Goaltending

[The_People1]

7 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Vladar is easily tradeable with that contract. Markstrom has a NMC so it's off the table. A buyout would be ultra dumb. He's maybe 10% of the problem. Fix all of the other garbage and that number will shrink.

Bounce back seasons are pretty normal.

 

Vladar's numbers were bad.  0.895sv.  not impossible to move but not easy either.  Markstrom with even worse numbers.

 

Honestly Markstrom allowed no less than 30 bad goals this season.  The difference between playoffs and no playoffs was literally Markstrom taking back 5 bad goals.  In other words, it was almost entirely his fault.

 

10% if the problem??  Markstrom already faces some of the least shots against because the Flames dominate in Shots For/Against.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Vladar's numbers were bad.  0.895sv.  not impossible to move but not easy either.  Markstrom with even worse numbers.

 

Honestly Markstrom allowed no less than 30 bad goals this season.  The difference between playoffs and no playoffs was literally Markstrom taking back 5 bad goals.  In other words, it was almost entirely his fault.

 

10% if the problem??  Markstrom already faces some of the least shots against because the Flames dominate in Shots For/Against.

I don't put too much stock into shot volume. We look at our top of the league shots. My bet is we are very average when it comes to high danger chances, and then in my view even worse when it comes to eye test high danger chances for. 
 

against, we still tend to leave pucks in bad spots to give great chances to the other team, turnovers etc. some goals shouldn't be scored, but we also give up terrible chances. 
 

While I do agree with you that the goaltending was bad, offence still didn't do enough with their billions of shots they had throughout the season.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Vladar's numbers were bad.  0.895sv.  not impossible to move but not easy either.  Markstrom with even worse numbers.

 

Honestly Markstrom allowed no less than 30 bad goals this season.  The difference between playoffs and no playoffs was literally Markstrom taking back 5 bad goals.  In other words, it was almost entirely his fault.

 

10% if the problem??  Markstrom already faces some of the least shots against because the Flames dominate in Shots For/Against.

 

Depends on one's perspective,

 

Bringing Wolf up for a couple games likely coulda got us in the playoffs too.   It's not like we were helpless, we just made helpless decisions.   I'm not actually worried about it because I think the playoffs would have been a total disaster for us.   Markstrom was just the most noticeable issue.

 

@conundrumed is right that players have bounce-backs all the time.

                              "all the time" meaning, not usually at the age of 34.

                             Speaking to the age of 34 specifically, we might instead say "rarely to never" followed by "and get worse, all the time".  But I dunno if he was talking about Markstrom or Vladar.  Vladar could bounce.  His problem is he's just not that good, he needs to be on to top of his game to be an NHL goalie.  Hopefully he is just entering his prime.

 

Again, I think we should keep in mind that great organisations do not define success around making the playoffs.

 

We have issues in goal, and will continue to until Wolf changes it and forces something, or until another prospect does.   IMHO a top priority would be supporting Wolf in the AHL playoffs, and maybe getting one more top goalie prospect.  One more and I would feel comfortable about our future here.

 

[bombcomputers]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Lindholm and Markstrom are best friends off the ice.  Moving Markstrom would have an impact on Lindholm's decision to extend long term.

 

But it probably doesn't matter because Markstrom is unmovable in my opinion.

It doesn't matter to me for a different reason. If Lindholm wanted to go because his friend is going then his loyalty is in the wrong place, and he shouldn't be here. Good thing that is just an assumption. I had to make my living without my best friend being there. What kind of baloney would that be?

[bombcomputers]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

I don't put too much stock into shot volume. We look at our top of the league shots. My bet is we are very average when it comes to high danger chances, and then in my view even worse when it comes to eye test high danger chances for. 
 

against, we still tend to leave pucks in bad spots to give great chances to the other team, turnovers etc. some goals shouldn't be scored, but we also give up terrible chances. 
 

While I do agree with you that the goaltending was bad, offence still didn't do enough with their billions of shots they had throughout the season.

The league leading 85 posts and crossbars were obviously not acceptable, and were a heavy reason they didn't make the POs. The crappy goaltending (Markstrom's own admission) was another other heavy reason. 

