Goaltending

[MAC331]

16 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Its a known fact that the chances of being a contender these days is by building your team through the draft rather than free agency and trading away futures. 

 

Sure we don’t know what the players will be like, but it still cost a lot to get Player’s we weren’t able to develop ourselves. 

 

So it’s still a question of our development system? Drafting? When teams like St. Louis are able to cycle through Player’s and stay competitive and Stanley cup threats? 

 

I think JJ has a bit of a point, but so do you. It’s tough when we are chasing our own tails, so we have to go outside... 

 

i feel like we’ve been JUST mediocre so far. Why is it that a team can’t play better and more sound when they don’t have confidence in the goalie? Why do they forget how to play the game when they have no confidence in someone?

 

Ive only ever played beer league... so I just know I try be more structured in my own game when we get a sub goalie who looks shaky. 

I believe there is a time ad place for everything and what position you are dealing from. I too believe building through the draft is essential for having a strong go to pipeline. We have two good positions IMO we have a young core now that is controllable and a pipeline that is becoming a very reliable one as soon as a few of these recently drafted players get on board. JJ loves to go on about our Goalie situation and the past blah, blah, blah while I think we have as well as an organization can expect now. BT believed all of Gilles, Rittich, MacDonald, Parsons and Schneider all needed more development, I agree and they will be better for it.

I don't know if Lack lacks confidence or if the players lack confidence in him, all I know is he hasn't faired well in his two appearances. There are a lot of other Goalies that haven't done well either so far this season. If the team doesn't have confidence in him and plays lousy because of this I don't think that speaks very well of the others. This should never be allowed to happen as a excuse for losing a game or worse not giving it your best.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

33/35 for Rittich last night. He now has a 2.17 GAA and .931 SV%. At 25 years old if he's not ready for a backup role now, then he never will.

 

My thinking is Lack starts next Saturday in COL. If he does well then he buys himself some time, if not it's 3 strikes you're out IMO.

 

I know that it feels like everyone is panicked over a couple poor starts, but the reality is that the league is so tight now that you can't have a drop off between your starter and backup. If we wanna be a playoff team we are gonna need 10-15 wins from our backup.

 

It's not 2 bad starts.  It's lack-lustre play in every period he's played.  Doesn't shut the door when he comes in on relief.  His best performance was letting in only 2 in 40 against STL.  They need to move on.  Rittich is probably best suited and doesn't compromise the rest of the farm.  Rittich comes up, Parsons splits time with Gillies.  

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

JJ loves to go on about our Goalie situation and the past blah, blah, blah while I think we have as well as an organization can expect now. BT believed all of Gilles, Rittich, MacDonald, Parsons and Schneider all needed more development, I agree and they will be better for it.

 

Just because we have a lot of goalies signed doesn't mean we've met expectations.    Also, you have everything backwards.   You think that just because I think Gillies/Rittich should be given NHL opportunities means that the Flames are doing a good job with their G prospects   

 

Actually, one of my top reasons for giving them NHL opportunities is so that they can either SH**** or get off the pot and clogging up our development system.

 

A run-down of the success story you speak of:

 

Parsons:   May be our best hope right now but is currently struggling in the ECHL and under .900.    Not looking like a saviour at all right now, definitely worth following.

 

Gillies:   Not sure if you noticed but I'm actually his biggest cheerleader.   Having said that, if you look at things objectively, we are hardly in a position to assume he will even be a backup for the Flames in the future.    He has shown some improvement this year but so far not enough.

 

• Rittich:  Having a 25 year old goalie that's 10th in the AHL is hardly something to get worked up about.   Again, hoping the best for him but let's be serious.  Could fill in for Lack, but that's likely his ceiling.
• McDonald:   Unless a miracle occurs we will likely release him at the end of the season.  Not even sure why you mentioned him (but since you did, maybe spell his name right).
• Schneider:    Same as McDonald

 

There are No White horses above.  None.   Gillies and Parsons both looked like potential white horses at points in time, neither do now.

 

Next year Schneider and McDonald will be gone, and Rittich will either be our NHL backup, or hopefully gone (because it's a  waste keeping a 26 year old in the AHL IMHO).

 

Our prospects will likely consist of Gillies and Parsons next year.   Neither of which are off to perfect starts right now.

 

I don't see how anyone can be happy with that right now.  To me, that's a big gap which needs to be addressed.

