Goaltending

[tmac70]

Glad our starting roster cant beat an AHL team, no worries it just preseason don't be concerned. Our starting goalie can't stop a a beach ball, we can't score have  zero intensity zero effort and zero cohesion from a club that played a full season last year.

I think they are playing possum  really their not this bad...we are going to bury Edm opening day, cause its preseason nothing to see here.

[xstrike]

34 minutes ago, cross16 said:

For a comparison sake, Brian Elliott was excellent in the pre season last year. 

 

something to consider. 

So... should we be concerned about Smith leaping off a lower cliff instead?

 

Got to watch some of the game tonight and Smith didn't really inspire confidence in me.

[rickross]

46 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

This has been a terrible game. They do not seem to be taking it seriously at all. A goal every now and then might be nice though. The strategy right now seems to be to win it without scoring a goal somehow. 

I have to remind myself that really the only reason the Flames limped their way into the playoffs last year was because of that 10 game tear they went, not to mention CJ's play early on. This team still has a lot to prove, even with all the new acquisitions I'm still tempering expectations. If we can't finally get some sound goaltending this year and find ourselves again on the goalie carousel it's time to find a new goalie coach, I don't want Gillies and Parson getting ruined. 

[kehatch]

32 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

Glad our starting roster cant beat an AHL team, no worries it just preseason don't be concerned. Our starting goalie can't stop a a beach ball, we can't score have  zero intensity zero effort and zero cohesion from a club that played a full season last year.

I think they are playing possum  really their not this bad...we are going to bury Edm opening day, cause its preseason nothing to see here.

 

It really is the preseason. I am not suggesting there isn't anything to worry about. Thr team gets a big fat F in just about every category and we have less then a week until go time. But nothing thst matters has happened yet and plenty of teams have poor preseasons before a strong regular season. 

[cross16]

53 minutes ago, xstrike said:

So... should we be concerned about Smith leaping off a lower cliff instead?

 

Got to watch some of the game tonight and Smith didn't really inspire confidence in me.

 

Just further proof the preseason doesn't mean anything. 

Smith will be fine. From what I see it's small correctable things he'll iron out as he gets sharper. 

[tmac70]

8 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

It really is the preseason. I am not suggesting there isn't anything to worry about. Thr team gets a big fat F in just about every category and we have less then a week until go time. But nothing thst matters has happened yet and plenty of teams have poor preseasons before a strong regular season. 

You and I have been around this for awhile....We both would be rich for every time a coach or player made comments  " yeah our compete level was just not there" ....... If this was something new it wouldn't be an issue but its not.

[AlbertaBoy12]

12 hours ago, tmac70 said:

Glad our starting roster cant beat an AHL team, no worries it just preseason don't be concerned. Our starting goalie can't stop a a beach ball, we can't score have  zero intensity zero effort and zero cohesion from a club that played a full season last year.

I think they are playing possum  really their not this bad...we are going to bury Edm opening day, cause its preseason nothing to see here.

It wasent really an AHL team outside of the sedins missing most of the guys out there played NHL hockey last year. On paper we had the better team last night, but I dont think by any stretch the canucks dominated, but the flames didnt really show up either so take that as you will.

[jjgallow]

21 hours ago, cross16 said:

For a comparison sake, Brian Elliott was excellent in the pre season last year. 

 

something to consider. 

 

Which would make sense, for those of us who strongly feel Smith was a downgrade.

 

Elliot was widely credited with getting the Flames into the playoffs, somewhat miraculously.   And, when he faltered, he was blamed for everything.    Which we are known for doing with goalies in Calgary.  It's been a problem since Vernon, and Kipper has been the only G to be immune to it.

 

Smith will surely perform better than this, but that doesn't mean he's going to give us what Elliot did.

[cccsberg]

Oh, just to update this topic to include Saturday's game against the Jets, Smith was excellent and the game's first star.  Looks like he's building for the start of the season.  I'm not giving up on him.  He didn't win multiple games for the Coyotes last year all on his own for nothing.  

[kehatch]

12 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Oh, just to update this topic to include Saturday's game against the Jets, Smith was excellent and the game's first star.  Looks like he's building for the start of the season.  I'm not giving up on him.  He didn't win multiple games for the Coyotes last year all on his own for nothing.  

 

The league average for SV% last season was .913.  Smith was .914.  Elliot was .909.  When you dig into the advanced goalie analytics the trend continues.  Smith was a slightly above average goalie last season while Elliott was a slightly below average goalie last season. 

 

You can make a case for Elliott. Before last season he was one of the better goalies in the NHL by the analytics, at least for some seasons.  Was it the increased workload last season that caused him to fall off?  The adjustment to a new team?  Just an off year for a goalie that has struggled with consistency from year to year?  Who knows?  Who cares?  That ship has sailed. 

 

What we do know is that IF Smith stays healthy and IF age doesn't catch up to him he should be at least as good in Calgary as he was in Arizona.  Probably better.  We know his game to game consistency is much better then Elliott/Hudler.  We know he can carry a heavy workload and is a proven starter.  We also know he is at the age where goalies often fall off and he has some injury history.  We know Lack has been terrible and the Flames are banking on a rebound.  Tough to predict a rebound, but the chances don't look great.  We also have a couple of young goalies in the system that might be NHL ready if called upon.  

