cccsberg

Overall a good assessment, though you are being a little harsh about depth players. Half the 6 you listed are depth players, including our best two players overall.

Gaudreau is a non-starter, end of story. In fact, I am hard-pressed to think of anyone I would trade straight up for Gaudreau at the moment.

Yes, exactly. Ottawa's plan: $3.5B, 10 years in the making, 500 arena parking stalls, lots of digital fluff and "green" drivel.... Yikes! CalgaryNext looks like a GREAT plan in comparison.

Yes, absolutely. Over the next few months there are several dates which will each clear up the fog considerably, starting with Saturday's draft lottery. Let's win that then see what develops.

I was thinking in terms of developing a mega-entertainment, multi-sport, multi-venue locale. Cross Iron Mills just comes to mind because it already has some of the necessary infrastructure, with great access and with the horse racing going there, venues. Obviously something closer in would be even better. Heck, Stampede Grounds is ideal but it would have to expand significantly and the vision would beed to expand beyond its current plans. They already had a track but lost it and now look to be in peril of losing the Arena.

I think you're probably correct. Certainly the rules have changed, and what elevated certain players to All-Star or cult status years ago (e.g. Scott Stevens) would probably get them suspended so often they would be out of the league in a few years via multiple suspensions....

The other thing which often seems to be a problem is being able/willing to box out the opposition in front of the net. To me that comes down to a combination of will and strength, but perhaps its assignment too and I'm just missing something. When we play Anaheim their big forwards just go straight to the net and camp out there, and personally I would like to see our D make it much harder for them to get there in the first place and make it miserable to stay there. If big and strong enough you can jostle for position/push them out and that is something we rarely see from our D. Engelland is pretty much the only guy that does so on a semi-consistent basis and Gio less so. The others, not so much.

You make a lot of great points, especially the lack of appropriate/good data on which to really figure out what is happening. That is so, so true and why watching the game is so critical to really know what is happening, and who is either playing great or just benefitting from others. The more I'm thinking about these things it seems to me that each team has(or gets) a very few key players(or a coach) around which the team develops (usually) a unique personality based on those few players/coach. For Calgary its a quick counterattack, kamikaze attack style of play that incorporates their forwards but also all their D. Its fast, its high pressure and it feeds off the rush and catching the other team off-balance and out of place, and getting better than average scoring chances. This is probably mostly a BH playing style, supported by BT, that uniquely fits our best players, Gaudreau, Giordano and Brodie to a "T". It works well overall but it also leaves the team vulnerable to a slow, methodical cycling/possession game with an emphasis on physicality and wearing down our players. It also makes us susceptible to a stacked D/trap system in the neutral zone that shuts down our fast break attack. Thinking back to our 1980's powerhouses we had massive skill and strength, but played more for break even at 5 v 5 then kill them on Special Teams. There probably is not 1 way to make a team, it will totally depend on a combination of players/coach and so hey, if we end up with 6 skilled offensive D in three years, great. It will be more about execution and effort than anything else.....,

Lots of ideas. How about just build a more compact covered football field/bowl for about 25,000 and have deluxe seats with personal TV screens for the games like on an airplane, just a lot better quality. You could pipe multi-video streams, game stats, other games, pause, rewind, zoom and interactive responses into individual seats/mini-boxes. Its the 21st century, start acting like it with some truly innovative thinking and live-game experiences.... the best of both worlds combined into one unique performance hall. Then in off days you could use it for all sorts of things from meetings to conventions to teaching to lectures.... a truly transformative place for a far broader segment of the population. The outdoor hockey games in huge stadiums seem to fill up petty well, and that experience is crap vs what could be done....

Its a balancing act. If the Flames replaced marginal guys like Bollig, Stajan, Jooris with solid vets, they can still play enough prospects to transition the team.. Part of the problem is being active at keeping the best players and not getting fixated on vets who aren't really helping.

Ok, GREAT response. Well thought out and elaborated. I would agree that our best overall D is Giordano, and I might argue he compares favourably with anybody out there. Keith, Seabrook, Doughty, whoever. That being said its a steep drop-off down to Brodie and even more to Hamilton, who defensively has a lot to prove as he continues to mature and grow. As for the prospects, the big three seem to be in the same mold, though I'm not certain on Andersson. Of the others I think guys like Ollas-Maatson, Kanzig, Sieloff and Bruce all could be very fine, defensively, one day but certainly skating may get them to the NHL but is never going to be Elite. Getting back to my original question, though, nobody else really has a great top 4 with the exception of perhaps Nashville from what I see. Chicago is top 3 only, LAK top 2/3 maybe, Boston in their prime top 2/3 only, TBL now top 2/3 maybe, ANA now top4 very good but not great.... and on it goes. That seems to be the requirement, so having all top 6 offensive guys just might do it, if you play a strong system and have strong supporting guys? I finally fully agree on your overall assessment of this thread and general thinking on D, its all about the numbers. Though this is concrete and entertaining I'm not sure its the primary reason for team success. But then again, look at perhaps the best D/best player to ever play the game: Bobby Orr.... ALL offence, so much that he pretty much single-handedly changed the NHL for all time!