 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

It's not 2 bad starts.  It's lack-lustre play in every period he's played.  Doesn't shut the door when he comes in on relief.  His best performance was letting in only 2 in 40 against STL.  They need to move on.  Rittich is probably best suited and doesn't compromise the rest of the farm.  Rittich comes up, Parsons splits time with Gillies.  

 

Mostly agree, but two hesitations.

 

1.  Will they actually disappear Lack, and have him split his time with Gillies?  I see this as more likely.   And the #1 reason I didn't like the trade.  So much clogging.

 

2.   Parsons....hate to say it but he may need another 10 games in the ECHL before we know if he's ready for the jump.   He's struggled early.  Has shown signs of improvement.   And 10 games probably works nicely...but if I think he needs at least another 10, some on here surely want him in the ECHL for another two years

[MAC331]

18 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Just because we have a lot of goalies signed doesn't mean we've met expectations.    Also, you have everything backwards.   You think that just because I think Gillies/Rittich should be given NHL opportunities means that the Flames are doing a good job with their G prospects   

 

Actually, one of my top reasons for giving them NHL opportunities is so that they can either SH**** or get off the pot and clogging up our development system.

 

A run-down of the success story you speak of:

 

Parsons:   May be our best hope right now but is currently struggling in the ECHL and under .900.    Not looking like a saviour at all right now, definitely worth following.

 

Gillies:   Not sure if you noticed but I'm actually his biggest cheerleader.   Having said that, if you look at things objectively, we are hardly in a position to assume he will even be a backup for the Flames in the future.    He has shown some improvement this year but so far not enough.

 

• Rittich:  Having a 25 year old goalie that's 10th in the AHL is hardly something to get worked up about.   Again, hoping the best for him but let's be serious.  Could fill in for Lack, but that's likely his ceiling.
• McDonald:   Unless a miracle occurs we will likely release him at the end of the season.  Not even sure why you mentioned him (but since you did, maybe spell his name right).
• Schneider:    Same as McDonald

 

There are No White horses above.  None.   Gillies and Parsons both looked like potential white horses at points in time, neither do now.

 

Next year Schneider and McDonald will be gone, and Rittich will either be our NHL backup, or hopefully gone (because it's a  waste keeping a 26 year old in the AHL IMHO).

 

Our prospects will likely consist of Gillies and Parsons next year.   Neither of which are off to perfect starts right now.

 

I don't see how anyone can be happy with that right now.  To me, that's a big gap which needs to be addressed.

 

You know JJ for someone that goes on and on and on about development I truly think you have no idea about what the measurement is for being ready.

Show me where any other team has a better situation.

Give us your ideal measurement stick for Goalie development, give us the JJ standard of acceptance.

[jjgallow]

47 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

You know JJ for someone that goes on and on and on about development I truly think you have no idea about what the measurement is for being ready.

Show me where any other team has a better situation.

Give us your ideal measurement stick for Goalie development, give us the JJ standard of acceptance.

 

I honestly don't think that's a debate with anyone but yourself.   I have a hard time believing most on here are happy with our development record or current situation beyond the current pleasant surprise of Mike Smith.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Mostly agree, but two hesitations.

 

1.  Will they actually disappear Lack, and have him split his time with Gillies?  I see this as more likely.   And the #1 reason I didn't like the trade.  So much clogging.

 

2.   Parsons....hate to say it but he may need another 10 games in the ECHL before we know if he's ready for the jump.   He's struggled early.  Has shown signs of improvement.   And 10 games probably works nicely...but if I think he needs at least another 10, some on here surely want him in the ECHL for another two years

 

I'm thinking two things.  One is that Lack gets DEMOTED, not just sent to the AHL.  Lack then wouldn't disturb the rotation there.  Second is that Parsons comes in and gets better coaching.  Gillies continues on his 50-60% starts.  I would say in most cases you don;t want your prospects there.    

[MAC331]

15 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I honestly don't think that's a debate with anyone but yourself.   I have a hard time believing most on here are happy with our development record or current situation beyond the current pleasant surprise of Mike Smith.

Good dodge because you have no idea.

[DirtyDeeds]

On 11/17/2017 at 9:31 AM, cross16 said:

I don't agree with the rationale of having to accept a trade because the cost was low. If it was wrong to target the player than it's a bad trade irregardless of what you paid for it. Would just make it worse if the cost had of been higher. I think you really have to question why the Flames wanted to target Lack in the first place. 

