Goaltending

[MAC331]

6 minutes ago, rickross said:

I think everyone is all for giving Rittich and Gillies their opportunities, it's just what happens if it doesn't work out for whatever myriad of reasons? What are our options?..we all know you can't win a Cup without a top goalie. U can't expect this team to consistently win and play with confidence with their goalie situation still in flux. I think one of these goalies steps up this season but I could easily be wrong. We could very well have 2 decent backups in Rittich and Gillies, if that is the case...realistically what can and will the Flames do to finally get their goalie?

The answer to this is we don't know the answer yet. If I am Peters I would be sitting Smith down at the beginning of the season and tell him he will be playing less games. As we found out last season he isn't any good to us injured or coming back from one.

[rickross]

1 minute ago, MAC331 said:

The answer to this is we don't know the answer yet. If I am Peters I would be sitting Smith down at the beginning of the season and tell him he will be playing less games. As we found out last season he isn't any good to us injured or coming back from one.

This this is why it's a major problem, during this entire rebuild its never been addressed. Ramo, Hiller, Ortio, Backstrom, Elliot, Johnson, Lack and now Smith. For years we lacked the speed, skill and youth. Didn't have enough centres, so we got lots now in Backlund, Monny and Lindholm, Ryan and Janko. We needed more RHS D men, we got Wideman, Hammy and Stone. We need RWs..now we have Neal, Lindholm, Frolik and Czarnik. This whole time, goaltending has been the biggest area of concern since Kipper retired! I'm just saying it must be addressedby this year or going into next season if we want to ever become realistic contenders in the league 

[travel_dude]

48 minutes ago, rickross said:

It's a problem. This team can't take the next step without a starting goaltender. It's just wasting precious term and valued cap with each season that passes. We'd likely have been a top 5 drafting team had it not been for Mike Smith most nights...I  actually believe in Rittich right now to provide sufficient backup goaltending, Gillies I'm  I think needs more seasoning. 

 

Ive said it from the start of the rebuild, it's not complete until you have your goalie!...and the search continues for the Flames. Signing Bobrosvky or Varlamov will be expensive and risky at their age. I'm sure Treliving inquired about Hellebuyck a few seasons back when he was considered on the bubble by many. 

 

I guess the play us hoping Rittich becomes the next Kipper or Gillies the new J.Quick....

 

Goaltending was almost the reason for us being a top 5 drafting team last year.  I would say that about 50% of Smith's starts were on fire.  25% were games that could have gone either way.  25% were just plain bad.  55 starts, 56 points, of which 6 were loser points.  We need a starter that can win closer to 65% of the starts.  Then the backup is just there to help maintain the points.

 

Talbot had 31 wins but also 31 losses.  If you are running a goalie for 55 starts or more, then you need better.  

[cccsberg]

5 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

Then you will be too late.

 

You are correct that it's a mistake to evaluate the goaltending without considering the play in front. It is also bad to cherry pick the good games and ignore the bad (which people do all the time) or give the goalies a pass because of the team in front of them (which is what you are doing). 

 

The Flames were not the worst defensive team in the NHL last season. But over 82 games they had average goaltending from the starter and poor goaltending from the backups. There is little reason to believe it will be better this season, and given the age / injury to our starter there is a legitimate concern it could be worse. 

The back-ups were very good to excellent the majority of their games and poor to terrible the rest, more or less.  There is every reason to believe it will be better this season.  The young guys should be getting better, and more games.  Also, BP should be evening out Smith's starts which should bode better re his health.  But, we've already been over this ad naseum.  Long summer I guess.....

[conundrumed]

36 minutes ago, rickross said:

It's so hard to do though...what if your goalie is riding a hot streak?...do you risk throwing him out of rhythm throughout the season?  Goalie confidence is such a tricky thing to manage. Some goalies need to work themselves back into their "zone" or sometimes they need those quick rebound games to stay sharp and maintain confidence. It's tough to peg a target on goalies but you do have to manage it somehow, especially with guys like Smith. 

 

If Rittich and Gillies can't prove their worth then it could leave few options where we part with another prospect like Gillies himself, and/or a player like Bennett, Lazar. Maybe you package a deal for a guy like Schneider?.. good goalie and has experience playing in front of both conferences...he's seen a lot of shooters. He's also injury prone and already 32 though. 

 

 

Yes. "Riding the hot hand" has to be one of the dumbest approaches in Pro Sports.