 

All in all there are still a lot of question marks in net.  But the most likely outcome is us getting slightly above average goal tending that should be better and more consistent then last year.  

[DirtyDeeds]

On 27/09/2017 at 11:13 PM, jjgallow said:

 

Please check out the fascinating threads posted above with regards to "Lack is a Lock", and "Gillies is just an insurance piece".

 

If what you wrote was the case, maybe there wouldn't be "as much" of a debate.   But there are apparently opinions out there which have the roles you described of Gillies and Lack completely reversed.

 

By the way...you'll be second in line

I would prefer to see Gilles in Stockton but for different reasons.

 

I would rather not see the Flames goalie coach get him just yet. I have not seen consistant results up here. So far all we have seen is inconsistant or subpar results from his work/coaching.

[kehatch]

11 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I would prefer to see Gilles in Stockton but for different reasons.

 

I would rather not see the Flames goalie coach get him just yet. I have not seen consistant results up here. So far all we have seen is inconsistant or subpar results from his work/coaching.

 

It is really tough to judge a goalie coach since we are so far removed from them.  On one hand, I agree with you.  Goal tending in Calgary has been underwhelming for so long you have to question the coach.  On the other hand, this guy has been with the organization since 2011 and has survived multiple GM and coaching changes.  Something about him has kept him with the organization despite the results and the many opportunities to fire him.  

 

It kind of reminds be of Tod Button.  The Flames had poor results in the drafting department but this guy survived Sutter, Feaster, Burke, and Treliving.  Now they have terrific results in drafting.  

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I would prefer to see Gilles in Stockton but for different reasons.

 

I would rather not see the Flames goalie coach get him just yet. I have not seen consistant results up here. So far all we have seen is inconsistant or subpar results from his work/coaching.

 

Well that is true.   With regards to Todd Button, I think that difference is we all kinda knew Sutter didn't actually pay attention to what his scouts suggested.   He felt he had his finger on the pulse.  Which maybe he did at one time.   But things change and that's why you have a scouting department.

 

I don't feel the same explanation can be made for the goalie coach.  Who knows, maybe it can.  But it's a lot harder to fathom.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

It is really tough to judge a goalie coach since we are so far removed from them.  On one hand, I agree with you.  Goal tending in Calgary has been underwhelming for so long you have to question the coach.  On the other hand, this guy has been with the organization since 2011 and has survived multiple GM and coaching changes.  Something about him has kept him with the organization despite the results and the many opportunities to fire him.  

 

It kind of reminds be of Tod Button.  The Flames had poor results in the drafting department but this guy survived Sutter, Feaster, Burke, and Treliving.  Now they have terrific results in drafting.  

 

Button is doing what he was supposed to do the last few years.  You can see a few GM or POHO picks mingled in where they really fought for a guy.  

 

I find that the goalie coach here has never been hit or miss, he has always been miss.  I don't blame him for Hiller's regression.  I do have an issue with his results with Ortio and Ramo.  He worked extensively with them.  Both had tools, but turned into fish.  

[kehatch]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Button is doing what he was supposed to do the last few years.  You can see a few GM or POHO picks mingled in where they really fought for a guy.  

 

I find that the goalie coach here has never been hit or miss, he has always been miss.  I don't blame him for Hiller's regression.  I do have an issue with his results with Ortio and Ramo.  He worked extensively with them.  Both had tools, but turned into fish.  

 

Agreed. But if it were that simple then why hasn't the long list of head coaches and GMs not fired him? Which tells me it isn't that simple. 

[conundrumed]

5 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Button is doing what he was supposed to do the last few years.  You can see a few GM or POHO picks mingled in where they really fought for a guy.  

 

I find that the goalie coach here has never been hit or miss, he has always been miss.  I don't blame him for Hiller's regression.  I do have an issue with his results with Ortio and Ramo.  He worked extensively with them.  Both had tools, but turned into fish.  

Imo, it's hard to blame a goalie coach. If you are an NHL quality goalie, you should not need a goalie coach re-teaching the position, just working to your strengths while improving the weaknesses. If you are letting in 50% of wristers from the point (Hiller), I don't think that's the goalie coach.

 

[cross16]

flames approach since Kipper has been the "roll the dice" approach to goaltending. When you do that your picking from a lower talent pool so good goalie coach or not when you have that approach to your goaltending you should expect inconsistent result. I don't think a goalie coach has enough of an impact to iron out inconsistencies when you have that type of approach to goaltending. 

[conundrumed]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

flames approach since Kipper has been the "roll the dice" approach to goaltending. When you do that your picking from a lower talent pool so good goalie coach or not when you have that approach to your goaltending you should expect inconsistent result. I don't think a goalie coach has enough of an impact to iron out inconsistencies when you have that type of approach to goaltending. 

It's been 30+ years since I've been subjected to goalie coaches.

