Goaltending

[travel_dude]

4 hours ago, cross16 said:

To no one's surprise i'm sure, Dustin Wolf was a 1st team All star in the WHL.

 

 

 

I may be one of the few here, but I have high hopes for the kid.

Hope they can develop him in the AHL, when he is eligible to play.

I'm sure they will give him a look in the training camp, but I don't think it's a good idea to go from junior right to the NHL.

Too much chance to screw up his development.

He's small by today's standards, but his positioning and athleticism should make up for that.

He obviously can't get by by just being big and wearing big pads.

I hope he gets a chance next WJC.

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

usually both. Goalie coach normally does not have the final say. 

 

 

Hard to say for sure without knowing the injury. There re plenty of injuries you can play through that don't risk further injury. 

 

End of the day one aspect of the Flames I don't have a problem with is their medical team. I think they've done a good job in that area with injury management and prevention. 

 

I wonder though if it is the medical team or the trainers that deserve the credit. The flames have typically been a fairly healthy team most years. Or is it playing style?

[cross16]

8 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I wonder though if it is the medical team or the trainers that deserve the credit. The flames have typically been a fairly healthy team most years. Or is it playing style?

 

Both IMO, i would lump them in as the same team. Injury prevention is as critical, and you could easily argue more so, as treatment. I think the Flames have been strong in both. 

 

No correlation for me between their injuries and playing style. Luck would for sure play a part but some credit is needed IMO. Flames avoid a lot of the muscle type injuries that can be common, pulls sprains etc which I think is a credit to their medical side. 

[jjgallow]

 

I am not entirely sure how we jumped from blaming the staff for playing injured goalies to crediting the staff for the goalies not missing much time to injury.

 

I might have missed something but....

 

there is a fine line between credit and blame

[robrob74]

11 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I am not entirely sure how we jumped from blaming the staff for playing injured goalies to crediting the staff for the goalies not missing much time to injury.

 

I might have missed something but....

 

there is a fine line between credit and blame

 

I mean, I understand. I am with you, I’d rather a player heal and play As close to 100% as possible. Hockey players seem to have the have to play through it attitude. It’s the culture. 
 

But like you say, praise shouldn’t be given when say Monahan plays through an injury and even though he scored 30 something, he definitely wasn’t playing up to snuff or to a pace of a first liner. 
 

then Rittich should have been sidelined last year instead of finding out later they hid the injury.

 

so therefore is it on management for not providing depth to cover the injuries?

 

i also feel like an injury to a goalies arms is very concerning if they’re still being played. It could mean a save not made at the wrong time. Or an early goal as a lot of times it takes getting warmed up to get the arms moving to feel ok with a small injury.

[jjgallow]

13 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I mean, I understand. I am with you, I’d rather a player heal and play As close to 100% as possible. Hockey players seem to have the have to play through it attitude. It’s the culture. 
 

But like you say, praise shouldn’t be given when say Monahan plays through an injury and even though he scored 30 something, he definitely wasn’t playing up to snuff or to a pace of a first liner. 
 

then Rittich should have been sidelined last year instead of finding out later they hid the injury.

 

so therefore is it on management for not providing depth to cover the injuries?

 

i also feel like an injury to a goalies arms is very concerning if they’re still being played. It could mean a save not made at the wrong time. Or an early goal as a lot of times it takes getting warmed up to get the arms moving to feel ok with a small injury.

 

I know we often debate on here which issues are player issues and which are staff issues....and a lot of different opinion there.

 

But in terms of players playing with injuries, yes I think that is 95% on the staff, one of the more clear-cut areas.   Unless you're dealing with a player who refuses to report injuries or refuses to do physical conditioning etc.  Which, typically is Not the case these days.

 

jmho

[robrob74]

35 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I know we often debate on here which issues are player issues and which are staff issues....and a lot of different opinion there.

 

But in terms of players playing with injuries, yes I think that is 95% on the staff, one of the more clear-cut areas.   Unless you're dealing with a player who refuses to report injuries or refuses to do physical conditioning etc.  Which, typically is Not the case these days.

 

jmho

 

Take Glencross for instance. He took a team discount and then his body couldn’t handle a final contract. I dunno whether he would have played through injuries. Maybe not the greatest example, but I wonder if healing would’ve prolonged his career. But I think it is in the team’s best interest to heal the players and possibly get more out of them while healthy. If Monahan gets anymore injuries, say to his wrist, how many surgeries before it’s too many and his wrist can’t rebound/heal as well. 