[bombcomputers]

Players who aren't loyal to the team that is making them rich need to move along. That is a fact. 

[travel_dude]

44 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Depends on one's perspective,

 

Bringing Wolf up for a couple games likely coulda got us in the playoffs too.   It's not like we were helpless, we just made helpless decisions.   I'm not actually worried about it because I think the playoffs would have been a total disaster for us.   Markstrom was just the most noticeable issue.

 

@conundrumed is right that players have bounce-backs all the time.

                              "all the time" meaning, not usually at the age of 34.

                             Speaking to the age of 34 specifically, we might instead say "rarely to never" followed by "and get worse, all the time".  But I dunno if he was talking about Markstrom or Vladar.  Vladar could bounce.  His problem is he's just not that good, he needs to be on to top of his game to be an NHL goalie.  Hopefully he is just entering his prime.

 

Again, I think we should keep in mind that great organisations do not define success around making the playoffs.

 

We have issues in goal, and will continue to until Wolf changes it and forces something, or until another prospect does.   IMHO a top priority would be supporting Wolf in the AHL playoffs, and maybe getting one more top goalie prospect.  One more and I would feel comfortable about our future here.

 

 

Maybe that is true, but the epitome of failure is not making the playoffs.  You don't play 82 games, sacrifice your body, make unpopular roster decisions, pay $81.5M to play hockey.  Every year you miss the playoffs is another year of failure.  While I don't always agree with the moves we make, if you make round one in one year, success is measured around getting to the next round. The year following the VAN series, we should have made progress.  The year following the COL series we should have made progress.  The year after the EDM series we should have made progress.

 

In each one of those failure years, one thing was consistent.  Coaching changed perspective and the success went out the window.  I'm not sure how you react to a goalie playing to the point of failure, then going back the next year with the same rotation.  You had great goals for/goals against differential, then decide you want to play more low scoring games.  We had that because we didn't play prevent to protect a one goal lead.  We were one of the best teams for scoring in the first period, but failed to follow up in the 2nd.  

[jjgallow]

23 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Maybe that is true, but the epitome of failure is not making the playoffs.  You don't play 82 games, sacrifice your body, make unpopular roster decisions, pay $81.5M to play hockey.  Every year you miss the playoffs is another year of failure.  While I don't always agree with the moves we make, if you make round one in one year, success is measured around getting to the next round. The year following the VAN series, we should have made progress.  The year following the COL series we should have made progress.  The year after the EDM series we should have made progress.

 

In each one of those failure years, one thing was consistent.  Coaching changed perspective and the success went out the window.  I'm not sure how you react to a goalie playing to the point of failure, then going back the next year with the same rotation.  You had great goals for/goals against differential, then decide you want to play more low scoring games.  We had that because we didn't play prevent to protect a one goal lead.  We were one of the best teams for scoring in the first period, but failed to follow up in the 2nd.  

 

The epitome of failure is not making the playoffs but drafting like you did.

 

That's us, and that'll be us next year too.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Depends on one's perspective,

 

Bringing Wolf up for a couple games likely coulda got us in the playoffs too.   It's not like we were helpless, we just made helpless decisions.   I'm not actually worried about it because I think the playoffs would have been a total disaster for us.   Markstrom was just the most noticeable issue.

 

 

Ya this team was only built to upset one team at most.  I don't think we go too deep with this roster.

 

I know it was only one game but I feel Wolf/Vladar would be no worse than Markstrom/Wolf next season.  If the Flames can move Markstrom, then do it.  Even if it upsets Lindholm.  Just rebuild.

[jjgallow]

11 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya this team was only built to upset one team at most.  I don't think we go too deep with this roster.

 

I know it was only one game but I feel Wolf/Vladar would be no worse than Markstrom/Wolf next season.  If the Flames can move Markstrom, then do it.  Even if it upsets Lindholm.  Just rebuild.

 

Yeah.

[bombcomputers]

29 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya this team was only built to upset one team at most.  I don't think we go too deep with this roster.

