Emile Poirier

[420since1974]

I feel that neither of them were kept up long enough to hamper their development at all.

 

They provided some insurance while they were here.

 

They did stay long enough to get a few NHL level paychecks as a reward for their good play in the AHL.

[Jessemadnote39]

Though it may not be a big deal I think it was the wrong call to have Poirier come up and sit. I feel the best thing to do with prospects like poirier is scaffold their confidence.

Jonny and Monahan both had extended stays with top 3 minutes when they first started. A prospect will never get comfortable playing 4th line 5 games on 5 off.

However, we don't see behind closed doors and practicing with the big boys could prove to be very beneficial. Time will tell. Just don't give a top sixer 10 minutes with Bollig to try and prove himself, it won't happen. Might work for ferland. But not poirier.

[Zirakzigil]

You can't put that on Hartley, his job is to win games. He has to put the lineup that is going to give him the best chance to win out on the ice.

Poirier was kept up because there were a lot of guys who were banged up and they needed someone around who go into the lineup at moments notice. Poirier was the best option. As soon as guys started getting healthy they sent him down.

I think the idea that guys missing a few games in the AHL is detrimental to their development isn't fair. They are getting to practice with NHL coaches and players and are getting to see what it takes to be an NHL player. I mean each player has missed like 3-4 games in the AHL while up here, it's not the end of the world.

 

 

Sadly?  If the others were the same quality/performance then I'd be sad.  They seem to be developing, i'm OK with that.

Actually it is on Hartley. If he wasnt/isnt going to play the young guys then he should be asking for Treliving to call up a guy like Seto and staple him to the pressbox. Having the young guys watch for multiple games has zero benefit for their development. There are other options available. Oh and theres the whole thing with Seto at the beginning of the year being completely useless and yet still playing, Hartley has his favorites. He always has and always will. 

[IpsoFacto]

Actually it is on Hartley. If he wasnt/isnt going to play the young guys then he should be asking for Treliving to call up a guy like Seto and staple him to the pressbox. Having the young guys watch for multiple games has zero benefit for their development. There are other options available. Oh and theres the whole thing with Seto at the beginning of the year being completely useless and yet still playing, Hartley has his favorites. He always has and always will. 

 

I really don't like this "Hartley has his favourites" thing (not just you Zirak...you're just the most recent post).  He doesn't have favourites any more than any other coach or fan who thinks they have the solution to get the most out of their team.  He doesn't play "his favourites" because he likes hanging out with them on the bus.  He has players that he believes, based on his strategy/systems and their performance in those roles, gives Calgary the best chance to win.  His job is make the lines and dole out the minutes in the way he thinks he can maximize talent and win more games.  It's not like there's some universally accepted fact that player X should get a certain amount of play time, or more play time than player Y, or whatever.  Not only is talent evaluation subjective, but coaching decisions are dynamic, they are complicated, and they are interwoven with a lot more than any given player's ability.  There's chemistry, there's specific roles, there's certain gaps in a team's system that need to be filled, etc.

 

We as fans have our "favourites" too.  We think that certain players should be getting more or less of a chance than they do, or used in different roles.  If our opinion doesn't jive with that of the head coach it somehow means he's playing favourites?  That just doesn't make sense.  He's icing the best lines he can based on what he's trying to do and what he thinks players can deliver.  You not agreeing with him doesn't mean he "plays favourites".

 

Just to beat a dead horse, let's look at the Seto thing.  Let me start off by saying that I don't think he earned his place here and he played at a really low level.  But if you look at how he was used, there are two things to note.  First, his play time started off as a 3rd line forward (12-15 mins per game) and dropped over the two months he was with the team to the point he was playing around 7 mins a night.  So Hartley was in fact adjusting his use of Seto based on his performance.  Second, Seto's apparent performance was made worse by how he was used.  If you look at the strength of competition he faced, it couldn't have really been tougher for him.  So when we're assessing his performance it's something to be kept in mind (which it is usually not).  So what I'm saying is, he was bad, but not as bad as most people think.  And Hartley reduced his playtime accordingly until he was moved out.  To the extent that he "played favourites", it was to experiment with a guy who had proven himself in the past, to adjust his role when it wasn't working, and to get rid of him when a solution couldn't be found. 

 

I think that this kind of methodical approach is a good trait for a coach.  I don't want to see knee jerk reactions one way or the other.  In fact, if Hartley had knee jerk reactions, we would not have enjoyed Gaudreau's season.  He had fiver rough games at the start and was benched for a game as a result.  Knee jerk reaction says we should have sent him to the AHL.  Glad that Hartley was methodical with his assessment and his approach to maximizing talent in that instance...