 

 

GG likely figured he could be a good target for backup because of his firsthand knowledge of how he played in Vancouver. He was projected to be a starter for them and played like one. At the time I bet it looked BLack and white.. former starter tweak him into Backup role and get him for cheap.

 

I think the problem is the same old goalie coaching is Lacking. Can't instill confidence in our goalies(again) and is not capable of tweaking Lack to his old style where he was successful.

 

I think fans around here need to cut him some SLack and point fingers where it belongs at the goalie coach.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm thinking two things.  One is that Lack gets DEMOTED, not just sent to the AHL.  Lack then wouldn't disturb the rotation there.  Second is that Parsons comes in and gets better coaching.  Gillies continues on his 50-60% starts.  I would say in most cases you don;t want your prospects there.    

 

Well we'll see.  That would be nice to see Parsons/Gillies in the AHL at this point.    I have my doubts but fingers crossed there.

[jjgallow]

49 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

GG likely figured he could be a good target for backup because of his firsthand knowledge of how he played in Vancouver. He was projected to be a starter for them and played like one. At the time I bet it looked BLack and white.. former starter tweak him into Backup role and get him for cheap.

 

I think the problem is the same old goalie coaching is Lacking. Can't instill confidence in our goalies(again) and is not capable of tweaking Lack to his old style where he was successful.

 

I think fans around here need to cut him some SLack and point fingers where it belongs at the goalie coach.

 

Agreed.    We have a goalie coaching problem.   Not this much talent can do this poorly this consistently.   The goalie coach should also be asking to give Smith a break here and there.  That never happens.

 

Having said that, we got problems everywhere.   Lack was never a good pick (but no, this isn't all his fault).       So we also have a GM problem, and a goalie problem.

 

But if I were to pick just one problem, yeah.  Might be looking hard at the goalie coach.

[DirtyDeeds]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Agreed.    We have a goalie coaching problem.   Not this much talent can do this poorly this consistently.   The goalie coach should also be asking to give Smith a break here and there.  That never happens.

 

Having said that, we got problems everywhere.   Lack was never a good pick (but no, this isn't all his fault).       So we also have a GM problem, and a goalie problem.

 

But if I were to pick just one problem, yeah.  Might be looking hard at the goalie coach.

Less than a handful of fans here, are even willing to consider the goalie coaching could be the problem in Calgary. I don't know why as this evidence just keeps piling up year after year. 

 

Where are his successes? He can't take credit for Smith so where are his success stories for any goalie under his charge even with his time on the Heat?

[MAC331]

14 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Less than a handful of fans here, are even willing to consider the goalie coaching could be the problem in Calgary. I don't know why as this evidence just keeps piling up year after year. 

 

Where are his successes? He can't take credit for Smith so where are his success stories for any goalie under his charge even with his time on the Heat?

What is it you think Sigalet should be able to do for these Goalies to have them be better ? Is he having them play the wrong styles or is he not planting the right mental approach for them ?

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

What is it you think Sigalet should be able to do for these Goalies to have them be better ? Is he having them play the wrong styles or is he not planting the right mental approach for them ?

 

He's not just a coach for the starters, he's a development coach.  He was the Heat's goalie coach from 2011 to 2014 then Flames till present.  With all the different players he has coached, have any of them actually done anything?  Besides Smith, the only promising players left are far away from him.  It might be difficult to draw a line from the coach to the failures, but OTOH, he has no success to hang his hat on.  Not one.   

[MAC331]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

He's not just a coach for the starters, he's a development coach.  He was the Heat's goalie coach from 2011 to 2014 then Flames till present.  With all the different players he has coached, have any of them actually done anything?  Besides Smith, the only promising players left are far away from him.  It might be difficult to draw a line from the coach to the failures, but OTOH, he has no success to hang his hat on.  Not one.   

I don't have any measurement of where he stands with anyone in any other organizations. Maybe we have just had bad talent, I can't really say. All I know as a prior athlete is I made myself be better by taking in the lessons, working my fundamentals and letting my talent take me as far as it could.

[DirtyDeeds]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

What is it you think Sigalet should be able to do for these Goalies to have them be better ? Is he having them play the wrong styles or is he not planting the right mental approach for them ?

