robrob74
-
Posts
14,324 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
58
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by robrob74
-
-
20 hours ago, cross16 said:
i just don't think there are that many very good or great goalies in the league so spending time, assets or cap space for a marginal upgrade doesn't really interest me. I see the Flames going with Rittich and another 1B next year and there are a few options there I don't mind.
And we already spent far too many assets on a couple of goalies over the last 4 or 5 years... Elliott and Smith. I can't remember if there were anymore goalies in there. Even though they were not 1st rounders, I feel like the way the team has been drafting post 1st round, giving up picks is shooting blanks. I think our picks in the later rounds are worth more than they seem with how they've been able to draft. Keep picking!
-
21 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:
There's lots of good goalies that will be available, my preference would be still to keep Talbot. I can understand his frustration, he deserved more playing time, so maybe he explores other options.
Markstrom and Lehner are probably getting 4 or 5 year deals, that's something the Flames should stay away from. Maybe Holtby is an option on a 1 year deal, coming off a bad season.
If not Talbot, then explore the market on Khudobin and Greiss. The market on Khudobin would be nuts for a backup though, I think he will see 3 mill or more.
Trade market, check in on Murray, that likely means Rittich is going the other way though. Georgiev I really like if NYR has any interest in shopping him. Raanta could likely be had from ARI as well
I think the Talbot situation was a result of going with the player you know vs the player you don't. That stunted his ability to get back on track sooner. Now, he didn't play all that great at first, but it's a question of, do you put someone in so they can get a feel for the puck and the game, or if he's not doing well, do you not play him? Right or wrong (I think wrong), Rittich was playing so well they ran with him... I think Talbot would have improved faster by getting more feels for the puck. I'd like to try Talbot again as well. If he would sign a similar contract, I am ok with that. The cost of two goalies is equivalent to one starter... Not bad.
I am with @cross16, I wouldn't mind a Markstrom.
I think we need to solidify the goaltending for 3-4 years in hopes that Wolf, Parsons or Zagidulin can make a push. I get what JJ is getting at, and the anger that the team hasn't been able to develop a goalie and the need for a long term solution NOW, but you can't push a goalie that's not ready. Philly wasn't going to push Hart, but ended up letting him make that decision. Best route is to develop until they make that decision for you. Even Binnington on St Louis nearly didn't play last year in the NHL. I think we do have WITHIN 4 or 5 years before one of the prospects really pushes. That doesn't mean a prospect can't make the roster in 2-3 or 4 years from now.
I think we have a really good 1B or backup in Rittich.
-
Why only 18.5k arena? Why not go cool 20k? 1500 extra people not able to buy tickets? Or is it a response to the down economy?
id go 20+k. They could probably fill the seats.
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
It's a bit of a shame he is so young. Have to wait another full year before he really has any shot at a NHL game.
They could give him a game at the end of next season, assuming playoffs for WHL are much sooner than NHL.
I would say that his first AHL game will be interesting.
How much does he have to change his game, if any.
Whatevs. As long as we don't have the goalie coaching carousel of death when he gets here.
Gillies started to somehow get his game back on track, only to see the season end.
He's a UFA that may be extremenly lucky to be offered a contract.
Considering his up and down season you wonder if any team will bother.
I say that like he was really bad.
Not so, but you would have hoped he would have less down games than up.
Zag was better at winning, but he let in a ton.
It's a work in progress thing.
I just don't know what the thinking is.
We have 3 goalies needing deals.
A RFa with arb, a RFA and a group 6 UFA.
Two are coming off the same basic money deals.
One is about 100k more.
Ages 22 24 and 26.
I would keep Zag and Parsons myself, but that's just because I think Gillies has come about as afr as he can.
Back to Wolfy.
He faced the 10th most shots in the league, but blew out everyone including Hofer.
Wins is the only place where he was even tied.
No equal in the OHL.
I just can't fathom where he will be as a 21 year old.
I think a lot of people discount it.
As an example, Brossoit was 917 in his ffianl jr year.