jjg, I can appreciate a lot of what you say. Certainly, the focus on getting to "average" is probably only going to get the team to average results. The Flames as a team need to aim higher. One of the great things from last year is the Flames were exceptional in a couple of areas. Firstly, the overall effort and hard work, and secondly, the "never quit" attitude that fuelled a lot of comeback wins. They also were at or near the top in a couple other items, like PP chances against.... These are all intangibles but frankly, are pretty crucial to LT success. All these areas slumped this year, at least relative to the league as a whole. The team needs to continue strong in those areas while continuing to build to exceptional in other, primary areas, like offence, defence, GAA and Special Teams. The other thing I agree with is the team defence wasn't all that great in defensive zone coverage this year, which has been clearly shown in a couple FN articles (e.g. D coverage of great D offences?) and just eye-balling the myriad of D lapses this season. I'd say the actual D were average to above average overall in defensive zone coverage. To that end I'd like to know, what do you see as the ideal 7-man D in the NHL? Many, many on here seem to think high-scoring, offensively gifted, puck-moving D is ideal and any departure from that is not only bad, but a type of D from an earlier age that should be avoided at pretty much all costs (e.g. Engelland). So here's the scenario. Right now with Giordano, Brodie and Hamilton we have what many would call three #1D (albeit Hamilton still adjusting). All three guys are pretty fast, good to great-skating, excellent passing, puck-moving D that jump into the offence at a moment's notice, if not lead it into the zone. And they can score, adding a significant element to their team's overall offence. Defensively they are all pretty solid with coverage and positioning, but not too physical nor what I would call great along the boards or in front of the net. All three could easily be a #1D on a LOT of NHL teams. In our prospect pool we have at least three additional guys that play and sound and look a LOT like our current top 3, those being Kylington, Andersson and Hickey. Let's assume for a minute all three continue to progress and grow and make it to the NHL Flames in two to three years, and are able to contribute to the same extent as our current top 3 D are, both defensively and offensively. Since we still have our current top 3 D, we'd end up with a top 6 D all in the same mold of puck-moving, offensively-gifted, D-positioning "#1-type" Defensemen. QUESTION: Is THAT your ideal NHL defence that the Flames should be working towards, or are there other elements that are currently present, or perhaps missing that are CRUCIAL to a successful NHL D corps? You can give examples, please.

Fully agree, he paid his dues in the AHL, came up and has been consistent and steady, an upgrade over the guys he replaced. We shouldn't be gaw gaw over him but he doesn't deserve the "AHL player" or "Derek Smith-like" comparisons either. Give credit where credit is due. Except you consistently talk him down and dismiss him as an effective player, even if his play is just the opposite.

Not sure what you've got against Nakladal. He came up and played very well. An upgrade on D.

Expansion Draft. If it goes, it opens up the whole goalie market, whether directly with current teams or with the expansion team via a post-draft trade.

How about half-buried bunker like the South end of Nose Hill? Terrific views, still have the park above, but would need transit. Perhaps a gondola from DT? LOL

Yes, I agree on CrossIron Mills too. Develop it into a huge entertainment/sports district. With the excellent highway links it already has great access to most of the city. Although just outside the city at the moment it could easily be annexed. One way or another, someone needs some vision for the city going forward.

Cross, I'm not sure where you think King did a shoddy job. The City basically agreed with what he put forward on the facility itself. King never outlined road/utility costs(not his responsibility), and he was trying to be a catalyst for the clean-up discussion(which has happened). As for the 6 years to clean-up, I wouldn't believe everything just because someone puts it into a report. Cochrane had a similar contamination issue and once a developer got serious it was dealt with like in two years. You will note 3 year of the supposed clean-up is to get permits. Like it takes that long if you are really trying. The City is going to be on the hook for the 100's of millions of clean-up and road/utility dollars whether this project proceeds or not.