It doesn't even make sense. It doesn't "come and go" or you wouldn't be getting paid millions.

All this is, is being touchy feelie with goalies. Don't be.

"I'm in a zone, the puck looks like a basketball".

Good. Now get your Hash Rate on the bench and show me that in a coupla nights, it's not your start.

Countless goalies have played better when they're pissed off. Keep them on edge.

You aren't pals, you're running a hockey team.

You always hear, "goalies are an odd bunch".

That's another retarded view. They aren't.

But they just had to focus for 60+ minutes while watching their bonehead teammates struggle to focus for 50% of their 20 minutes.

Try that at your own work. Does it make you odd or right?

Be tough on goalies, manage them like a boss, not a co-worker.

Sure as hell do it with skaters. Hire the most belligerent old school goalie coach you can find.

The goalies will be thanking him before long.

No kid gloves. Trainers are there to make you better, not be your buddy.

Of course in this age of, "oh my, don't hurt feelings", an old guy whipping his stick at you might be out of line.

Which I know for a fact would be the case with Smith. <3 net lengths out, "yup, I threw my stick and I'll take the 2 because I don't have a goalie".

"Seeing as you're here to stop pucks, how about you pretend you're a dman and I'll just take slapshots at you, seeing as you're good at stopping pucks and all".

Point taken. After awhile of that, you really start to respect why someone is being so hard on you.

And competition talks about the improvement.

 

[DirtyDeeds]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Goaltending was almost the reason for us being a top 5 drafting team last year.  I would say that about 50% of Smith's starts were on fire.  25% were games that could have gone either way.  25% were just plain bad.  55 starts, 56 points, of which 6 were loser points.  We need a starter that can win closer to 65% of the starts.  Then the backup is just there to help maintain the points.

 

Talbot had 31 wins but also 31 losses.  If you are running a goalie for 55 starts or more, then you need better.  

You do realize that only 5 of the top goalies in all of NHL got to 65%+ wins last season right???

 

Those 5 who did are 1-2-3-13-17 on this list.

 

 

They don't grow on trees and we would be hard pressed to trade for any of them even if we wanted or had the assets to try.

[travel_dude]

42 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

You do realize that only 5 of the top goalies in all of NHL got to 65%+ wins last season right???

 

Those 5 who did are 1-2-3-13-17 on this list.

 

 

They don't grow on trees and we would be hard pressed to trade for any of them even if we wanted or had the assets to try.

 

Obviously wishful thinking.  Maybe I wasn;t saying it right, but 65% of the available points for the games starter.  Not exactly 65% wins.  We had one that was around 50% for points, but well below that in win %.  The sentiment is we need to get better.  A lot better.  

[Thebrewcrew]

Smith hasn't started more than 55 games the last 3 seasons due to injury. At his age let's face it he won't ever be starting more than 55 again.

 

Best play is to give the backup a few early starts to see what they've got. None of this the backup plays once every 7-10 games. Who cares if Smith isn't happy with a reduced work load, his body has a track record of breaking down after being overplayed. 

 

Just looking at our first few games, we have no b2b and actually have among the fewest in the league, I think the backup should start the 4th game of the year in STL and the 8th in NYR. If they play good keep going, if they play really bad call up the other guy from Stockton. 

 

If we can get the backup(s) a few starts in the first month and see what they are made of it will be nothing but beneficial for the team. We either see that the backup can handle it this season  or we see the backup can not handle it and BT can begin the search to find one before the backup has cost us too many games

[DirtyDeeds]

All the starts and backups getting enough starts are on the Goalie coach (Sigalet). He has been the one with most say and provides the input(list of recommended backup starts)  to the coach. Sure you could say the coach has the last say but the one common factor influencing starts is the goalie coach and he has survived 3 coaches now. The same over playing of our #1persists and the same thinking( we need the win so the #1 needs to play) carries over to each season.

[rickross]

My whole thing is that in the meantime we’ve given up 1st and 2nd Rds picks to land Hamilton and Hamonic recently, great players to acquire but did we NEED to have Hamonic over say spending the picks on a goalie of the future? Obviously we don’t know the extent of trade talks and all that but It’s time to just put a nail in this goalie carousel. It seems like every year our biggest question mark always back to netminding and for good reason. 

