choose, rationalize mediocrity at any given time. If you factor in all he variables and all the current factors, at any given time you should be able to rationalize why being average is ok. After all, average is the sum of all factors. Millennials have mastered this.
The reality is that we all make a choice. To strive for the best or to rationalize that away and justify average.
Every person and every organization has to make this choice. I look forward to when the Flames handle this choice differently.
yup! I agree with the last half. The organization wants to win. Every organization does. But their bottom line is the playoffs. If they built “properly,” the team would be a perennial threat and the bottom line would raise to 2nd round, 3rd round or Cup finals. It would. We all debate that Buffalo, Edmonton and a few other organizations bottomed out but still can’t go further than us. But they also agree that we require an elite 2-way #1C, Norris level D that is better than Gio, and a #1G, plus other players that are slotted correct on each line. How do you get those almost always 3needs? By drafting high or getting lucky by drafting and developing them.
I wonder if the gamble dropping in the draft twice will pay off. Is Zary better than Schneider who is projected to be a good Top4 2nd unit PP guy. Or is he better than Lapierre who we could’ve drafted at the 22 pick?
I guess having extra pick(s) is worth it.
For me, where are we going to get a Top4 D after Tanev’s deal ends. Is Andersson a Top2? I’d say the very least a very good Top4 on a cup contender. But someone like Schneider or whatever D that were left might have been a better long term investment.
Zary could be a Backlund type and is stylistically compared to Horvat. What is the likelihood of him reaching that? His description reminds me a lot of Bennett. I guess a 3rd liner is also a decent spot to play, just not ideal in what is supposed to be a decent deep draft.
reading Lapierre’s scouting report he sounds like a great talent but his injury history is concerning. I get shy they’d pass on him.
The big Russian D sounds intriguing, scouting report says Makhamadullin could end up a very good, all-situations minutes D who’d slot as a #2-#3 D. Building a team from D out tells me a player like him would’ve been ideal as a transition from Giordano and possibly Hanifin. If Hanifin doesn’t start showing more improvements I feel like he is a poster boy for what this organization aspires to be, mediocre. He has the tools but seems like a player who goes with through the motions instead of seizing the moment and pushing the envelope. If he can’t push forward, Mak could’ve been the perfect succession plan for the future.
Right now we have three Top 6C’s. We do need a succession plan to Backlund so I can see Zary as a good option there.
talk of Lindholm going C tells me that they’re looking for the long term solution, plus they don’t see Bennett as that.
what is more important, D or C?
right now, we lack true impact in those words positions. A RW would have been nice too, as I don’t see one of those in the pipeline set to come to the team in 3-4 years either.
Perreault might have been a good pick in the 22 spot too, as we will need a RHS/RW or C. We keep saying go BPA but when does handedness become a problem/priority? I think when the cost is higher, in trade, regardless of position.
Regardless, looking at some of the scouting reports on picks made around the original 19th overall and afterwards, it looks like a half decent gamble, just a question now is whether they made the right pick. I just think long term need BT might be off the mark on this.
If we keep Monahan and Lindholm as top6 C, where will Zary play? I guess the need is there as it is in 3-5 years until he gets there. It just looks to me like BT is ok with having holes in important positions, that includes the future top4 D.
I guess he is banking on Mackey.
For me, small isn’t a problem in today’s nhl, it is a problem when the majority of all of the top prospects and around a third or more of your whole team is. In a long playoff, it wears more on smaller bodies than bigger ones.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, lou44291 said:
Sure. Like I said, those muffins start looking better when your original target doesn’t pan out - otherwise you go home empty handed. And there’s no shortage of people interested in those muffins as well, that you’re competing with. 🤷🏻♂️
But, if my analogy is correct, for Calgary to build a perennially contending team, they’d likely have to do so through the draft AND by acquiring players with term on their contracts. That’s why I was hung up on Eichel (he had term and would have to play out his contract if traded here). We have to target players who don’t have NTCs / NMCs but have term on their contract. I believe I mentioned in a past post about trading Mony for Barzal in some capacity, and I know Barzal is an RFA and there’s risk of an offer sheet, but with the flat cap and most teams handcuffed by their cap space, I see an opportunity to lockup a great player for a long time because he doesn’t have many options. These are the kinds of opportunities I think BT should be targeting, and from what we hear, he’s one of the most active GMs out there communicating so I think it’s only a matter of time before those relationships he’s building start benefiting us in trades. My 2 cents.
would you do Monahan and a first or a second for Barzal?