[jjgallow]

55 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

Take Glencross for instance. He took a team discount and then his body couldn’t handle a final contract. I dunno whether he would have played through injuries. Maybe not the greatest example, but I wonder if healing would’ve prolonged his career. But I think it is in the team’s best interest to heal the players and possibly get more out of them while healthy. If Monahan gets anymore injuries, say to his wrist, how many surgeries before it’s too many and his wrist can’t rebound/heal as well. 

 

For sure it would have, that being said he did have a decently long career for the style that he played so it's difficult to say.

 

Monahan was put in roles he should not have been as a teenager and it got worse from there.  Agreed

 

I always thought Kipper was a good example.   I don't think he always played healthy and it was more noticeable near the end.   His career for a late-blooming goalie, was certainly shortened.  We'd always hoped he'd be that rare find that played until he was 40 and was cup-worthy the whole time.  But you can't overplay a goalie that much and expect them to have a notable or long career.

[sak22]

20 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Take Glencross for instance. He took a team discount and then his body couldn’t handle a final contract. I dunno whether he would have played through injuries. Maybe not the greatest example, but I wonder if healing would’ve prolonged his career. But I think it is in the team’s best interest to heal the players and possibly get more out of them while healthy. If Monahan gets anymore injuries, say to his wrist, how many surgeries before it’s too many and his wrist can’t rebound/heal as well. 

Then if you're worried about his wrists he should just sit and possibly retire.  It's unfortunate but every body is different and handles things differently, Bobby Orr and Mario Lemieux are two of the greatest who could never recover, even with 3 years off Lemieux still had the same back issues, Selanne on the other hand took the lockout year off as an r&r year and played till his mid 40's.  With a guy like Monahan my biggest concern as he hits his 30's (which is still 5 years away) is his skating.  You really can't predict these things I don't think David Rittich is the only goalie to play through pain the last few years, having nagging injuries is unfortunate but it is common when dealing with physical activity for many people, players retiring in their 30's due to body problems are unfortunate, but players not living at a normal mental capacity or living at all in their 30's is still a far greater concern for the league and teams.  

[robrob74]

4 hours ago, sak22 said:

Then if you're worried about his wrists he should just sit and possibly retire.  It's unfortunate but every body is different and handles things differently, Bobby Orr and Mario Lemieux are two of the greatest who could never recover, even with 3 years off Lemieux still had the same back issues, Selanne on the other hand took the lockout year off as an r&r year and played till his mid 40's.  With a guy like Monahan my biggest concern as he hits his 30's (which is still 5 years away) is his skating.  You really can't predict these things I don't think David Rittich is the only goalie to play through pain the last few years, having nagging injuries is unfortunate but it is common when dealing with physical activity for many people, players retiring in their 30's due to body problems are unfortunate, but players not living at a normal mental capacity or living at all in their 30's is still a far greater concern for the league and teams.  

 

I hear ya, 

I played through a high ankle sprain where I basically skateboarded on the ice, and l sprained a different shoulder twice. So I played out the seasons on three different occasions.  You just wanna be out there. 
 

so I hear you and I am only worried long term as Monahan gets whacked a lot because he doesn’t retaliate much. There’s not going to be retribution and those aren’t calls refs make. 
 

I still would rather guys be Close to 100%. 

 

[cross16]

I think too much is being made of these "injuries" or injuries in general. I think conclusions are tough to come by given we have no idea the extent or the type of injury. There are plenty that you can play through that don't risk any further injury or impact your play at all, not to mention I think the concept that a hockey player, or really a pro athlete for that matter, is going to stay 100% healthy through the season is false.

 

In Rittich's own words, it wasn't a big deal

 

Quote

 

SN: I understand you were nursing an injury before the season was halted.

DR: It was my elbow, but it was nothing to make problems with my game or my practice or workouts. Just a little sore — it was nothing crazy. It was a small thing for a couple of weeks. It was up and down. It was one day really good and one day really sore. We figured it out with the doctor.

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/qa-david-rittich-self-isolating-czech-republic-missing-teammates/

[jjgallow]

Well for this season and for Riitich, yes it's probably definitely overblown lol.