His third pro season he played 8 games and was 928...with the Oilers.
He's been up and down, but has always been a relaiable backup.
The teams in front of him affect his play.
If you project Wolf from Brossoit (a lanky kid then), you have a 928 goalie in his first NHL taste.
That's not even allowing for the better jr record.
I don't think it's a stretch to suggest he will be the best backup we have seen.
The AHL should be an early gauge of his win capacity.
not that he’d be ready but could they keep him up for a 9game stint like they would any other player?
-
14 hours ago, cross16 said:
Pelletier was traded in the Q today for quite the haul. Will play in Val D'or next season.
that must mean he’s ineligible to play in Stockton next year. It’s either Calgary or his new team?
looks like a lot for one year of the player.
-
1 hour ago, cross16 said:
Ya the Torts thing was a bit of a mess. He wasn't Gillis' guy either the owners pushed hard to hire him and basically told Gillis what to do. Doomed to fail from the get go from a few reasons I think.
and i'm not trying to put Calgary down either. I love Calgary, lived her almost my entire life, and think its a great city and the Flames are a good franchise. However, there is also higher taxes than many places, pressure of a Canadian hockey city, brutal travel schedule, your in Canada (big deal for an American coach perhaps) and the Flames don't really have a marquee player that I think coaches would have a strong desire to coach.
When you have multiple options lots of factors come into play.
What is it like for Canadians playing in the States? Do they have to pay any tax to Canada since being a Canadian citizen? I see online that in some cases Canada does tax Canadians when working abroad.
-
1 minute ago, travel_dude said:
I don't pretend to know what will happen with oil or COVID-19 next season, but I don't think there is going to be a big impact on team makeup.
The immediate need is to get fans back.
Poor playoffs or poor start to next season isn't going to do that.
Diluting the club to save money is going to hurt in the short and long term.
Fans will stay away, except for the die-hard fans that just want to see hockey live.
Will they shed contract that are not performing to the value? Sure.
They are not going to continue to pay Bennett over $2m for a tough guy role.
If he isn't stepping up in the playoffs, then his value is marginal.
I'm not discounting the other thing he adds to the team, just being pragmatic.
Ryan will be here until he is passed by others for his faceoff and utility vale.
They may ship out Gio, but mostly to get younger or add a new leader.
When it comes to coaching, it's a matter of who gets the job done.
This playoffs is do or die for the coach.
When the new arena project costs begin, then you may see some movement in payroll.
It really depends on where they are as a team.
If they suck, they need to improve.
Plus I think that teams/players will have to pay back to escrow due to their contracts linked to revenue because players shouldn't get paid more than the 50% of revenue.
I do wonder if coaches will be added to cap.
I agree, if Bennett isn't improving, he probably moves on and ends up with $1M contracts for what he does. For me a big problem with his development is they're not even trying to develop him as a defensive specialist, or PK guy. His role is very marginal and minimal. Plus, they don't leave him in a consistent position or spot in the lineup. I really think that Bennett and Jankowski are at the crossroads. If they continue down their paths, I feel like they're done, if they take a different route and possibly they get short term deals or slight raises. I want to see some improvement from both.
I don't see them trading Giordano, but if they did, it would be for your reasons.
For me, I'd like to see the team get faster. I don't know how much of that is execution, but they're not as fast as they were. But you have high end guys who aren't the fastest players in Monahan and Tkachuk. I want to see the team quicker, and a bit bigger. I don't mind small skilled guys. Hell, I am 5ft 8 and go up against big players.
-
2 hours ago, cross16 said:
ya count me in the crowd that thinks the Flames will get lean here over the next couple of years. The NHL draws almost 40% of it's revenue based on ticket sales and gate revenue and I think not only will be that reduced this year I think it's very likely you'll take a hit there next year. On top of that with the situation here in Alberta being what it is your going to have sponsorship and corporate packages impacted as well as tickets. Not suggesting they are going to be in trouble but I think there i going to be a big financial impact to the club.
