robrob74

I wonder how much play style has to do with Huberdeau? The west isn't the east, and do the flames play his style of game?

might have been an article before the last game. I know they hated the moves and signings in the offseason.

read an article by editor in leaf... that site based trereliving all year on signing Reaves, but in the article I just read was praising him in the playoffs as being super impactful, like the only thing working for them... if that's the case there is a lot more wrong with the team. they'll find out Marner is super injured. Nylander still injured...

May not be true, but it seems we usually only ever have had one since the rebuild started after iggy was traded. It seems to be a weakness the org has had in scouting. We had to sign plugs, like Bollig, and others who seemed like their role was the enforcer, which was why I think we got England. i was at the game he fought two or three Canucks at once, was so fun! But I think we've relegated one or two to the role as a second or third thought instead of it being a drafting mantra. Guys we can sign instead of making it part of team building through the draft.m although, we did draft Ferland and Posposil.

you can also add Makar to the Avs. TBL also had Hedman and other pretty close to elite D, and Point? Pits had an in-prime Letang who was bordering on Elite. I dunno if some might consider him that. Didn't Anaheim also have Niedermayer when they won? Detroit also had Datsyuk. And Colorado, did they have Rob Blake when Sakic and Forsberg won? Chicago had an elite D in Keith, Seabrook great at defending. Boston had Bergeron and the weasel guy . LA had Doughty Ovechkin had elite C with him and can't think of the D. St Louis has close to elite D and a solid forward group. Probably as close as Calgary will get to if they skip ahead of the retooling. Since it's the way the organization tends to trend, I think them and Dallas is kind of how I feel they should build, also Carolina. Draft well and build and shore up a solid core, keep drafting well and only trade the tertiary players once those players can be supplanted by younger players. i really think there's a solid foundation built on all those cup winners and a commitment to the elite players to add around them. What they all have in common are solid building and years of it. in my mind, they built then sacrificed futures once the window opened up, and instead of sacrificing future to fill holes quicker thus maintaining holes.

I wonder if it is a coincidence that Conroy traded for a bunch of Russians and have Russians in mind for the draft or signings? Might start fostering a community comfort for some up and coming prospects.

tough call. How many times has any one here actually watched any of the prospects? How many times live in person? as 18 year olds they can be ahead right now but then drop off the face if the earth once they go pro. To me, and this is going off of radio announcers, conversations here, this draft is D heavy. After some top forwards there might be a handful of top/middle sixers? My bet it is closer to the Poirier and Klimchuk draft. Either way in many deep drafts teams still miss on players and draft guys who don't make it.

depends on your analysis. You're looking at it with one lens, Cup. I get it's the ultimate goal. Should be. What I see is a team that drafted well and hit on three very very good players in one draft, and so I think he is referring to scouting and drafting and hitting on multiple players in a draft and then developing into a top team. how many years are top teams top teams without winning the cup? And how many go deep many times without winning? how many go the, if we could just get in and then we have a chance model? which of the two question would you prefer? sustained excellence or just get in and you have a chance?? to me, you're sounding a bit of both? Do you want division winner and consistent playoffs and not a in one year miss a year out two and back in again kind of team? We all want a team like Tampa who has a bunch of chances or Pittsburgh... i want to see a huge shift in philosophy. I want to see a good plan. I want to see things change. Sure we "draft well." We draft nhlers. But I sometimes think, ok we have nhl players who can play in the league. Sure that is a measurement of success, but how do you measure impact players teams draft? i measure success similarly to you, only difference is I would settle for not winning and having a team that is relevant and committed to excellence at all times. Gretzky didn't win after leaving Edmonton. Does that make his time in La a failure? Should he be considered the GOAT, or should it be Richard or Messier or others? Gretz wasn't able to do it without a stacked team... just meaning a team can be great and win once. 80's Flames...

I think our problem with Mange is we've had too many similar players. I'd like him with guys who are bigger and find room.