 

The last time it was a serious issue for goaltending was probably with Kipper imho (overplaying) imho.   

[robrob74]

On 4/13/2020 at 9:33 AM, cross16 said:

I think too much is being made of these "injuries" or injuries in general. I think conclusions are tough to come by given we have no idea the extent or the type of injury. There are plenty that you can play through that don't risk any further injury or impact your play at all, not to mention I think the concept that a hockey player, or really a pro athlete for that matter, is going to stay 100% healthy through the season is false.

 

In Rittich's own words, it wasn't a big deal

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/qa-david-rittich-self-isolating-czech-republic-missing-teammates/

 

 

I dunno, I think there could be a case that it isn't a big deal, but also wonder if it can play into the mental side. You have a nagging thing in the back of your mind, I wonder how much it can get you off your game. Just one goal could mean the difference, and then boom you're down by a few. Most likely not related, but he seemed to be way off of his game since January. A bit of a nagging soreness probably doesn't help it. Maybe it is why Talbot got played a bit more lately? But then it is because Talbot has been playing better. 

[cross16]

17 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

I dunno, I think there could be a case that it isn't a big deal, but also wonder if it can play into the mental side. You have a nagging thing in the back of your mind, I wonder how much it can get you off your game. Just one goal could mean the difference, and then boom you're down by a few. Most likely not related, but he seemed to be way off of his game since January. A bit of a nagging soreness probably doesn't help it. Maybe it is why Talbot got played a bit more lately? But then it is because Talbot has been playing better. 

 

While possible, you just described what could be true of almost every player. They usually always have something nagging. 

 

I think Talbot played more because it made sense to play him more and as I said before I don't think it was the case that Rittich was off. Neither goalie was playing that well due in large part to the fact that the team in front of them was hot garbage in their own zone. 

[jjgallow]

15 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

I dunno, I think there could be a case that it isn't a big deal, but also wonder if it can play into the mental side. You have a nagging thing in the back of your mind, I wonder how much it can get you off your game. Just one goal could mean the difference, and then boom you're down by a few. Most likely not related, but he seemed to be way off of his game since January. A bit of a nagging soreness probably doesn't help it. Maybe it is why Talbot got played a bit more lately? But then it is because Talbot has been playing better. 

 

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

While possible, you just described what could be true of almost every player. They usually always have something nagging. 

 

I think Talbot played more because it made sense to play him more and as I said before I don't think it was the case that Rittich was off. Neither goalie was playing that while due in large part to the fact that the team in front of them was hot garbage in their own zone. 

 

 

I'm gonna call this one a tie and say you're both right.   Our defence was a mess.  Our goaltending was mediocre.

 

IMHO, the underlyer here is that we have mediocre defence who are underperforming, and we have mediocre goaltenders who are performing.

 

That said, our organization has always run goalies into the ground once they pick  a favourite, which seems to have arbitrarily been Rittich.   It...has gone the same way every time.   But to cross's point in this particular season I don't think we would have seen much of a different outcome had they been played equally.   Neither of them had that ability to raise their game to that next level.

[robrob74]

19 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

 

I'm gonna call this one a tie and say you're both right.   Our defence was a mess.  Our goaltending was mediocre.

 

IMHO, the underlyer here is that we have mediocre defence who are underperforming, and we have mediocre goaltenders who are performing.

 

That said, our organization has always run goalies into the ground once they pick  a favourite, which seems to have arbitrarily been Rittich.   It...has gone the same way every time.   But to cross's point in this particular season I don't think we would have seen much of a different outcome had they been played equally.   Neither of them had that ability to raise their game to that next level.

 

 

I get that the you think our goalies are mediocre. I think they're a bit better than that. Was Rittich stealing games at the beginning of the year strictly due to the fact that competition wasn't in full momentum at the time? Could that be the reason every year for him playing better at the beginning than now, that the competition has ramped up?

I guess that could be said for the whole team. Like Cross said, the team has played like "hot garbage in their own end." I feel like Rittich could play better now. He looks rattled and his mechanics are different than they were in the beginning of the year. His rattled nature is throwing off the rest of his game, probably regardless of the injury. 

 

But I agree, he could use a 1A/1B situation with Talbot. I think Talbot needed to work through his demons that started to haunt him in his last season in Edmonton. He has lost his mojo as well. 