That being said I've said for a while i'm not sure if it's a money thing so much as a recruitment issue. I'm not sure I see coaches lining up to coach here unless you overpay.
It's kind of weird because it seems that there are a lot of players who like the community that Calgary has built and see it as a good family city. But then, I am not sure. It sounds like the team is very involved in the community. I wonder if that was kind of Tort's downfall in Vancouver. He didn't want to be there from the get-go, and lived in a place just over the boarder, and didn't really run the practices. Apparently he didn't talk to Burrows for the first while yet being the head coach. Silly. But I guess that's how it goes with community and desire to be in certain markets.
I just don't get it. I'd coach or play anywhere if I was making that much more than I make now.
-
2 hours ago, lou44291 said:
My 2cents is you get away from the idea of “the complete/200’ player” and build your team with players that specialize in specific aspects of the game. Then you pair them up with line mates that not only compliment their playing style, but also have strengths where their linemates are deficient.
I agree! I feel like the “200 ft” player is code for safe. I like the idea of what Conroy said in the quote earlier today, that they look for a few things the player does really well.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:
Definitely a good point. Only issue is it's hard to get to the playoffs if your starter misses a bunch of time.
It would only be a good move for the Flames if they can figure out how to manage their goalies, which I am skeptical of. If we think Rittich has been injury prone this year... then Murray would be an eye opener.
If they can have a definitive plan and stick to it, then by all means go after Murray. Something like the Bruins have with Rask and Halak.
But no question Murray's playoff resume is very very good , he certainly is a money goalie in his young career
he also plays for the Penguins with the best 1-2 punch in the game. Crosby is still probably the best all-rounded player in the game. They had a coach who got the team going and ended up winning two in a row. I don’t see Murray elevating the Flames team to the cup and winning it.
I think a goalie can do wonders but they’re also only as good as a team in front of them. Price should have more cups than he has if that were the case.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, cross16 said:
Behind a paywall at the Athletic but Rutherford being pretty honest that the cap is likely going to force him to trade one of Matt Murray or Tristan Jarry.
Flames have been linked to Murray in the past.
He hasn't been the goalie he was since before the Fleury deal. My bro is a die-hard Pens fan and hates him. He feels like he wasn't the right choice between the two. But then, maybe his fandom of Fleury is blurring the image. But he said he hasn't been able to get it done the last few years. Maybe it's the whole safety net of having Fleury backing him up, being the man? Or Could he have been injured a bit since? Maybe take a chance on Jarry?
-
On 4/26/2020 at 11:29 AM, jjgallow said:
All that said, I think you start with goaltending, always. Not to blame goaltending. It's just the most challenging development piece. And the other positions are dependant on it.
I look at what Columbus did after Bobs left to Florida. Where'd they find those kids? I could see why they didn't feel a need to re-sign him. But where is it?
I feel like a #1C is the most important position. Monahan is good, but isn't great! He's a great goal scorer, and could be categorized as an elite scorer, yet, does everything else either good, to below average. Backlund has skill and is great at pushing play up the ice but is sporadic in his play. If he were consistent he'd be the perfect #2 guy. Lindolm could be a good #2 guy as well, but he is well suited for a 1st or 2nd line RW. Monahan is a 1st line scorer, but probably a 2nd or 3rd line C in all other aspects of the game. What we really lack is a #1C. If we could imalgamate Backlund and Monahan as a player, it's what we'd want, which was a failed experiment when Ward tried it. I don't know if it is Monahan's lack of speed that is holding him back. It definitely doesn't allow him to play on a line with Tkachuk.
Tkachuk has elite skill, but lacks speed to get him into elite category. He's easy to shut down when it comes to the big games, because once a team ignores him, he ends up trying hard to continue his antics that he gets himself out of the game. Although, that will probably change as he gets older.
It's like you say, the team is aging out quickly, in a young man's league. I'd say they have about 3-5 more years left before they start to really age out. They need to find a way to figure out this motivation factor. By-in large, the Flames are actually really lucky to have these guys on these contracts. I still think we need an elite C.