The main thing 3 out of 4 did for me was keep me scared, intense and focused.

Short term Ex-Leaf Tim Bernhardt was the 1-in-4.

He taught me to butterfly and filled me with positives.

Great coach. The other 3 were hard-checking from behind, taught me how to be focused (via hatred lol).

Goalie coaches, like goalies, are another breed.

So my big question is, do we need a nasty goalie coach?

How many G changes have we had since Kipper?

We're a laughingstock.

Please Smith, grab this by the throat and slap it around.

He's more visibly emotional than anything we've had in a while.

Fingers crossed, toes crossed, arms and legs, eyes. lol

[jjgallow]

On 10/1/2017 at 2:38 PM, cross16 said:

flames approach since Kipper has been the "roll the dice" approach to goaltending. When you do that your picking from a lower talent pool so good goalie coach or not when you have that approach to your goaltending you should expect inconsistent result. I don't think a goalie coach has enough of an impact to iron out inconsistencies when you have that type of approach to goaltending. 

 

Specifically, "roll the dice" on aging veterans proven in either the NHL or KHL.

 

It's a gamble, if you think any of these goalies are going to take us all the way.   A massive gamble.  But a guarantee that they will in some way resemble an NHL caliber.

 

Been  a long time since they've actually gambled on a goalie with a high ceiling.

 

Either way you look at it (I'm saying I think they're too safe), I would agree, it's true that the goalie coach can't be entirely blamed.    But the track record still ain't great.   Definitely a trend.

[travel_dude]

41 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Specifically, "roll the dice" on aging veterans proven in either the NHL or KHL.

 

It's a gamble, if you think any of these goalies are going to take us all the way.   A massive gamble.  But a guarantee that they will in some way resemble an NHL caliber.

 

Been  a long time since they've actually gambled on a goalie with a high ceiling.

 

Either way you look at it (I'm saying I think they're too safe), I would agree, it's true that the goalie coach can't be entirely blamed.    But the track record still ain't great.   Definitely a trend.

 

If you look at the success of the Pens, they had a 1st round pick that turned into a starter.  Then they drafted a guy in the 3rd that spent 4 years in junior and almost two full seasons in the AHL.  In his draft year he was no better than Mason MacDonald.  The extra time turned him into what he is now.

 

If you apply the same thing to the Flames, you have Gillies in the 2nd AHL season with the chance to come in like Murray did.  But he is gong to have to up his game.

 

Smith and Lack are stopgaps.  Nobody is disputing that.  Gillies or Parsons are the guys they are waiting for.  That's not going to happen overnight.  

 

Smith could be good enough to bring us to the finals this year.  It's a gamble, but so is trading for Raanta or Darling.  Ether of those guys could be in the recycle bin by the end of the year.  Saros or Grubauer were never available.  Those are the only two that I would say are hidden gems.  Mason is about on par with Smth.  

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

If you look at the success of the Pens, they had a 1st round pick that turned into a starter.  Then they drafted a guy in the 3rd that spent 4 years in junior and almost two full seasons in the AHL.  In his draft year he was no better than Mason MacDonald.  The extra time turned him into what he is now.

 

If you apply the same thing to the Flames, you have Gillies in the 2nd AHL season with the chance to come in like Murray did.  But he is gong to have to up his game.

 

Smith and Lack are stopgaps.  Nobody is disputing that.  Gillies or Parsons are the guys they are waiting for.  That's not going to happen overnight.  

 

Smith could be good enough to bring us to the finals this year.  It's a gamble, but so is trading for Raanta or Darling.  Ether of those guys could be in the recycle bin by the end of the year.  Saros or Grubauer were never available.  Those are the only two that I would say are hidden gems.  Mason is about on par with Smth.  

 

I thought there was more available than Saros or Grubauer, but I'm an optimist.   Laurent Brossoit, for instance.....

 

...

 

..

[Zirakzigil]

Drafting goalies is such a crapshoot, even when you take the best kid in the draft. Their development is so finicky. Smith is definitely a stopgap for most likely Gillies, Treliving should have dealt with this issue 3 years ago though. Hes been mucking around too long with goaltending and there is zero consistency back there.  

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I thought there was more available than Saros or Grubauer, but I'm an optimist.   Laurent Brossoit, for instance.....

 

...

 

..

 

Who?  Oh, you mean the one left exposed by the Oilers.  I'm not a fan personally.  Jut because we were unable to score on him last year doesn't make him a NHL goalie.  Backup maybe.  I doubt he even gets 15 games this year,

[cross16]

14 hours ago, Zirakzigil said:

Drafting goalies is such a crapshoot, even when you take the best kid in the draft. Their development is so finicky. Smith is definitely a stopgap for most likely Gillies, Treliving should have dealt with this issue 3 years ago though. Hes been mucking around too long with goaltending and there is zero consistency back there.  

 

The ultimate crapshoot. Literally like throwing darts at a dart board.

 

Proof;
 

 

[jjgallow]

16 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

  Jut because we were unable to score on him last year doesn't make him a NHL goalie.  

 

ouch...