[sak22]

Defense may be hot garbage but since Christmas there have been way too many goals that an NHL starting goalie needs to make, way too many shots that he could see perfectly that just got through him.  Just watching him that last Vegas game from my seats was painful, he wasn't bad by any means or at fault for the loss, but definitely looked off.  I know he idolized Patrick Roy and he's got the showboating and temper tantrums of Roy down but he just doesn't have the ability.  Either way as fans we need to take the kid gloves off with him, we didn't put up with these goals when Smith, Elliott, Ramo, Hiller or any other goalie not named Kipper let them in, why does Rittich get a free pass. 

[robrob74]

1 minute ago, sak22 said:

Defense may be hot garbage but since Christmas there have been way too many goals that an NHL starting goalie needs to make, way too many shots that he could see perfectly that just got through him.  Just watching him that last Vegas game from my seats was painful, he wasn't bad by any means or at fault for the loss, but definitely looked off.  I know he idolized Patrick Roy and he's got the showboating and temper tantrums of Roy down but he just doesn't have the ability.  Either way as fans we need to take the kid gloves off with him, we didn't put up with these goals when Smith, Elliott, Ramo, Hiller or any other goalie not named Kipper let them in, why does Rittich get a free pass. 

 

 

I can agree with this. His demeanour/mechanics have looked really shaky since January. His mind is elsewhere but his Roy and showboat is still there. 

I am rooting for the kid to get it together, as I think he has the tools. He, in my mind is a guy who can give you good hockey 50% of the time. So, I think he needs someone else who can play the other 50. There are a lot of goalies in the league that are like that and teams that have that. It seems to be the new wave as it is getting harder and harder to find that ultimate starter. How many are there in the league right now? And even they don't always have a winning record. Price, Bobrovsky, Fleury and? Are there any other goalies that have proven starter material over their career? Talbot was leaning that way for 2 years with Edmonton but fell off of the cliff. How many goalies have had success over more seasons?

 

Murray started quick, and my die-hard Pit fan brother believes they picked the wrong goalie to keep, which is probably the case. 

I can think of Holtby as a possible other one, and he almost lost his job the year they won the cup, and may have lost it this year.

 

So is the life of a goalie long enough to warrant being labelled a career starter? Are there any?

 

[sak22]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

I can agree with this. His demeanour/mechanics have looked really shaky since January. His mind is elsewhere but his Roy and showboat is still there. 

I am rooting for the kid to get it together, as I think he has the tools. He, in my mind is a guy who can give you good hockey 50% of the time. So, I think he needs someone else who can play the other 50. There are a lot of goalies in the league that are like that and teams that have that. It seems to be the new wave as it is getting harder and harder to find that ultimate starter. How many are there in the league right now? And even they don't always have a winning record. Price, Bobrovsky, Fleury and? Are there any other goalies that have proven starter material over their career? Talbot was leaning that way for 2 years with Edmonton but fell off of the cliff. How many goalies have had success over more seasons?

 

Murray started quick, and my die-hard Pit fan brother believes they picked the wrong goalie to keep, which is probably the case. 

I can think of Holtby as a possible other one, and he almost lost his job the year they won the cup, and may have lost it this year.

 

So is the life of a goalie long enough to warrant being labelled a career starter? Are there any?

 

I go with Rask, Rinne and Lundqvist as the only consistently reliable goalies over the past decade and between the 3 of them they have 1 Stanley Cup serving as a backup.  If you give me a choice on any goalie in the league that I could have I honestly couldn't tell you who I'd take, I still like Price but would I trust him for $10 million a year?  Probably not.  I'm not wanting to sound too down on Rittich, I just believe he is better suited to  a backup or 1B.  I think some of his best games have come when he has sat for a period and find once he gets past 2 or 3 consecutive games he slips a bit, but I don't believe the grass is greener with anyone else I essentially think the Flames paid 2 goalies under 3 million and got performances to match their salaries which is a lot better than most teams got with paying a single goalie over 6 got this year.