I think that you could be right about the goalies in that Rittich hasn't proven to be a starter, but a really really good backup or 1B. Talbot hasn't proven anything with this Flames team, he looks up and down and that's the part that scares me about him, is that he can look good, then look like he has nerves creep into his game.
Let's go looking elsewhere for goalies.... I am noticing that a lot of Canadian goalies aren't cutting it. Has the US developed any of note recently? I think we need to scour the European leagues, they seem to be developing better goalies.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, cross16 said:
Seems to me Talbot's beef was more with Peters and less the organization. He speaks really highly of the organization so I don't see it as bad blood. If Ward is back and they are willing to let it be an open competition I see a scenario where Talbot's back.
There are not many other areas that jump out as fits but i'm also not that broken up if he moves on.
I agree. All he is saying is that he has proven (in his head, not everyone's) that he played himself into starter discussions, which was his goal. Whether he did or not is up for debate as I think he played himself into more starts, but not necessarily the starter's role. One thing he proved in Edmonton was that he could handle a lot of starts, but then also proved that it could be bad for a goalie to start as much as he did.
He even went as far to say he likes Rittich, so I don't see where the problem is with what he has said. I think they'd be a perfect tandem as Rittich has proven in previous years to be ready after missing a few games... But I see him as good for 3 and then deteriorates after that. I think a 3 games on, 3 games off would be good for them - ish. Although, I like the idea of going 3 games on, two games off, two games on, three games off.... Keep both goalies going.I think the biggest problem with not playing Talbot was that it took him awhile to get going, and then having to sit for a number of games again, which could attribute to his tentative nature in some games.
-
13 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
What do....points mean?
So, if you have more points that means you're winning more and tying more.
If you have less points that means you're losing more.
You get 2 points for a win,
1 point for a tie, tied loss
0 points for a loss in regulation
ps... here's another way to make it less complicated:
http://web.archive.org/web/20190308011542/http://www.nhl.com/standings/2018/league1 year previous to the stop of play, Flames were 5th overall in the NHL. Most notably, 2nd overall with Gaudreau leading the way. That was when I was begging for us to trade him and getting nothing but heat for it. So that's done. You are correct that anything is possible in this world, but that doesn't make it probable. The prognosis with this core is pretty clear now with their direction and size and age.
I don't believe wins and more points always means that players are trying more.
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
I'm not a fan, but that is the in-game stuff and some of his vurious decisions.
The team was winning in spite of his decisions.
With that, you are correct in saying that he was a good teaching style coach.
But we do need that guy who has a better grasp of the game.
Remove a few of the players that were used in the wrong situations.
Add a bit of attention to detail.
Be able to show that to the players who have a talent to execute without any really good strategies.
Replace the goalie coach because he's unable to develop anyone.
I agree.
plus with the goalie coach, get someone in who can develop a goalie, plus have a good deployment Plan. I get the position is a crapshoot at times, and the way the goalies feel can mean momentum or slide. But I think Rittich was burnt out too. His history has been 1A/1B goaltending and playing roughly 50% of the time. -
4 hours ago, cross16 said:
I think you answered your own questions/contradicted yourself. Anyone could have done what he did but then acknowledge he did things differently and a great job navigating a situation that most don't have to deal with it? I think many of the strategies he employed are very different and not common to see form coaches. From cancelling/changing practices, workload management, line ideas, communication ideas (for example getting player input on lines) he did things different so i'm not sure it's fair to say anyone could have done what he did. But again, that doesn't mean there were not problems or areas where Ward fell short. There are many of those, but the idea of what i'm getting at is there are some very impressive areas too so it makes sense why Pike would make a comment like he "definitely impressed".
I may be wrong on this but i'm very skeptical we will see anyone but Geoff Ward as the coach next year. Flames are already a tough draw for a marquee coach but with this COVID pandemic and the crash in oil I think it's even more unlikely that the Flames are going to open up their budget to be able to pay a Gallant/Laviolette. Likely to be a bit of a tough go for the organization in the near future.