Barzal doesn’t score as many goals but it looks like he’s more of a true C where offence goes through him. He seems like a playmaker.
-
47 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
When I think of what to measure up to, I think of the 1989 Flames. A guy like Markstrom was our comparative backup goalies back then.
Guys like Hamilton were regularly benched because we simply had too much depth and it didn't make sense to have everyone burnt out.
Since the 1989 Flames nothing has come close to impressing me enough to use as a measuring stick, although the 2004 Flames were admittedly pretty great.
I have a much more pessimistic evaluation of our team on paper and especially our team on the ice, but I do know that one day we will see the Stanley Cup back here.
I don't think we come anywhere close to comparing to the 2004 Flames right now and even if we did I think we would need a small miracle to go that deep in the playoffs (and an entirely different team makeup).
Our rating of BT isn't that different, I might give him a C or C-. But I don't see much point in keeping anything less than B+.
the problem is that there aren’t GMs that will get more than the B+ you’re looking for. They are not going to Calgary.
Bowman took 2 Cups to Chicago but I guess he inherited a great team but the guy who set the foundation has been failing in Florida. For awhile I’d have loved Talon.
the thing about the 89 Flames us that there were only 21 teams. Even though the skill is better now, back then you still got the best players make the NHL. Comparatively the skill is different, but the fact there were less teams meant teams could build deeper teams. Fletcher also had a near all star team to compete with up north so he was forced to build the best team he could.
Right now there are ten more teams than back then. If you went 3 F lines and 6 D, that’s 210 players to spread around the NHL.
It’s also 60 Top6 players to spread around 21 teams. Of course they wouldn’t spread fully around the league so teams like Calgary and Edmonton at the time had a few more better players than some teams.
Edited in:
Also in terms of Top pair D, at that time there would have been 20 more top pairs available across 21 teams, or 40 Top4’s.
i agree with you in a lot of ways, I am not all that thrilled with the makeup of the team. I think it’s a real Satoshi Nakamoto mix. Hoping it gets better.
I see some improvements in how the team has been run compared to the 2000s and early 2010s.
is it better? I think yes. Is it Cliff Fletcher days good? No.
-
2 minutes ago, lou44291 said:
I like BT. I’m a big supporter. Sure, he’s signed some players that didn’t pan out, but I take that with a grain of salt because I believe those players had to want to come to Calgary in the first place - or - they had to be paid enough to come to Calgary. Said it before and I’ll say it again, I have faith BT is in on everything - the issue is not every player is in on us. Sometimes my wife asks me to go buy her a warm, $10 cinnamon bun at a local shop. Sometimes there’s none left. But they have $5 muffins. So, I go home empty handed or with a muffin. The moral of the story? Either way my wife isn’t going to be happy. It’s not due to lack of effort or try either... what I wanted was simply unavailable to me. Also, that muffin starts looking a hell of a lot better when there aren’t any cinnamon buns available.
I like your analogy.
I do have to say I feel a lot better since losing Fletcher. I think BT is still getting going. Like TD has said, could be cross, that he really only has about 4 years of experience as a the main GM.
Drafting has improved.
Trades have improved.
Signings are mixed and like you say, maybe there are only muffins left. Or they looked like cinnamon buns but ended up muffins?
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
I find it difficult to find any version of the Flames where they were better than what we have seen the last two years.
Kipper had one really good season where he won 45 games (08-09) but was only .903 SAA.
That was also when Iggy and Cami were at their best with 1.0 p/gp, yet no one else was above 49 points.
Our best year featured 5 players at 74 points or above.
That with Smith below 900.
I get your concern that we are a worse team in front of a good goalie, but we have been in front of a good goalie in years.