 

I know it was only one game but I feel Wolf/Vladar would be no worse than Markstrom/Wolf next season.  If the Flames can move Markstrom, then do it.  Even if it upsets Lindholm.  Just rebuild.

Exactly😃

[travel_dude]

26 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Yeah.

 

We should get you guys a jersey.

Team Rebuild.

 

And one of those hands like #1, but this would be #32.

Have to be two hands.

A 3 and a 2 finger salute.

[jjgallow]

20 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

We should get you guys a jersey.

Team Rebuild.

 

And one of those hands like #1, but this would be #32.

Have to be two hands.

A 3 and a 2 finger salute.

 

I'm an XL.

 

If you do it, make sure to get BT one too.  None of it would be possible without him

[robrob74]

52 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

We should get you guys a jersey.

Team Rebuild.

 

And one of those hands like #1, but this would be #32.

Have to be two hands.

A 3 and a 2 finger salute.

🤣😂🤣😂🤣

 

we know the balls are weighted so even if we were last overall we'd pick 4th! Lol

 

we just want real talent here. More than Gaudreau, Lindholm, and Tkachuk good. We want a few more elite.
 

I think we see that there needs to be a very good+ goalie, a stud D that is pure stud, an Elite C. Lindholm is really good, but not the elite. Then build around them. It took a long time for Colorado to get there. About two rebuilds-ish. But they got there through drafting high. I think if we look at the last 10-15 years, we'd see the trend is a previous tank team has won. 
 

it's possible to win without it, but, harder to find depth. Timing, scouting, and developing. 

[Thebrewcrew]

6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Vladar's numbers were bad.  0.895sv.  not impossible to move but not easy either.  Markstrom with even worse numbers.

 

Honestly Markstrom allowed no less than 30 bad goals this season.  The difference between playoffs and no playoffs was literally Markstrom taking back 5 bad goals.  In other words, it was almost entirely his fault.

 

10% if the problem??  Markstrom already faces some of the least shots against because the Flames dominate in Shots For/Against.

Vladar could be moved.

 

The Avs traded for Georgiev and gave him a raise. He was an .898.

 

2.2 for a young goalie like Vladar will be more appealing to teams than giving a vet like Reimer the two year deal they’ll command in UFA

[travel_dude]

24 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Vladar could be moved.

 

The Avs traded for Georgiev and gave him a raise. He was an .898.

 

2.2 for a young goalie like Vladar will be more appealing to teams than giving a vet like Reimer the two year deal they’ll command in UFA

 

I think trading Vladar is low risk.

Not that he won't become the next Georgiev, since that's possible.

But, that Wolf fails in his first season as a backup.

He struggles, you go back to Markstrom and get a backup to cover.

 

Maybe not the best strategy, but we need to do something.

Wolf seems like he can't improve much with AHL competition.

[Thebrewcrew]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

I think trading Vladar is low risk.

Not that he won't become the next Georgiev, since that's possible.

But, that Wolf fails in his first season as a backup.

He struggles, you go back to Markstrom and get a backup to cover.

 

Maybe not the best strategy, but we need to do something.

Wolf seems like he can't improve much with AHL competition.

If the Flames were to move Vladar, I think they need to sign a veteran backup. Has to be NHL capable, but also someone that they would be willing to send to the minors. There are better names, but a player like Keith Kinkaid. Doesn't have to be him, he just pops into my head. Someone to push Wolf in camp but could be servicable in the NHL.

 

The comparisons to Wolf and Saros will always be there. I remember when it was becoming clear that Saros was NHL ready, they would shuttle him between NSH and Milwaukee. Call him up when they wanted him to play, send him down when there was going to be a stretch of Rinne starts. Not the best way to go about things, but it's an option.

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

If the Flames were to move Vladar, I think they need to sign a veteran backup. Has to be NHL capable, but also someone that they would be willing to send to the minors. There are better names, but a player like Keith Kinkaid. Doesn't have to be him, he just pops into my head. Someone to push Wolf in camp but could be servicable in the NHL.