[kehatch]

1 hour ago, rickross said:

My whole thing is that in the meantime we’ve given up 1st and 2nd Rds picks to land Hamilton and Hamonic recently, great players to acquire but did we NEED to have Hamonic over say spending the picks on a goalie of the future? Obviously we don’t know the extent of trade talks and all that but It’s time to just put a nail in this goalie carousel. It seems like every year our biggest question mark always back to netminding and for good reason. 

 

The problem is the GM has taken half measures to address the goal tending. Rather then get Bishop a few years ago they got Elliott. Before that it was Hiller. It was Johnson as a backup instead of getting a potential starter. Then it was a cheap but older goalie in Smith. 

 

I was fine with most of that because it made more sense to get a temporary solution while you developed a solution internally. But they haven't been able to do the latter. 

 

Which is why I am not a fan of just waiting to see if Rittich can take an unlikely step forward. 

[travel_dude]

22 minutes ago, kehatch said:

 

The problem is the GM has taken half measures to address the goal tending. Rather then get Bishop a few years ago they got Elliott. Before that it was Hiller. It was Johnson as a backup instead of getting a potential starter. Then it was a cheap but older goalie in Smith. 

 

I was fine with most of that because it made more sense to get a temporary solution while you developed a solution internally. But they haven't been able to do the latter. 

 

Which is why I am not a fan of just waiting to see if Rittich can take an unlikely step forward. 

 

He tries to get both MAF and Bishop, but didn't like the asking price.  He settled twice.

Smith had 35-40 decent starts, but was bad the rest of them.  As a 1a/1b option, he probably would have been fine.

You have to wonder what BT is thinking during all this. 

Does he think that the team was the reason why Smith/Rittich was not good enough?  Does he have belief that Gillies will be ready by next year?

He's betting his job on the two goalies that don't exactly have history on their side.

 

I wonder if he's calling other teams about their backup goalies.  Starting the conversation now.  I can't see him going into the season without a plan B.

[DirtyDeeds]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

He tries to get both MAF and Bishop, but didn't like the asking price.  He settled twice.

Smith had 35-40 decent starts, but was bad the rest of them.  As a 1a/1b option, he probably would have been fine.

You have to wonder what BT is thinking during all this. 

Does he think that the team was the reason why Smith/Rittich was not good enough?  Does he have belief that Gillies will be ready by next year?

He's betting his job on the two goalies that don't exactly have history on their side.

 

I wonder if he's calling other teams about their backup goalies.  Starting the conversation now.  I can't see him going into the season without a plan B.

This. He as much as said he was okay with the Smith Rittich combo for this coming season.

 

I have said before BT is a thrift Shop manager. He lost Bishop(maybe twice) because he was waiting on better price or waited too long. He was in discussions on MAF but did not seal the deal before expansion draft. I think I recall he felt the asking price was too high anyway. There are really not many more options he could have been in on.

 

I don't see a lot of options/upgrades this off season. He does not have a lot of choice.

[FlameFan4Life]

Putting a better forward group in front of the goalie will definitely help. If we are able to control the puck, the play, and ultimately score more goals the goalies won't be expected to stand on the heads every night. We are alot deeper at forward. We just lost two of our oldest players and replaced them with more well rounded option and added a well known special teams coach that should help to improve the PP. I think that the net will be fine this year. Smith may even get another smaller contract before the end of the year. He may not play as many games while others get more starts once earned.

[MAC331]

6 hours ago, rickross said:

This this is why it's a major problem, during this entire rebuild its never been addressed. Ramo, Hiller, Ortio, Backstrom, Elliot, Johnson, Lack and now Smith. For years we lacked the speed, skill and youth. Didn't have enough centres, so we got lots now in Backlund, Monny and Lindholm, Ryan and Janko. We needed more RHS D men, we got Wideman, Hammy and Stone. We need RWs..now we have Neal, Lindholm, Frolik and Czarnik. This whole time, goaltending has been the biggest area of concern since Kipper retired! I'm just saying it must be addressedby this year or going into next season if we want to ever become realistic contenders in the league 

So why not give the Goalies we have first shot at being the answer for us rather than run out and try another hopeful, someone who is currently sharing a net. Is this not what we did by bringing in Elliott and as good as he was he wasn't quite enough. My point is try wat we have before you run out and get someone else. I understand there will be those on here that won't trust the current situation ever. Fear of the Unknown I guess.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, DirtyDeeds said:

This. He as much as said he was okay with the Smith Rittich combo for this coming season.

 

I have said before BT is a thrift Shop manager. He lost Bishop(maybe twice) because he was waiting on better price or waited too long. He was in discussions on MAF but did not seal the deal before expansion draft. I think I recall he felt the asking price was too high anyway. There are really not many more options he could have been in on.