I love the potential of any of the first 3, especially if an expansion draft is in the works. zNone of those teams is going to be willing to lose their guy for nothing, its just a matter of when they make a move and if they are able to do a side deal with the expansion team NOT to pick their goalie.....

No, don't agree on the Nak appraisal. He is strong in the D zone, good positioning, strong on the boards and one of the best net-front. Not as strong offensively I agree, but he is coming and getting more involved as his games increase. Propping Nak isn't to say I'm down on our other guys. They are very good too, but have a slightly different skill set. Although I agree that Brodie is a terrific D, skating and puck movement is elite, he's smaller and gets beat on the boards and net-front, like on the 2nd LAK goal tonight. My liking Nak is mainly in terms of looking at our whole D corps. We have several terrific offensive D but few that are big, tough and mean who can regularly compete on the boards and net-front. Engelland and to a lessor extent Gio are the only ones who do this. On rare occasion Hamilton gets more physical but it is rare. Although its great to have these great offensive D, we also need some guys who can clear the front of the net and win board battles against the NHL's best. To me Nak is doing that job very well right now and we definitely need more of that on the team. Of our developing D prospects the ONLY one who meets that need is Kanzig (with other deficiencies), although I admit to not really knowing how Bruce or Ollas-Matsson will turn out. We definitely should be re-signing Nakladal for say a couple of years and see how he continues to develop, which should give more time for our young guys to develop. If we end up drafting #6 this June I would be all for picking up either Chykryn or Sergachev as from what I've seen both are more like the physical/strong/offensive/skating D that we are missing. Although we have lots of D prospects, its the type that really matters now.

OK, good discussion. I guess I'll have to keep watching closely, especially the gap control and recovery of each guy. I still believe Nak is one of our best on the boards and net-front. I agree Brodie is one of the best D overall, just that his weakness is being smaller stature and struggling occasionally in board battles with bigger guys or handling guys in front of the net. Hamilton is still learning to be aware before dumping the puck up the boards, right to the opposition, and needs to play physical, especially behind the net. He is getting better in that, though. Of course it is hard to argue with quality of opposition and TOI because the coach doesn't play Nak that much, but to me he could. With the experimentations going on lately Nak has been getting more minutes so we'll see how he handles it. Hopefully they re-sign him. Jokipakka is very good at using his stick to poke the puck away and seems very sound positionally. He is the least tentative offensively but both he and Nak are becoming more familiar and becoming more involved. Offensively, of course, Gio, Brodie and Hamilton are all near elite and it shows in their points and impact on helping drive the whole Flames offence.

My point which you seemed to ignore is what defines a Top4 D? Is it defensive skill/responsibility, offensive contribution or a combination of the two? When I compared Nakladal to Hamilton and Brodie I was only speaking of the defensive aspects of their games. Let's put it another way. Watching games I regularly see a defensive gaffe/missed assignment/player get beaten re: Hamilton, and to a lessor degree Brodie, but rarely see it with Nakladal. For instance, when have you ever seen Nakladal knocked off the puck along the boards, versus Brodie who can't fully compete against the bigger forwards. Now, we can argue that its because they are up against better competition/players so you can't really compare, which is likely true to some extent. However, I also believe that Hamilton & Brodie's focus/contributions on the offensive side of things offsets how we view them overall, which is also important, of course. The bottom line is defensively I see Nakladal as very strong, and if we define Top4 D as primarily defensive-minded he can easily fit into that slot. Again I'll ask. How do you (specifically) define Top4 D? Another way to think about it. What makes Hamonic a Top2/Top4 D, even though he doesn't actually contribute much offensively, and makes so many here seemingly going ga ga to get him in a trade? The bottom line is we often seem to fall for the "grass is greener" syndrome, while all the while having just what we think we need staring us right in the face. With Nakladal, Jokipakka and Wotherspoon I believe that is very much the case......

Hmm, how do we define Top4 D? Our D is supposedly one of the best, but the results are not there defensively, just offensively. Defensively I'd put Nakladal above Hamilton and right around Brodie. They play differently but both are effective in different ways. As long as the Flames' focus is on offensive-minded D joining/leading the rush, Nakladal may not be ideal Top4, but that doesn't mean he's not capable as a Top4. I mean, really. What do you think Regher was for the Flames, a #6/#7D?

AS I recall you have the history correct. Based on his recent play I believe he should be re-signed and given the shot to compete for the starting job this Fall. His current 0.908 is a compilation of the whole season, he's been better recently.

Although he might be able to fill a back-up role, we already have that with Ortio, plus, and we should therefore just stick with him for the rest of the games. I can't see Scrivens being a serious starter consideration, so therefore, no.