I don't think I want to sound too negative about it. It's like you said, he does deserve credit so I had to point out the positives. I just think after those first 10 games or something like that, the team went back to looking tentative and disorganized. Maybe it is just a sensitive team and on other teams Ward might be a better coach?
If he could get the guys playing consistent hockey, I would think different, but he just hasn't yet. on the sheet it looks better. The product on ice has been slightly better too.I just don't think championship material. At the beginning of the year that was the expectation, to contend.
-
6 hours ago, cross16 said:
Difficult to do in a public setting when you have a coach who the players like and you are in the playoff race should the league come back. i get it likely won't but I until it's officially cancelled I think the Flames are in a tough position to do anything publicly but back Ward.
Listen, i'm not a big fan of Geoff Ward on a number of fronts but I do think he deserves more credit than he gets and I think I understand the "definitely impressed" idea Pike is getting at. This team was heading towards a disaster of a season and a lottery pick. Basically no one, other than Rittich, was pulling the right way you had players upset (Lucic and Talbot now have both confirmed they weren't happy to start), then you walk into the whole Peters situation. I think that would have been difficult to recover for some teams and the season could have turned into a write off, so to go from there to the 9th best Point % since says something. Even put the record aside and look at the different in the players attitudes. Lucic and Talbot, both upset to start, are now saying it's one of the best groups they've been a part of. Gaudreau went from sulking to his borderline MVP self, Backlund dominated etc etc. IMO, the hardest job a coach has in today's game is to manage the players and I think you have to admit what Ward has done in that category is very impressive.
There are many problems and i'm by no means saying he should be the permanent coach. There is a huge weakness on X and Os and in game strategy but all i'm saying is there are parts of his work that are pretty impressive too. Think we need to be more fair.
He also took Backlund away from his natural position and rendered him useless for a few months. He only became dominant when he went back to C. It wasn't until he put things back to the way they were when they were working for the first half of the season last year (for the most part) that the team started to look a bit better, or that Gaudreau started to play like himself again.
I almost think that anyone could have done what Ward has done, they needed a new face for a head coach. I don't know what Peters did in the dressing room, or if it was just the idea of playing favourites, but something looked really off this year, and possibly from the ASB in the 2018-19 season. I get that we wouldn't know as it was actually Ward who did it.
I have to say, he did a great job of distracting from what was happening. Changing things up in practice, playing music, playing other games other than hockey, getting the guys together to bring them back as a team. That is one thing that I think was lacking since last year. The team stopped playing for each other it seems. Guys started doing things on their own. Once that initial start wore off, I feel like they were average and below average in play, but relied on talent to score in opportune times.
Maybe hockey HAS changed too much for me and my expectations ARE too high! I don't really think I am that hard to please though. For me, if I saw that they were giving an honest effort, I am quite okay with losses and average seasons. It's when they play lacklustre hockey for three-quarters of a game that has me frustrated. I don't mind seeing a game where the play is 50-50 split between both teams, at least you know both are engaged in the game. Maybe hockey has changed so much and I am just realizing.
I became an avid fan in 89. I feel like watching from '89 until about the 2007 or 2008 season I liked the way that teams tried. Somewhere in Iginla's captaincy the Flames started to play country-club hockey. And aside from a year or two with Hartley, one season with GG, and a half of a season with Peters, it's the kind of hockey I see with the team, Country-Club.
I got off track there. I guess that's not quite Ward though either. But they've shown they can play tentative yet be engaged. They have been engaged just enough to have a decent record. But being engaged just enough isn't enough when it matters most.
-
3 hours ago, cross16 said:
According to Ryan Pike, Flames won't address the coach until the know what the rest of the season holds.
This on the heels of news Gallant is interviewing in New Jersey. Which is interesting as the rumors have always been he is Detroit bound.