How would anyone know unless you were under his guidance or watched his work/lessons and teachings. It doesn't have to be better Mac, in Lacks case he just needs to be able to get him back on track to his former level. He has been working with Lack, trying to get him back to form like his time in Vancouver. How would you say that is coming along Mac? Do you see any hope and progress from Lack?

 

The only resemblance to success I have heard from his work is Ramo.

 

When Ramo was struggling he had him playing a bit farther back in his net and we saw Ramo do well up until Christmas. He went on another losing streak shortly after and we faded out of a playoff position.

 

[travel_dude]

34 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I don't have any measurement of where he stands with anyone in any other organizations. Maybe we have just had bad talent, I can't really say.

 

Almost the entire coaching staff gets canned, yet he manages to avoid the knife.  Goaltending has been a failure here in every year he's been on staff.  

JJ can probably give you stats on the careers that started promising then died.  Maybe they weren't any good once they got to the AHL or NHL, but if something isn't working, why keep going back to it.  Same coach, same result.  Different league, same result.  

[MAC331]

24 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

How would anyone know unless you were under his guidance or watched his work/lessons and teachings. It doesn't have to be better Mac, in Lacks case he just needs to be able to get him back on track to his former level. He has been working with Lack, trying to get him back to form like his time in Vancouver. How would you say that is coming along Mac? Do you see any hope and progress from Lack?

 

The only resemblance to success I have heard from his work is Ramo.

 

When Ramo was struggling he had him playing a bit farther back in his net and we saw Ramo do well up until Christmas. He went on another losing streak shortly after and we faded out of a playoff position.

 

Like I said I really don't know if Sigalet is good or bad or if the talent just isn't reaching the mark we expect. We all know there are only so many like Price or Lundquist or any other that makes the grade as a regular work horse.

I don't know if Lack has a confidence problem the guy has only played 5 periods for us and a number of the goals allowed were legit good goals. If he is sitting there afraid to go in and play I would say there is a huge problem. In this case you either switch him with Rittich or waive him.

[MAC331]

7 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Almost the entire coaching staff gets canned, yet he manages to avoid the knife.  Goaltending has been a failure here in every year he's been on staff.  

JJ can probably give you stats on the careers that started promising then died.  Maybe they weren't any good once they got to the AHL or NHL, but if something isn't working, why keep going back to it.  Same coach, same result.  Different league, same result.  

Don't ask me, ask management, they are the ones that keep him here. Let's not forget that when it comes to actually playing and performing well at the NHL level you as the player have to be 95% of your own solution. If you aren't good enough, you just are not good enough.

[Cowtownguy]

57 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

How would anyone know unless you were under his guidance or watched his work/lessons and teachings. It doesn't have to be better Mac, in Lacks case he just needs to be able to get him back on track to his former level. He has been working with Lack, trying to get him back to form like his time in Vancouver. How would you say that is coming along Mac? Do you see any hope and progress from Lack?

 

The only resemblance to success I have heard from his work is Ramo.

 

When Ramo was struggling he had him playing a bit farther back in his net and we saw Ramo do well up until Christmas. He went on another losing streak shortly after and we faded out of a playoff position.

 

I quite like your post. I admit to being ignorant of what Sigalet does when developing goalies. Given how few of our goalies have made significant progress, one cannot help but question the development process in general. Lack does appear, however, to provide us with some sense about the process because, unlike draft picks, we already know that he has NHL talent. As you say, he was once a pretty solid goalie, and we appear incapable of getting him to be a shadow of his former self. If we cannot help him restore his confidence, then how can we do so for younger draft picks? 

 

Lack's weak play is not proof positive that Sigalet is doing a poor job. A goalie coach's impact is affected by the head coach, talent levels, drafting etc. As you say above, the continued poor play does add to a considerable body of evidence that something is awry. 

 

If nothing else, I really wish that Sigalet would teach the goalies to control outward expressions of emotions. As soon as a goalie looks to the heavens, pouts, or acts completely astonished that a goal was scored, I figure that it is time to be pulled. It seems to me that the best goalies avoid that behaviour. 

[MAC331]

4 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

I quite like your post. I admit to being ignorant of what Sigalet does when developing goalies. Given how few of our goalies have made significant progress, one cannot help but question the development process in general. Lack does appear, however, to provide us with some sense about the process because, unlike draft picks, we already know that he has NHL talent. As you say, he was once a pretty solid goalie, and we appear incapable of getting him to be a shadow of his former self. If we cannot help him restore his confidence, then how can we do so for younger draft picks? 