[robrob74]

39 minutes ago, sak22 said:

I go with Rask, Rinne and Lundqvist as the only consistently reliable goalies over the past decade and between the 3 of them they have 1 Stanley Cup serving as a backup.  If you give me a choice on any goalie in the league that I could have I honestly couldn't tell you who I'd take, I still like Price but would I trust him for $10 million a year?  Probably not.  I'm not wanting to sound too down on Rittich, I just believe he is better suited to  a backup or 1B.  I think some of his best games have come when he has sat for a period and find once he gets past 2 or 3 consecutive games he slips a bit, but I don't believe the grass is greener with anyone else I essentially think the Flames paid 2 goalies under 3 million and got performances to match their salaries which is a lot better than most teams got with paying a single goalie over 6 got this year.

 

 

Exactly! If you look at Rittich's playing history, he has always been a 1B in North America and seemed to thrive in that role. It is why I think roughly a 50%-50% of games split would work best for him. So that would work out to 41 games, give or take a few. He seems to stay focused on that workload. I'd play him about 2-3 games, then play the other goalie 2-3 games. If it is Talbot, then I am okay with that. I think he is starting to find his game. And like you said, at their price tags, they've performed adequately, and sometimes better than adequate. 

 

I wonder if Price is worth it for 10M as well, I still think he is probably the best goalie in the NHL, and if the price tag was lower, I'd take him over any goalie. I think the only thing that is holding him back is that he's on Montreal with a team that is fairly unfinished, even when they went to the conference final, they probably shouldn't have even made the playoffs. I might be underrating that team. Other than last season and this season, Price has been pretty damned good. 

[cross16]

I think the definition of what makes a number 1 is changing mostly because we are in an era of less than stellar goaltending. The idea of this number 1 guys who was going to start 60 plus games for you, keep you in them all, steal many and put the team on his back i'm not sure really exists anymore. i think you have maybe 2, and i think maybe is strong, goalies that would fit that definition and that's Vasilevsky and Hellebuyck. I think the tendency is to put down goalies that don't meet this criteria and I think that needs to change as the goal is not as realistic as it use to be. I don't think we are in a era of very good goaltending right now and if you get one, like Price, you wind up tying up too much of your cap to make it work. 

 

I think the more realistic target is a stronger team and a goalie that CAN raise his game to the next level when needed. IMO Rittich has shown he is capable of doing that so i personally don't really care that he won't be a guy you can count on for 55 plus game. I'm perfectly fine with a 1A/1B scenario. 

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

I think the definition of what makes a number 1 is changing mostly because we are in an era of less than stellar goaltending. The idea of this number 1 guys who was going to start 60 plus games for you, keep you in them all, steal many and put the team on his back i'm not sure really exists anymore. i think you have maybe 2, and i think maybe is strong, goalies that would fit that definition and that's Vasilevsky and Hellebuyck. I think the tendency is to put down goalies that don't meet this criteria and I think that needs to change as the goal is not as realistic as it use to be. I don't think we are in a era of very good goaltending right now and if you get one, like Price, you wind up tying up too much of your cap to make it work. 

 

I think the more realistic target is a stronger team and a goalie that CAN raise his game to the next level when needed. IMO Rittich has shown he is capable of doing that so i personally don't really care that he won't be a guy you can count on for 55 plus game. I'm perfectly fine with a 1A/1B scenario. 

 

I agree with this, in that we have not seen many generational goaltenders or even 1A goaltenders in the last decade.

 

However I think it would be more fair to say that this "has" already changed,  rather  than "is" changing.

 

And nothing stays still.    

 

The same could have been said (and was said) of forwards during the time gap between Crosby and McDavid.

 

"Gone are the days of the Next One, there's too much parity"...was the catch phrase and then McDavid showed up.

 

I think what we saw in the last decade was a transition to larger and quite frankly less skilled goalies due to changes in equipment rules which nullified skill advantage to an extent.

 

However,  during that last decade, skilled big kids with an interest in net have been encouraged to play net, rather than being moved to defence.

 

So now we are getting a new prospect pool of never seen before, highly skilled bigger goalies.

 

The prime example is Askarov in the 2020 draft.

 

The state of goaltending is ever changing, and always will be.   Parity Never lasts.   It has brief moments in history inbetween major transition.

 

[cross16]

again no surprise but Wolf up for Top WHL goaltender.  Should win this easy. 

 

 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

again no surprise but Wolf up for Top WHL goaltender.  Should win this easy. 

 

 

 

does have another year of eligibility there?

[cross16]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

does have another year of eligibility there?

 

Yes, technically has 2 but next year he is not eligible for the AHL either so almost a given he'll be back in the WHL next year.