[Khrox]

To add to what Ipso was saying: Hartley also has to adjust the lineup to the opponents team as well. If you are playing against a really fast team, do you really want the slower guys like Bollig out there over the speedsters like Byron? If it's a team known for being big and physical, you definitely want Bollig and Ferland in the lineup, but you might take out Granlund or Raymond.

[kehatch]

Hartley does play favourites sometimes. Every coach does to some extent. It isn't malicious. I am sure it is calculated to some extent based on how a player does what he is supposed to do in practice and in games. But there are players that seem to get a longer least.

Backlund was a guy that couldn't do right for the first half of last season (though he is in the good books now.) Ramo couldn't buy a start at times a season ago. Setoguchi is a guy that got a lot of leash despite poor results.

That said, Hartley's job right now is to win games. I personally don't care who is sitting the bench right now. It was annoying to have prospects sit a few months ago. But right now it's all about the wins.

[IpsoFacto]

Hartley does play favourites sometimes. Every coach does to some extent. It isn't malicious. I am sure it is calculated to some extent based on how a player does what he is supposed to do in practice and in games. But there are players that seem to get a longer least.

Backlund was a guy that couldn't do right for the first half of last season (though he is in the good books now.) Ramo couldn't buy a start at times a season ago. Setoguchi is a guy that got a lot of leash despite poor results.

That said, Hartley's job right now is to win games. I personally don't care who is sitting the bench right now. It was annoying to have prospects sit a few months ago. But right now it's all about the wins.

 

We might be having a raging agreement here (civilly of course).  You're kind of saying what I am I think.  When you say a player was in the dog house or someone got a longer look, that's because Hartley saw (or didn't) see something he liked (or didn't like). 

 

My beef was with the term "playing favorites", not with the fact that he makes tough decisions makes judgment calls on those decisions.  Using terms like "playing favorites" suggests that there's some ulterior motive or a lack of fairness in how he approaches things. 

 

My point is that that is a little absurd given what his mandate and objectives are.  He's not giving one player a longer look because he's a favorite, it's because there's something he's seeing that he likes and/or that fits his system/vision/stategy/matchup/etc.  He's not pulling certain players quicker because he doesn't like them, it's because he's seeing something that doesn't work with what he's trying to accomplish. 

 

To take it a step further, you can't say things like "Player X made mistakes too, so why is it that only Player Y gets benched for his mistakes?"  The question is what is the role of each player?  What other things to they bring/do for the team?  How do their skills mesh with other players/lines?  Etc.  It's not as simple as "Hartley uses different players differently and not the way I want, so he's playing favorites."

 

This whole rant is to say, I think we're on the same page (ie: he does what he thinks he needs to to ice the best team possible).  But I just don't like the terminology around playing favorites because it makes it look like those decisions aren't based on hockey reasons, but on some unfounded biases or personality issues.  And without real evidence pointing to that kind of pre (and poor) judgment, I don't think it's right to jump to that conclusion. 

[tmac70]

We might be having a raging agreement here (civilly of course).  You're kind of saying what I am I think.  When you say a player was in the dog house or someone got a longer look, that's because Hartley saw (or didn't) see something he liked (or didn't like). 

 

My beef was with the term "playing favorites", not with the fact that he makes tough decisions makes judgment calls on those decisions.  Using terms like "playing favorites" suggests that there's some ulterior motive or a lack of fairness in how he approaches things. 

 

My point is that that is a little absurd given what his mandate and objectives are.  He's not giving one player a longer look because he's a favorite, it's because there's something he's seeing that he likes and/or that fits his system/vision/stategy/matchup/etc.  He's not pulling certain players quicker because he doesn't like them, it's because he's seeing something that doesn't work with what he's trying to accomplish. 

 

To take it a step further, you can't say things like "Player X made mistakes too, so why is it that only Player Y gets benched for his mistakes?"  The question is what is the role of each player?  What other things to they bring/do for the team?  How do their skills mesh with other players/lines?  Etc.  It's not as simple as "Hartley uses different players differently and not the way I want, so he's playing favorites."

 

This whole rant is to say, I think we're on the same page (ie: he does what he thinks he needs to to ice the best team possible).  But I just don't like the terminology around playing favorites because it makes it look like those decisions aren't based on hockey reasons, but on some unfounded biases or personality issues.  And without real evidence pointing to that kind of pre (and poor) judgment, I don't think it's right to jump to that conclusion. 

I agree, with the fact of playing favorites there is no such thing. Hartley is job is to put forth the best team he decides could win. Does that mean some guys may sit longer or will not play at all.  Each opponent is different and that is why you see line judging. It is all about  wins. I know people loses there crap when prospects are brought up and not played, but early season wins and decisions have us in a playoff position now.