 

I don't see a lot of options/upgrades this off season. He does not have a lot of choice.

 

I don;t think he has much choice but to throw support at the pair.  Lack of options.  It doesn;t mean he is sold on them.

 

Bishop was prior to the 2016 draft and before Elliott was obtained.

Supposedly, Bishop was giving the Flames his contract demands (reportedly >$6m long term) and they went a different direction.  Hard to say if Tkachuk pick was involved, but they must have been asking for something valuable.  I think that messed up any chance of Bishop wanting to sign with CGY, so he wouldn't accept a trade to CGY at the TDL.  

 

With MAF, the asking price was the 1st rounder.   Tkachuk.  I think that they tried to make another deal nearing the TDL 2017, but it seemed that JR had already made some kind of deal with Vegas.  There was no reason to trade him at that point.  They could keep him for the season and only lose MAF to expansion.  

 

It remains to be seen how long a leash BT gives his goalies.  They gave up on Elliott after a bad series where they all played bad.  Smith has the net for now.

[DirtyDeeds]

23 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

So why not give the Goalies we have first shot at being the answer for us rather than run out and try another hopeful, someone who is currently sharing a net. Is this not what we did by bringing in Elliott and as good as he was he wasn't quite enough. My point is try wat we have before you run out and get someone else. I understand there will be those on here that won't trust the current situation ever. Fear of the Unknown I guess.

We can only surmise from what has happened in the past.

• So far Smith has shown he is injury prone and can't do a heavy schedule. His getting older isn't going to change that.
• To date none of our prospects have shown they can fill in for anything except light backup duties.

I think many here have good reason to be worried. Goaltending has held us back (along with other reasons) for a long time.. since Kipper era.

[DirtyDeeds]

6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don;t think he has much choice but to throw support at the pair.  Lack of options.  It doesn;t mean he is sold on them.

 

Bishop was prior to the 2016 draft and before Elliott was obtained.

Supposedly, Bishop was giving the Flames his contract demands (reportedly >$6m long term) and they went a different direction.  Hard to say if Tkachuk pick was involved, but they must have been asking for something valuable.  I think that messed up any chance of Bishop wanting to sign with CGY, so he wouldn't accept a trade to CGY at the TDL.  

 

With MAF, the asking price was the 1st rounder.   Tkachuk.  I think that they tried to make another deal nearing the TDL 2017, but it seemed that JR had already made some kind of deal with Vegas.  There was no reason to trade him at that point.  They could keep him for the season and only lose MAF to expansion.  

 

It remains to be seen how long a leash BT gives his goalies.  They gave up on Elliott after a bad series where they all played bad.  Smith has the net for now.

I think we had 2 chances at Bishop. Before and just after LA got him.

[travel_dude]

4 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I think we had 2 chances at Bishop. Before and just after LA got him.

I think that LA wanted him to keep him away from us.  They could have traded his rights to us, but chose a 4th from Dallas. 

[kehatch]

5 hours ago, MAC331 said:

So why not give the Goalies we have first shot at being the answer for us rather than run out and try another hopeful, someone who is currently sharing a net. Is this not what we did by bringing in Elliott and as good as he was he wasn't quite enough. My point is try wat we have before you run out and get someone else. I understand there will be those on here that won't trust the current situation ever. Fear of the Unknown I guess.

 

We might as well trade Gaudreau and Monahan and put Bennett and Jankowski in their place. I know both of those guys were 25 point forwards last season, but boy oh boy did they look good in flashes. I mean, Jankowski had 4 goals in one game. Imagine if he did that for 82 games? 

 

In fact, I have no idea why we picked up Neal. Gawdin was a 120+ point forward last season and Foo's production projects at 40+ goals over 82 games. Plus, both of these guys actually have RH shots on the RW. 

 

Why did we get Lindholm/Hanafin back for Hamilton when we could have just used Dube/Valimaki? And Ryan is just taking up Klimchuks spot. Ridiculous. 

 

At least Treliving didn't pollute goaltending like he did every other position. I mean, subpar performances last season should indicate stellar performances this season. Obviously. And Smith is like a fine wine, better with age and all that. It's really smart thinking not to add depth to the most important position, and one where we had significant struggles. Better to trust the current situation and do the exact same thing this season. What could go wrong?? 