I get it's only about a half of a season, but as a fan, I just can't see how Ward has "definitely impressed" aside from his record. What does the record look like apart from his first say those first 7-10 games that he coached where the team was impressive. I think that was more due to the change from a very poor start and situation, where they need a breath of fresh air, and the team could finally breathe.
After that, how do they look? Most coaches have a good start on a new team in a coaching change. When do you see the real coaching? I think the record is still good, but I guess that's all you see when you look at numbers.
I wouldn't say Ward is the guy to win a cup with, but I think he has been nearly as good as say Playfair (who didn't really get a good chance).
I can see why you think this team can be good. I just don't think they've been good, which is why I say they're an okay team. I agree they deserve a playoff spot or the opportunity to fight for one. I don't see them as Cup material (yet?). Given they can play with anyone if they put their minds to it, I wish they'd find a way to put their minds to it almost every night. I get ebbs and flows in a game and a season, but the team has looked tentative for most of this one, with a few games where they show glimpses. Ward hasn't really pushed them over the tentative edge they're on. They're getting results, but for me, it isn't the kind of hockey that will win in the playoffs.
-
1 hour ago, cross16 said:
again no surprise but Wolf up for Top WHL goaltender. Should win this easy.
does have another year of eligibility there?
-
39 minutes ago, sak22 said:
I go with Rask, Rinne and Lundqvist as the only consistently reliable goalies over the past decade and between the 3 of them they have 1 Stanley Cup serving as a backup. If you give me a choice on any goalie in the league that I could have I honestly couldn't tell you who I'd take, I still like Price but would I trust him for $10 million a year? Probably not. I'm not wanting to sound too down on Rittich, I just believe he is better suited to a backup or 1B. I think some of his best games have come when he has sat for a period and find once he gets past 2 or 3 consecutive games he slips a bit, but I don't believe the grass is greener with anyone else I essentially think the Flames paid 2 goalies under 3 million and got performances to match their salaries which is a lot better than most teams got with paying a single goalie over 6 got this year.
Exactly! If you look at Rittich's playing history, he has always been a 1B in North America and seemed to thrive in that role. It is why I think roughly a 50%-50% of games split would work best for him. So that would work out to 41 games, give or take a few. He seems to stay focused on that workload. I'd play him about 2-3 games, then play the other goalie 2-3 games. If it is Talbot, then I am okay with that. I think he is starting to find his game. And like you said, at their price tags, they've performed adequately, and sometimes better than adequate.
I wonder if Price is worth it for 10M as well, I still think he is probably the best goalie in the NHL, and if the price tag was lower, I'd take him over any goalie. I think the only thing that is holding him back is that he's on Montreal with a team that is fairly unfinished, even when they went to the conference final, they probably shouldn't have even made the playoffs. I might be underrating that team. Other than last season and this season, Price has been pretty damned good.
-
1 minute ago, sak22 said:
Defense may be hot garbage but since Christmas there have been way too many goals that an NHL starting goalie needs to make, way too many shots that he could see perfectly that just got through him. Just watching him that last Vegas game from my seats was painful, he wasn't bad by any means or at fault for the loss, but definitely looked off. I know he idolized Patrick Roy and he's got the showboating and temper tantrums of Roy down but he just doesn't have the ability. Either way as fans we need to take the kid gloves off with him, we didn't put up with these goals when Smith, Elliott, Ramo, Hiller or any other goalie not named Kipper let them in, why does Rittich get a free pass.
I can agree with this. His demeanour/mechanics have looked really shaky since January. His mind is elsewhere but his Roy and showboat is still there.
I am rooting for the kid to get it together, as I think he has the tools. He, in my mind is a guy who can give you good hockey 50% of the time. So, I think he needs someone else who can play the other 50. There are a lot of goalies in the league that are like that and teams that have that. It seems to be the new wave as it is getting harder and harder to find that ultimate starter. How many are there in the league right now? And even they don't always have a winning record. Price, Bobrovsky, Fleury and? Are there any other goalies that have proven starter material over their career? Talbot was leaning that way for 2 years with Edmonton but fell off of the cliff. How many goalies have had success over more seasons?