We cycled out some players that I would call liabilities at times; Janko, Gus, Forbort, Stone, Hamonic.
Even Frolik and Rieder had issues staying on the right side of the score.
But we have arguably a better defense (less liabilities) but lost some offense there. Perhaps.
We added some depth with middle 6 capable players.
Marky Mark will be good for 4 years. That is about what you get from a 30's goalie at the top of their game.
If we don't have a starter elsehwere by then, we have bigger issues than an aging goalie.
We had a decent team with Langkow as the 2nd line C. Huselius was a good 2nd liner too. There wasn't a lot of growth within though. That was probably the year with a touch more talent, but they traded away the heart and soul players that got them to the Finals.
This team has been ok. I feel the 2nd overall team isn't the team we are talking about. I think that team took the NHL by surprise for half a season, but eventually pulled off the 2nd season on the backs of Ryan's line. You know how I feel about that year already. I think depending on comebacks and 3rd period heroics is great, but not a recipe for success. It showed in all of their playoffs but 1 series.
I think I like the turnover so far this offseason. It sounds like a deeper bottom 6 than we have had. Albeit, having Hathoway really rounded out that 4th line. But you're right, I don't mind Jankowski, but he's not a 4th liner. He will probably score a bit in Pittsburgh because he has the hands. He wasn't getting that opportunity in Calgary. He's too soft for the 4th line and like you said, a defensive liabilty unless playing PK.
Forbort reminds me of Buddy Robinson. Able to play in the NHL but looks extremely awkward doing it. Robinson not as much. He's here for Gaudreau.
I think the only player I will miss is Brodie. He will be great for Toronto. Can Valamaki be a good trade off for what Brodie brought? I think that's the biggest question. He has looked good so far. My worry is that we don't have a succession plan for Giordano. Maybe you go:
Giordano, Valamaki (I hear he's been playing RSD in Finland and maybe Giordano would be a good mentor for him)
Hanifin, Andersson
Nesterov, Tanev
-
9 minutes ago, sak22 said:
Out of curiosity, who are the "A"s and high "B"s out there that have been on the job as long as he has in your mind?
It is a tough call. I dont really know. Some have gotten lucky and really won the lotto by drafting Crosby, and possibly McD.
I think I would look to some of the teams that have been consistently competitive. I think perhaps Poile, but the Preds have started to drop. Even he has made a mistake with the likes of Turris. But I like some of his drafting philosophy. They always have had a starting goalie and some of the best D in the league. They've also been fairly consistent. I look at the CBJ since their GM took over. they're probably on par with the Flames, but they've done good at drafting a bit. Carolina is anther team... I look at the Blues as having a decent draft record and gaining quality NHLers and able to use them in trades that helped build a cup winner. Even though they were bad before they won the cup, they've been as close to consistent as Detroit used to be, always competitve.
There probably aren't many. I'd probably look to Yzerman and the Tampa Bay organization in general. Sakic seems to be slowly proving himself as more savvy than we once thought. Of course he inherited some good players.GMs probably get too much credit for what happens. I think a lot is scouting as well. I am still mixed on BT trade record. He's in on everything, which you want, but some deals were good and some were bad. I feel like he's paid a steep price for nothing to show for in around 3-4 deals. That happens. Every GM wins or loses deals. But those could be on pro scouts as well. I like that we are drafting better, but there still isnt the right mix.
I'd say Tre is still a fairly young GM. I think my biggest concerns are that this team seems to lack competitive spirit and identity. Perhaps Brad has addressed that this offseason with some of the signings. I sometimes feel that the Flames are too small to compete in a longer series. The changes Tampa has made has allowed their smaller guys to withstand the rigors of a long playoff. Which perhaps adding Nordstrom could be a big help. For me, smaller players work for so long. Dube and Mangiapane started to go quiet against Dallas. A part of that could be that Tkachuk didn't play, but I havent seen that steal a game consistent enough from Tkachuk to say he is that guy yet. Granted he is still young and I still love him on our team.
So i am being harsh on my evaluation of BT. Of course I am not grading on a specific Ruberic and he probably deserves a B. Although, he has brought stability to the organization so he probably deserves a B+.