I am beginning to wonder if I am. Wondering if the game is passing me by. It is hard to keep to a vision because trends change after just a few seasons. Flames seem to traditionally be a "put on your workboots" team. I hope there is a shift to a team that has more movement. Watching a PP stand around there is no wonder it was bad for awhile there. But it is an example of those things.

thanks for the reply. I think you're right... good middle 6 on a good team. I think Conroy probably has a pulse on the kinds of players he wants. We will find out if he has a vision soon enough, a philosophy and so on. Be good to get some assets from guys like him.

yup, and I wouldn't necessary call them elite. If I did I didn't mean to, only that they got some good players. Elite is a tough definition. I'd think there are only a few that are in certain positions. Hronek has been good for Van, Dobson a good pick. I also don't like thinking, just because a player was drafted by a team that traded for a Flames pick would end up the same player the Flames would have drafted. They have their own list and might have drafted someone else. Could be we wouldn't even have drafted Dobson with that pick.

I hope we go that route with all the prospects.

worst case, we decide he's ready just because he can play in the NHL in relation to our roster and opt for the shiny new toy instead of developing them. id prefer they dominate and maybe work on the missing parts of their games in a league where it won't matter and they won't get sat for making a mistake. Develop into a man, add one more year of man bod, then possibly play a year in the AHL, more rounding out their games. development . What players have we done well developing? And which ones might we consider failures? We need to learn from both. Two off the top: Mange Dube (earlier results, but started to move him around the roster too much) I get every player is different, but I think we need to start developing the players into what they want to be and what we want them to be. Hone them!

how often can you get a Hronek like the Canucks did? How many players are 3rd pair needing a chance? And do those teams that have them see them as that? had we not traded for Hamonic, we might have had a decent player in, I think it was Dobson? Although, maybe we'd have taken Farabee? Or other players not in the NHL now.

has Armstrong been good? For me, I'd gut that organization, they've been so bad.

is Utah changing their staff?

If his brother is really good, could it inflate his stock by playing with him, and this year's bro isn't as good? Or he's the real deal?

Ya, I don't think it's that Marner, Matthews or Nylander aren't playoff players... they've had no depth. similar to Edmonton, Do you think McDavid and Draisaitl would have a cup by now had they had an average goalie, some D and a bit more depth? is it the cost of paying the top too much?

definitely! It's why I loved Hathaway and we should have forked out the little extra, if that was why he left? He might have wanted closer to home anyway, but loved that guy. He was doing little things, creating in the way you're describing, causing penalties or leaving play in a good way. we look at the Flames, when the 4th line was getting 3-6 minutes, what does that say about the depth? The 4th isn't easy to fill with players that push a team over the jump. We are the same... my signing for '04 was Ville Nieminen. I think pests help too. Although, Simon and Gelinas were big too. but I agree, Johnny got his points, Monny goals too, decent numbers, but a one or two line team can get stopped. it's also why I'm afraid the Canucks can do some damage, I think a few signings this last summer put them where they're at.

I like Tanev. He plays on that edge. I wonder if his health is overblown, or if he is injury prone? I worry about the message playing injured sends. I don't mind playing through stuff, but nearly ruining a career over injury is a lot though. Calgary and maybe a lot teams might turn a blind eye or be quite ok... some are good to put some on LTIR, and not be as injured though... I think Calgary let a guy like Monahan play through it because they're not deep enough to make it without a top player...

I think a dichotomy and both... I think JJ is saying, if more players come from the professional city town area, then the teams will create more development programs for kids and grow the sport that way... though, the sport is a tough sell over football, baseball, or basketball, or other US sports. tough.

my bet is, 18-26. Think you're right though, and they've already shown they're leaning that way. Maybe a pick and an underused player that is a few years previously developed. my scouting fear is targeting UFA. We've had a few good hits lately, but some bad ones. Coleman, Markstrom good... maybe some can add a few good UFA signings to ease the apprehension!?

i think there are young teams that haven't reached prime ability. I guess you can call that playoff experience. I also wonder, Vegas has done well at getting deeper into the playoffs than many lately, when they have made the playoffs... for me, even the most playoff experience can lose because it's such a hard task to win a cup. i understand what you're saying though. And just think, some teams play to lose while others play to win. Maybe it is circumstance or coach philosophy. we kept saying the Flames had bad playoff experience, yet Johnny and Monny made the playoffs early in their career. And they needed more playoff experience but looked similar every year. I just think, either a player plays to win or they play tentatively and lose. The Leafs have plenty experience but play to lose. Only one team wins, I think a team can have a good playoffs and still lose in the first round in heartbreak, it doesn't mean they're not a playoff team, just they played a really good team and pushed a really good team to their limit.

would you have a salary cap in your system? If you're creating more stars, you fork out more money.