 

The comparisons to Wolf and Saros will always be there. I remember when it was becoming clear that Saros was NHL ready, they would shuttle him between NSH and Milwaukee. Call him up when they wanted him to play, send him down when there was going to be a stretch of Rinne starts. Not the best way to go about things, but it's an option.

 

That's a fair approach, but perhaps not the best way to manage a talent.

Him practicing with the team, he is ready every game.

Him on the farm, he's only available for callup when the team is at home.

Also, the timing of the starts may not fit.

 

I would think if you wanted to get a backup, that you get one, waive him and keep him there.

You only bring him up if you actually need him.

Injury replacement only otherwise.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

 

 

The comparisons to Wolf and Saros will always be there. I remember when it was becoming clear that Saros was NHL ready, they would shuttle him between NSH and Milwaukee. Call him up when they wanted him to play, send him down when there was going to be a stretch of Rinne starts. Not the best way to go about things, but it's an option.

 

This is actually a great way to use Wolf. Having the team in Calgary affords them to do just that really easily. 

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

If the Flames were to move Vladar, I think they need to sign a veteran backup. Has to be NHL capable, but also someone that they would be willing to send to the minors. There are better names, but a player like Keith Kinkaid. Doesn't have to be him, he just pops into my head. Someone to push Wolf in camp but could be servicable in the NHL.

 

The comparisons to Wolf and Saros will always be there. I remember when it was becoming clear that Saros was NHL ready, they would shuttle him between NSH and Milwaukee. Call him up when they wanted him to play, send him down when there was going to be a stretch of Rinne starts. Not the best way to go about things, but it's an option.

 

41 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

This is actually a great way to use Wolf. Having the team in Calgary affords them to do just that really easily. 

 

Salary wise, it's probably equal down and up.

But are you going to get a good enough quality backup for less than $1M?  If Sutter was loathe to use Vladar who had shown to be really good, why is he ever going to trust the new backup?  Sure, you can find a guy that doesn't care and will go to the AHL.  For that matter, is Sutter ever going to use wolf unless he's the only other choice?  

 

Here's the optics that bother me.  You trade away the backup you just extended.  The reason you use is to make room for your new AHL wonderkind.  Then you immediately go out and sign a career NHL/AHL retread.  And keep Wolf on the Farm, making AHL money, to sit or play AHL games until Sutter deems he is ready to play.  Meanwhile we have a backup that doesn't play and we just send him down once a week.  Another coach it might work.  I think all it does is set the kid back.  No game experience unless he's starting.  No practice with the team, so he's an unknown to them until he plays.  

[conundrumed]

I say 10% Markstrom because I rank the zero intensity at about half the problem. Then another 25% goes to what is potentially the worst passing team in the league. Just watch the PP. Then there are no finishers when every fan loves Toffoli because he's the only one with a scorers shot. So goaltending falls down the list to the many other issues, especially funneling 40 shots/gm with zero creativity. They get so surprised that they score that they forget that there's still a game going on. They get so discouraged giving up a goal because it might be hard to get it back. So those are pretty huge problems. And I haven't gotten to zero traffic in front of the opposing goalie, like ever...

Add in a coach that spent all year playing the part of make-believe chemist and I really don't care much about bad goals.

A whole team that needs an extra 3 seconds with every puck on their stick is doomed to fail in most leagues, especially this one. The crux of the reason that you need every save. It isn't because every goalie owns us, it's because we're terrible in the O-zone. Did we even score a tic-tac-toe goal this year? Even the worst teams can do that.

[bombcomputers]

6 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I say 10% Markstrom because I rank the zero intensity at about half the problem. Then another 25% goes to what is potentially the worst passing team in the league. Just watch the PP. Then there are no finishers when every fan loves Toffoli because he's the only one with a scorers shot. So goaltending falls down the list to the many other issues, especially funneling 40 shots/gm with zero creativity. They get so surprised that they score that they forget that there's still a game going on. They get so discouraged giving up a goal because it might be hard to get it back. So those are pretty huge problems. And I haven't gotten to zero traffic in front of the opposing goalie, like ever...

Add in a coach that spent all year playing the part of make-believe chemist and I really don't care much about bad goals.