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Aside from Kahun, what have they really accomplished?
Kelfbom out, Barrie in.
Kahun was a decent signing, but Rieder was a similar producer when they signed him.
AA out, Poolparty in.
How much better will he be than the last time he played as an Oiler.
He was outscored by a defenseman in Liiga that has less than 25 NHL games
Turris in.
Last chance for him to really show he has anytihng left.
An aging Smith replaces an aging Smith in nets.
Scoring goals was not the issue there, scoring 5v5 was.
McD and Drai on the ice accounted for a lot of goals against.
They did well with Nuge-Drai-Yam but it meant that the top line had McD with Kassian and Ennis.
I just don't think they did enough to fix the issues.
Maybe a bit better 5v5 scoring.
Less defensive ability.
Pinning their hopes on a inconsistent tandem in nets.
yup their goatending will be their achilles heal.
Poolparty could be better, could be the same. I don't really take note of what happens in other leagues. Some guys absolutely suck in other leagues but can play better with better players. Some have said it's easier to play in the NHL because the play is cleaner and faster. Sloppy play sometimes scew the numbers. Not that Pool is gonna suddenly be a 20-30 goal scorer. If he does, it's because MCD or Drai has made him look better.
You're right, I think their biggest problems are on the D.
But they do have probably a better top9 forward group. It depends on how they fit...
-
It sounds like the Oul have made some decent small signings this offseason that might push them a bit further. It might be something to be concerned about because they’ll have a few guys that can fill out their top6 and just need to be ok. Draisaitl and McDavid might not have to play on the same line in order for the team to be successful. For them, they’re the type that can make lesser players better.
-
On 10/10/2020 at 7:52 AM, jjgallow said:
"Give Treliving a Chance", they say.
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/flames-sign-goaltender-jacob-markstrom-six-year-contract/
$36m later....
the thing is, I think Markstrom is good enough to mask the Flames’ problems, much like Kipper did. This team kind of compares to the best on paper the Flames had in the Iggy days. I think the Flames will be a 5-8 in the conference team but first round exits every time with this team.
I know I get pushback on my thoughts on the 2nd overall team a few years ago. But I just don’t think that was a good team, but snuck into that spot. Good teams don’t sleep to start games as much as they did that year and it showed in the playoffs that that kind of hockey doesn’t work when it matters. There are too many players that play that way that are still on the team. Playing from behind isn’t a recipe for success.
Maybe Markstrom keeps it even until the team starts to skate. But I fear the team doesn’t skate until they’re behind a lot of the time so they’ll depend on Markstrom to get shutouts.
we need a killer instinct. We play like cats who slowly stalk their prey instead of something that goes right for the jugular.
14 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:I still think the Fox trade needed to be a separate deal on its own, and not part of this trade. Even if we got that 2nd rounder from the Rangers. Hamilton is a Norris nominee level RSD. The Devils got more for Adam Larson.
I think Treliving is a B- level GM. Probably a C+. He does some good things and then has some failed attempts and failed signings. Maybe it’s his Pro NHL Scouts.
I think the team has been missing worker bees so hopefully the signings for the bottom 6 push guys up the lineup to haul Hash Rate.
I don’t see Markstrom as a Brouwer or Neal. But it could look bad in the last year or two, but the hope is a young goalie is ready by then to transition in.
-
19 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Think you are mixing up Nylanders.
Willie was drafted the Bennett draft; that was Burke calling the shots.
Maybe it was a miss, but you pick Bennett 9/10 over Willie.
He was just that kind of junior player.
Alex was drafted the year we got Tkachuk.
He may never get to Tkachuk levels.
Right now he is playing well with decent linemates.
He would not give us a better team in place of Tkachuk.
Well, we might have had lotto picks with him being picked over Tkachuk.
yup!!!
so no Bennett. That could mean we would have still had Tkachuk then lol... just playing the redraft game...
Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm
Tkachuk, Backlund, Nylander
We wouldve had to have the same records.... Not that I like Nylander.