Murray started quick, and my die-hard Pit fan brother believes they picked the wrong goalie to keep, which is probably the case.
I can think of Holtby as a possible other one, and he almost lost his job the year they won the cup, and may have lost it this year.
So is the life of a goalie long enough to warrant being labelled a career starter? Are there any?
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
I'm gonna call this one a tie and say you're both right. Our defence was a mess. Our goaltending was mediocre.
IMHO, the underlyer here is that we have mediocre defence who are underperforming, and we have mediocre goaltenders who are performing.
That said, our organization has always run goalies into the ground once they pick a favourite, which seems to have arbitrarily been Rittich. It...has gone the same way every time. But to cross's point in this particular season I don't think we would have seen much of a different outcome had they been played equally. Neither of them had that ability to raise their game to that next level.
I get that the you think our goalies are mediocre. I think they're a bit better than that. Was Rittich stealing games at the beginning of the year strictly due to the fact that competition wasn't in full momentum at the time? Could that be the reason every year for him playing better at the beginning than now, that the competition has ramped up?
I guess that could be said for the whole team. Like Cross said, the team has played like "hot garbage in their own end." I feel like Rittich could play better now. He looks rattled and his mechanics are different than they were in the beginning of the year. His rattled nature is throwing off the rest of his game, probably regardless of the injury.
But I agree, he could use a 1A/1B situation with Talbot. I think Talbot needed to work through his demons that started to haunt him in his last season in Edmonton. He has lost his mojo as well.
-
On 4/13/2020 at 9:33 AM, cross16 said:
I think too much is being made of these "injuries" or injuries in general. I think conclusions are tough to come by given we have no idea the extent or the type of injury. There are plenty that you can play through that don't risk any further injury or impact your play at all, not to mention I think the concept that a hockey player, or really a pro athlete for that matter, is going to stay 100% healthy through the season is false.
In Rittich's own words, it wasn't a big deal
I dunno, I think there could be a case that it isn't a big deal, but also wonder if it can play into the mental side. You have a nagging thing in the back of your mind, I wonder how much it can get you off your game. Just one goal could mean the difference, and then boom you're down by a few. Most likely not related, but he seemed to be way off of his game since January. A bit of a nagging soreness probably doesn't help it. Maybe it is why Talbot got played a bit more lately? But then it is because Talbot has been playing better.
-
4 hours ago, sak22 said:
Then if you're worried about his wrists he should just sit and possibly retire. It's unfortunate but every body is different and handles things differently, Bobby Orr and Mario Lemieux are two of the greatest who could never recover, even with 3 years off Lemieux still had the same back issues, Selanne on the other hand took the lockout year off as an r&r year and played till his mid 40's. With a guy like Monahan my biggest concern as he hits his 30's (which is still 5 years away) is his skating. You really can't predict these things I don't think David Rittich is the only goalie to play through pain the last few years, having nagging injuries is unfortunate but it is common when dealing with physical activity for many people, players retiring in their 30's due to body problems are unfortunate, but players not living at a normal mental capacity or living at all in their 30's is still a far greater concern for the league and teams.
I hear ya,
I played through a high ankle sprain where I basically skateboarded on the ice, and l sprained a different shoulder twice. So I played out the seasons on three different occasions. You just wanna be out there.
so I hear you and I am only worried long term as Monahan gets whacked a lot because he doesn’t retaliate much. There’s not going to be retribution and those aren’t calls refs make.
I still would rather guys be Close to 100%.
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
I feel like Gillies' mechanics are ok, to me it's more in his game readiness. It takes him too long to get a feel for the game that is being played. He looks terrible at times in the first period and then he starts to focus and looks like a goalie in the 2nd and 3rd. By then he's already playing from behind after a few stinkers. Then if teams get legit goals then the Flames are down more. At first he doesn't look comfortable, shaky. Then he slowly looks more and more like a goalie.