A whole team that needs an extra 3 seconds with every puck on their stick is doomed to fail in most leagues, especially this one. The crux of the reason that you need every save. It isn't because every goalie owns us, it's because we're terrible in the O-zone. Did we even score a tic-tac-toe goal this year? Even the worst teams can do that.

Good summary. 

Good thing this isn't your positivity thread. 

Good things can happen when you build on the good things. 

 

I gotta at least double your Markstrom percentage. 

I saw those things too:

-No finishing confidence 

-No creativity

-Slow processing the puck

-Hot potatoe attitude in the defencive zone

-Pinball passing

-not enough crease traffic

-poor goalie puck play

-easy predictabilty

-no swagger (like that french coach said) 

-stupid giveaways

-not enough diving when beat on breakaways

-not enough 'good' penalties to stop goals

-too many bench minors

-not enough fights😃

 

 

[The_People1]

8 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I say 10% Markstrom because I rank the zero intensity at about half the problem. Then another 25% goes to what is potentially the worst passing team in the league. Just watch the PP. Then there are no finishers when every fan loves Toffoli because he's the only one with a scorers shot. So goaltending falls down the list to the many other issues, especially funneling 40 shots/gm with zero creativity. They get so surprised that they score that they forget that there's still a game going on. They get so discouraged giving up a goal because it might be hard to get it back. So those are pretty huge problems. And I haven't gotten to zero traffic in front of the opposing goalie, like ever...

Add in a coach that spent all year playing the part of make-believe chemist and I really don't care much about bad goals.

A whole team that needs an extra 3 seconds with every puck on their stick is doomed to fail in most leagues, especially this one. The crux of the reason that you need every save. It isn't because every goalie owns us, it's because we're terrible in the O-zone. Did we even score a tic-tac-toe goal this year? Even the worst teams can do that.

 

It's fair to say it's 10% Markstrom's fault in terms of the Flames being a legit contender.  We don't have a go-to offensive force like Gaudreau.  We have a coach over coaching.  We have D that can't stop 2-on-1s if their careers depended on it.

 

BUT, all things held same.  With all of the above. Just 5 shots against that Markstrom could have back.  Just 5.  From the worst angles and from the farthest distances.  Just 5 easy saves.  We are in the playoffs.

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

It's fair to say it's 10% Markstrom's fault in terms of the Flames being a legit contender.  We don't have a go-to offensive force like Gaudreau.  We have a coach over coaching.  We have D that can't stop 2-on-1s if their careers depended on it.

 

BUT, all things held same.  With all of the above. Just 5 shots against that Markstrom could have back.  Just 5.  From the worst angles and from the farthest distances.  Just 5 easy saves.  We are in the playoffs.

but that means the rest of those games play out the same. I mean, maybe he plays better, or maybe the team plays better, maybe the team plays the same and still can't score and we just lose anyways.
 

That's basically playing multiverse hockey. What if you forgot your phone in the house and have to go back in to get it, going to the grocery store yesterday. You end up in a multi-car pileup and if you remembered your phone you'd have been a minute ahead of it. 
 

Or there just was no pileup at all, and even if Marky makes the save, we still lose because this team seemed to have zero push or scoring talent to follow through. 

[travel_dude]

4 hours ago, robrob74 said:

but that means the rest of those games play out the same. I mean, maybe he plays better, or maybe the team plays better, maybe the team plays the same and still can't score and we just lose anyways.
 

That's basically playing multiverse hockey. What if you forgot your phone in the house and have to go back in to get it, going to the grocery store yesterday. You end up in a multi-car pileup and if you remembered your phone you'd have been a minute ahead of it. 
 

Or there just was no pileup at all, and even if Marky makes the save, we still lose because this team seemed to have zero push or scoring talent to follow through. 

 

He didn't elaborate, but the problem we saw a lot was the timeliness of the goal he let it.

There are probably at least 5 examples of a goal that pushes us to OT.

No way to say what a save does overall.

Without looking it up there are some things that may have happened.

Instead of the win streak ending at 2 or 3 with a loss, winning the next one then losing....

We have confidence after winning 4, so 5 is a win too.