-
7 minutes ago, sak22 said:
It's only bad for your health if you make it, reality is its pointless. For every good RS that the Flames passed up on there are X amount of non-factors, like the RS that the Flames actually drafted through the years (Smith, Carroll, Bruce, Joly, Fischer). The other side is for the ones who slip through a few rounds there are 29 franchises that also missed. Finally given how much you go on about effort ask yourself, are we better had we taken the Nylander brothers instead of Bennett and Tkachuk?
Maybe better with William N.?
You'd have:
Gaudreau, Monahan, Nylander/Lindholm
Mangiapane, Backlund, Nylander/Lindhholm
Lucic, Bennett, Dube
It might be a more evenly spread lineup... But then you lose Tkachuk's leadership and hockey sense.
-
37 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
That's the fear is you get less than maximum results from a player and then have to move him for an additional loss for a RW anyways.
And those are the issues of going fully BPA (usually being a LHS player for the Flames). A lot say that it is easy to just trade and sign RHS players after going BPA in the draft. But we see that it’s a really hard thing to do.
drafts are a crapshoot. Hindsight is 20/20, but I wanna look back at all of the RHS that the Flames didn’t draft that have decent careers. I get it, it isn’t good for my health to dwell! lol
but is the chance taken in the draft on a RHS worth it in comparison to losing (what you and JJ, among others claim) a 20% loss in a trade? Maybe more, maybe less?
how would that equate to the chance of the RHS drafted player making the NHL? I guess losing a trade but gaining a quality RHS player is still higher probability of the drafted player making the NHL.
I guess it really depends on our outlook?
-
I actually like playing the off wing more than playing my strong handed side. I get the NHL is a lot different. The D don’t ring it around the boards as much as they do in Beer League. But when the puck is rung around, I pick it up on the forehand when I play left wing. Albeit, it puts a player on the blindside. When I play RW I pick it up on my backhand more often.
but these are all elite level guys. I mean elite being the ability to play NHL in comparison to most of us. It’s like Heartbreaker said, any of these guys on any of our beer league teams means we are winning 12-3, that’s including Rinaldo. I don’t mean elite in the NHL...
When Ruutu was with the Canucks, we’d watch warmups and he’d do those puck drills like P. Kane, in a smaller three or four puck maze to handle around. He looked as good as Kane at doing it. It is the same with most bottom level NHLers.
I think we are blowing this LW/RW thing a touch out of proportion. Yes I believe BT has to start drafting skilled RS players. It’s an obvious organizational need and it’s probably more prevalent on the D than the forward group. We probably also need a Top6/9 RSC as well. Taking Lindholm from RW isn’t as terrible as some make it seem and it is a larger need than RW. It’s best to have options for C.
maybe Monahan won’t have to play hurt anymore. Or any other players for that matter... which I think playing hurt is a dangerous precedent to start. Look at Ryan Kesler. He had a good career but perhaps may have been more effective in the last few more years than he was. He played through a lot of injuries and it ruined his career, and his hockey afterlife. I still hate the guy.
I just don’t see the problem like others do.
I see the organizational need to concentrate on right shots. But I don’t see that they see that. They talk about how they see it, but they do nothing to fill it, and that there is BPA. In this last draft we saw so many right shots taken by other teams, none by the Flames until later in the Draft. We see other teams get RS players then wonder why we don’t have them. Start drafting right shot and we don’t have to complain about who slots where anymore.
suck it up NHLers, play your off wing, you’re making 2.2+ million to do it. I do it for a fee. In fact nearly 900.00 league fees in Vancouver to play off wing... or wherever Heartbreaker put me! I think NHLers could do it...
-
14 hours ago, The_People1 said:
I think Gaudreau and Mangiapane are LW through and through. Both tried the RW and didn't like it. Never went back to it. Tkachuk was a true team guy and made the move to RW so Mangiapane can stay LW.
Why did I think Tkachuk was playing LW and Mangiapane RW? Didn’t Mangiapane also play RW on Ryan’s line?
-
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:
Other than scoring less than McDavid and other top line C's, the top line generally scored the most of any lines.
So, we make up for lack of a so-called #1C by having 4 C's that can drive play.
5 if you count Lindholm as one of those.