[robrob74]

6 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

We can only surmise from what has happened in the past.

• So far Smith has shown he is injury prone and can't do a heavy schedule. His getting older isn't going to change that.
• To date none of our prospects have shown they can fill in for anything except light backup duties.

I think many here have good reason to be worried. Goaltending has held us back (along with other reasons) for a long time.. since Kipper era.

 

I don’t agree. I understand the numbers/stats will say that goalies hold us back. It’s easy to place the blame on them because that’s what numbers say. Truth is we are a bonehead team that makes boneheaded mistakes at the wrong times that everyone knows you can’t make them. Other good teams make you pay. Then the goalies’ numbers go down and then the blame gets placed on them. 

 

Theyre not 100% to blame for this team’s failures. 

 

That said, I think we are screwed until we fix that part of the game because history has shown, only Carey Price can fix a team like ours. That is what everyone is asking for. 

On paper, we’ve looked better than the Canadiens, but in reality, were we? No.

[cccsberg]

6 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

We might as well trade Gaudreau and Monahan and put Bennett and Jankowski in their place. I know both of those guys were 25 point forwards last season, but boy oh boy did they look good in flashes. I mean, Jankowski had 4 goals in one game. Imagine if he did that for 82 games? 

 

In fact, I have no idea why we picked up Neal. Gawdin was a 120+ point forward last season and Foo's production projects at 40+ goals over 82 games. Plus, both of these guys actually have RH shots on the RW. 

 

Why did we get Lindholm/Hanafin back for Hamilton when we could have just used Dube/Valimaki? And Ryan is just taking up Klimchuks spot. Ridiculous. 

 

At least Treliving didn't pollute goaltending like he did every other position. I mean, subpar performances last season should indicate stellar performances this season. Obviously. And Smith is like a fine wine, better with age and all that. It's really smart thinking not to add depth to the most important position, and one where we had significant struggles. Better to trust the current situation and do the exact same thing this season. What could go wrong?? 

Hey, nice try.  Actually I would just as soon have stayed with/promoted 4 of the 7 guys you mentioned.... We shall see.  

[cccsberg]

5 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I don’t agree. I understand the numbers/stats will say that goalies hold us back. It’s easy to place the blame on them because that’s what numbers say. Truth is we are a bonehead team that makes boneheaded mistakes at the wrong times that everyone knows you can’t make them. Other good teams make you pay. Then the goalies’ numbers go down and then the blame gets placed on them. 

 

Theyre not 100% to blame for this team’s failures. 

 

That said, I think we are screwed until we fix that part of the game because history has shown, only Carey Price can fix a team like ours. That is what everyone is asking for. 

On paper, we’ve looked better than the Canadiens, but in reality, were we? No.

Wow, that's a slap.  Can't agree with that at all.  I wouldn't mind Carey Price though.  BT, get on it.

[MAC331]

13 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

We can only surmise from what has happened in the past.

• So far Smith has shown he is injury prone and can't do a heavy schedule. His getting older isn't going to change that.
• To date none of our prospects have shown they can fill in for anything except light backup duties.

I think many here have good reason to be worried. Goaltending has held us back (along with other reasons) for a long time.. since Kipper era.

So would you not think now would be the time to have a plan that adds to their workloads so they progress through to the next stage of their development. They are only going to gain the necessary experience by actually going through it. I think some need to quit planning to win the SC every season and take measures to advance our future.

[MAC331]

8 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

We might as well trade Gaudreau and Monahan and put Bennett and Jankowski in their place. I know both of those guys were 25 point forwards last season, but boy oh boy did they look good in flashes. I mean, Jankowski had 4 goals in one game. Imagine if he did that for 82 games? 

 

In fact, I have no idea why we picked up Neal. Gawdin was a 120+ point forward last season and Foo's production projects at 40+ goals over 82 games. Plus, both of these guys actually have RH shots on the RW. 

 

Why did we get Lindholm/Hanafin back for Hamilton when we could have just used Dube/Valimaki? And Ryan is just taking up Klimchuks spot. Ridiculous. 

 

At least Treliving didn't pollute goaltending like he did every other position. I mean, subpar performances last season should indicate stellar performances this season. Obviously. And Smith is like a fine wine, better with age and all that. It's really smart thinking not to add depth to the most important position, and one where we had significant struggles. Better to trust the current situation and do the exact same thing this season. What could go wrong?? 

We get it , you don't think they can handle and we do, don't cry over your view not being adopted.