 

Lack's weak play is not proof positive that Sigalet is doing a poor job. A goalie coach's impact is affected by the head coach, talent levels, drafting etc. As you say above, the continued poor play does add to a considerable body of evidence that something is awry. 

 

If nothing else, I really wish that Sigalet would teach the goalies to control outward expressions of emotions. As soon as a goalie looks to the heavens, pouts, or acts completely astonished that a goal was scored, I figure that it is time to be pulled. It seems to me that the best goalies avoid that behaviour. 

You are kidding with this last paragraph I hope ?

[Cowtownguy]

Just now, MAC331 said:

You are kidding with this last paragraph I hope ?

No, I am not being rhetorical. All athletes express a variety of emotions and that is to be expected. I don't mind when goalies get angry. Smith does it, Roy is legendary for it, Hextall, Turco, etc. It shows that they are competing hard. I don't like when goalies reveal that the other team is in their head. It is akin to holding up a sign saying "please shoot the puck on me from anywhere because I have absolutely no confidence". In his rare poor performances, Kipper was pretty good at appearing as though nothing had happened. Price has generally been pretty good at that as has Lundqvist. Having said that, I can easily find videos of great goalies showing a lack of confidence. Price has done so recently (during one of his poorest stretches) and Lundqvist has done so recently (again, during a less than stellar stretch). It happens and always will. But yeah, I like goalies who outwardly demonstrate confidence even when they are crumbling inside.

[MAC331]

9 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

No, I am not being rhetorical. All athletes express a variety of emotions and that is to be expected. I don't mind when goalies get angry. Smith does it, Roy is legendary for it, Hextall, Turco, etc. It shows that they are competing hard. I don't like when goalies reveal that the other team is in their head. It is akin to holding up a sign saying "please shoot the puck on me from anywhere because I have absolutely no confidence". In his rare poor performances, Kipper was pretty good at appearing as though nothing had happened. Price has generally been pretty good at that as has Lundqvist. Having said that, I can easily find videos of great goalies showing a lack of confidence. Price has done so recently (during one of his poorest stretches) and Lundqvist has done so recently (again, during a less than stellar stretch). It happens and always will. But yeah, I like goalies who outwardly demonstrate confidence even when they are crumbling inside.

OK

[Cowtownguy]

26 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

OK

I am not sure how to interpret your post. I assume that my clarification did actually make my points clearer. It seems to me that when a goalie is playing well, or more importantly believes he can play better even after a goal, they show little emotion or anger at worst. Anger means some tool on his team screened him or he acknowledges a mistake that will not be repeated. Looking upwards after a goal suggests that they are thinking that the shot had divine intervention on it. Looking astonished leaves the impression that the shooter was simply unbeatable. By contrast, when a goalie lets one in and they act as though they are as bored as the dude waiting in line at Costco on a Saturday afternoon, they basically show that the goal is not a big deal because the next shot will not go in. Emotions are not just instinctual reflexes or actions, they are social actions which communicate thoughts to others. When a coach or an opposing team perceives that a goalie is lacking confidence, they know to instigate a shooting gallery. Every coach playing the Flames right now knows to put everything possible on net when Lack is playing. Consider the difference between how Smith and Lack behave. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any instances where I thought Kipper showed that he lacked confidence even if he sucked that rare game.

 

In this regard, I do hold goalies to a higher standard. They play the pivotal position with the heaviest burden. That is why I generally believe that the team in front of them should be criticized after a loss. Some people on this board have suggested that I have given them a free pass after poor performances. When a forward misses the net and looks at the scoreboard, or a defenceman grimaces, it is far less impactful to the team than when a goalie looks like he should have worn his Depends that game. The same logic goes for the coach. I thought Hartley held a poker face pretty well when we struggled.

 

Having said all of that, I do think that the other points I made about development (largely taken from Deeds) are more important and interesting. This was more of a tangent.

[DirtyDeeds]

One additional thought. At the NHL level I don't feel there should have to be teaching for goalie.

 

The teaching and learning should mostly have been done with the exception of really young prospects brought up.

 

The fundamentals should already be instilled so any teaching at NHL level should be more along the lines of how to be Pro's at their job and position(ie work ethics etc.) Our goalie coach should not have to adjust very much a goalie or they should be minor adjustments only.

 

Maybe this is why we have not seeing a lot of progress of our goaltenders in the past or since he was promoted from the Heat.