I have no real problem with regular season stats.
Bit of a letdown last year, but it starrted with the D having bad seasons.
Went from there.
Even so, we made the playoffs with a reset after BP got outed.
Really Backlund was misused (for at least a month) until January.
This season should return to closer to 18/19 stats.
So what did we do to change?
Added Leivo, Simon, Nordstrom and Nesterov.
Valimaki full time and no Hamonic to drag down anyone.
At worst, we added grit and lost a few guys that didn't add a lot.
Leivo or Simon ahould be capable of middle 6.
For me it’s how the first line looked from February 2019 to August 2020. The thing is, they’re good enough to get points when they’re not playing well or making a huge difference. Teams need guys to get points, but I just think they weren’t making a huge difference the way they had in the past. They did look good in a handful of games.
Did they do well enough to keep them together? And if they don’t work with anyone else then what do the a Flames have in them? For me it’s just not working (since last February 2019).
and maybe it’s just a Johnny thing. He looked super disinterested in doing anything until they put Buddy on his line to wake him up. Even after he looked half interested.
i guess you keep them together and ask how do you keep Johnny interested? What drives him? Maybe it is Leivo who might have a bit more muscle, or Bennett who can stick up for him. Maybe less hack Johnny and Monny if there’s someone who will retaliate for them. Maybe Johnny gets the calls if he’s on a different team?
-
I think the lack of a true #1 C is problematic. I think Tkachuk tends to become average once his antics become obsolete in the playoffs. Plus, like the rest of the Flames he ends up getting neutralized when play gets tougher. Hard to know if he would be since he was injured this playoffs. I still think the mix is just a bit off. And that might be the fact he plays with Backlund as a shutdown line.
maybe you do go a line if
Tkachuk, Bennett, Lindholm/Dube to get Tkachuk away from being on the shutdown line.
Gaudreau, Monahan, MangiapaneNordstrom, Backlund, Lindholm
Lucic, Ryan, Simon/Rinaldo
-
11 hours ago, The_People1 said:
Sorry I should've said he can't be trusted in the D-zone as a Center. Obviously he's good defensively as a winger.
PK as a forward is more similar to defending 5-on-5 as a Winger. You watch the point man and box out with others. Get sticks in the lanes. At most collapse to the front of the net to help in close. Defending 5-on-5 as a Center you defend all the way behind the net and switch with Dmen a lot. It's all this switching and looking behind him in the slot where he gets himself lost.
I don't want to make Lindholm sound like a total liability defensively as a Center but you're definitely giving up D for that RHS C who can make plays offensively. Agreed he back checks hard plus he's got good speed which let's him go on the offense and back quickly. He's got the pedigree so I see how maybe it just takes some growing pains and he'll eventually learn the details.
I don't think offensively, anything needs to change much with the way he plays.
but Monahan isn’t that much better defensively either and Lindholm has only had a bunch of games as a C and not a full season. I don’t think they went away from it because he wasn’t cutting it, they went away from it because Backlund wasn’t and the Monahan line looked like Satoshi Nakamoto with Backs on it.
I think that it’s easy to point fingers when people are looking to point them. I do it all of the time.
he needs the whole season at C to be able to do the things you’re saying C’s do in the D zone. You build up that rapport with your D group by having more reps. I think it’s a lack of the experience in the situation with our D more than his ability to defend as a C.
-
1
-
-
Back when JG first came into the league, he had Hudler who could also carry a puck. Lindholm is probably a better all-round player, but Hudler was very Gaudreau-esque in how he could carry the puck and vision. I think it could be the coaches inability to draw up plays to open JG up, or failing to by giving JG the leeway to carry the line. It is making him ineffective. Using Lindholm abd Monahan should work, but since it hasn’t, I think JG and SM need a player to drag them into the game, or do some dirty work for them.
personally, I think JG would benefit from someone who can Skate with him through the neutral zone, have passing plays throughout, and then have the ability to cycle the puck and open up some ice when in the zone. From February on the game tightens up and turns into a cycle game. Scoring on the rush becomes harder to do, which is JG and SM’s game.
This is how I would do it:
O2. Gaudreau, Bennett, Dube
O1. Tkachuk, Monahan, Mangi
SD. Nordstrom, Backlund, Lindholm
EL. Lucic, Ryan, Leivoi think Monahan has to get back to playing a real C role. I think Cross has said in the past that Monahan was trending as a solid C before only getting O-zone starts.
a part of me though, wants to see what Tkachuk could do with a good line Instead of being relied to shut other teams best lines down.
-
If the fans can’t be in the buildings in some capacity, or let’s say they can, what if the farm teams travel with the parent teams and play the other team’s farm team either before or after the NHL game?
if there are fans in, maybe they can see a double header? I guess changing over a stadium would be hard to do in a pandemic, but maybe they can have different fans in the second game? Maybe it is a dumb idea.
-
-
-
http://The Big Show: Should the Flames split up Gaudreau and Monahan?
talking about splitting up JG and SM. I with Will Nault (I think) both Strindberg and Cline didn’t agree and felt fhat if you split them up they might just drag other lines down. I can’t see how that’s the case. Say you throw JG with Tkachuk, I feel like JG or SM need to be dragged into the fray. I don’t think JG needs to be shut down as often as he is. Coaches could help by actually coaching him to do different things or using different players to change it up.
they say they’re better together and have been Satoshi Nakamoto apart. But I also don’t think theFlames have ever tried them with many different options.
they really see Lindholm as a C. That sends Bennett back to wing unless they tried SM at wing.
if they continue SM and JG together, they need to trade them. Stein berg talks about 5 year stats, but they look Satoshi Nakamoto since February 2019, a season and a half.
although, I feel SM sounds horrible without JG, which I feel he just isn’t a #1, especially without JG.
I think they need to find a way to get energy into them. For me it’s possibly Benny on his line as he’s got the guts to stick up for Johnny.
I just don’t think suddenly Tkachuk will be Satoshi Nakamoto with a JG on his line... I think JG can show up in the playoffs, for me it’s not having someone to make room for him. That’s player usage or lack of coaching. Why can’t a coach tell JG to make different routes or use players differently? Isn’t that what a coach is supposed to do, be the eyes from the bench to change strategy?
Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation
in Flames Talk
Posted
you’re comparing apples to oranges. Depending on what you like more, Tampa is that. They’re a better, deeper built team with a style of play that suits them. They have more higher end stars and people in the right spots. C, D, G...
Monahan or Backlund isn’t the type to fully push as a #1 C. If you want to compare both teams the Flames are very TB light.
The too line’s numbers during the regular season has been consistent sure, but their play had declined constantly in the 2nd half of the season. Sure it improved very little bit last year but was still only a small fraction of what they did at the start of the season the year before. But they’ve been bad in the playoffs nearly every year.
you can’t get by in the playoffs by being a one line team. They’ve been a one line team for a long time. Maybe a part of that is not all players going at the same time. But it’s always only one line going at any time. The big year was mostly Gaudreau’s line, but had Backs line pinch in when that line wasn’t going in the first half. The 2nd half was Ryan’s line.
sure the Gaudreau line not going to drop off the face of the earth but I don’t pin any hope on them making a real difference until they do something different. Whether that is changing the way they play or have a new look, or a new player with them, then I can’t see it changing in the playoffs.
you therefore have to ask, I that ok? They help get you to the playoffs. Now do you have enough among the 3 other lines to push you forward?
Lindholm hasn’t really looked good with them for a year and a half. I think it’s wasting his skills to play with them.
The lines just aren’t built yet. They’re close, just not there yet. Maybe Mang and Dube will be enough growth within to push the play further.
I would go
Tkachuk, Backlund, Lindholm
Gaudreau, Monahan, Dube
Since Dube is better equipped to play RW than Mangiapane I put him there. I think he will leapfrog Mangiapane anyway.Maybe Leivo is Ferland enough to fill the hole, But I am not convinced
To compare the Flames to the lightening isn’t really fair because they have a stud or two in each position throughout the lineup and I’d say their coach is a thousand times better than ours. But the Flames have promise, they just need to tweak a bit.