[cross16]

Every coach has his favorites I don't think that is a big deal at all. It's human nature to have your favorites and the best coaches in history have too. The problem with it only becomes when you start to favor your favorites over what is best for the team so while yes I think Hartley has his favorites, he hasn't put that ahead of the team in an over detrimental manor

[kehatch]

We might be having a raging agreement here (civilly of course). You're kind of saying what I am I think. When you say a player was in the dog house or someone got a longer look, that's because Hartley saw (or didn't) see something he liked (or didn't like).

My beef was with the term "playing favorites", not with the fact that he makes tough decisions makes judgment calls on those decisions. Using terms like "playing favorites" suggests that there's some ulterior motive or a lack of fairness in how he approaches things.

My point is that that is a little absurd given what his mandate and objectives are. He's not giving one player a longer look because he's a favorite, it's because there's something he's seeing that he likes and/or that fits his system/vision/stategy/matchup/etc. He's not pulling certain players quicker because he doesn't like them, it's because he's seeing something that doesn't work with what he's trying to accomplish.

To take it a step further, you can't say things like "Player X made mistakes too, so why is it that only Player Y gets benched for his mistakes?" The question is what is the role of each player? What other things to they bring/do for the team? How do their skills mesh with other players/lines? Etc. It's not as simple as "Hartley uses different players differently and not the way I want, so he's playing favorites."

This whole rant is to say, I think we're on the same page (ie: he does what he thinks he needs to to ice the best team possible). But I just don't like the terminology around playing favorites because it makes it look like those decisions aren't based on hockey reasons, but on some unfounded biases or personality issues. And without real evidence pointing to that kind of pre (and poor) judgment, I don't think it's right to jump to that conclusion.

I think so. I think if you are defining favourites as the guy who bought the nicest bottle of Scotch then I agree. Hartley doesn't. But he does seem to give some players more leash then other players (and some less). I am sure he has a legitimate reason for it so maybe favourite is the wrong word.

I think where he runs into to criticism is that there often doesn't appear to be a reason for the decision that we can see (even though I am sure there is one). Some players sit the bench immediately following a mistake while others seemingly get unlimited chances. As a fan that can be frustrating and Hartley seems to do it more then most coaches.

To me as long as Hartley is getting the most out of most of his players and prospects he deserves the benefit of the doubt. For the most part even the guys like Ramo and Backlund that were in the bad books end up turning it around.

[travel_dude]

Every coach has his favorites I don't think that is a big deal at all. It's human nature to have your favorites and the best coaches in history have too. The problem with it only becomes when you start to favor your favorites over what is best for the team so while yes I think Hartley has his favorites, he hasn't put that ahead of the team in an over detrimental manor

 

The flip side of the coin is being in a coach's doghouse, whether righly or wrongly.  There is no denying that Stajan was in a certain coach's doghouse and could never get out of it.  A coaching change turned that player around.

 

Coaches also see things in players that we as fans don't always notice; performance at practices, attitude, etc.  We can argue all day about Byron's cement hands on breakaways, or playing Seto extended minutes when he did nothing to deserve it, but sometimes a coach uses his gut more than his head. If it works out, he is a genious, if not...

[kehatch]

The flip side of the coin is being in a coach's doghouse, whether righly or wrongly. There is no denying that Stajan was in a certain coach's doghouse and could never get out of it. A coaching change turned that player around.

Coaches also see things in players that we as fans don't always notice; performance at practices, attitude, etc. We can argue all day about Byron's cement hands on breakaways, or playing Seto extended minutes when he did nothing to deserve it, but sometimes a coach uses his gut more than his head. If it works out, he is a genious, if not...

I agree. But to Hartley's credit it pays off most of the tine. By conventional wisdom Bouma should never have been on a top 9 like. Jooris shouldn't have made the team. Byron should have been a routine healthy scratch. Etc.

Eventually players run out of leash. Smid saw his minutes go down. Setoguchi got demoted. Etc. But a lot of the guys he put his faith in turned out.

[travel_dude]

I agree. But to Hartley's credit it pays off most of the tine. By conventional wisdom Bouma should never have been on a top 9 like. Jooris shouldn't have made the team. Byron should have been a routine healthy scratch. Etc.

Eventually players run out of leash. Smid saw his minutes go down. Setoguchi got demoted. Etc. But a lot of the guys he put his faith in turned out.

Not trashing Bob at all. He is getting it done with what they have. His gut decisions make sense, and even if it doesn't result in a win, the team is buying into it. No squabbles in public.

[Zirakzigil]

Seto was completely useless for 12 games. He put up a grand total of 0 points despite regular PP time and was a -7. Hartley said multiple times that he was "great in practice" up until the moment he was demoted. If thats not favoritism to the the detriment of the team I dont know what is. 

 

 

 

Anyways enough digression. I  am just glad he has been send down so he can actually play. 

[CheersMan]

Seto was completely useless for 12 games. He put up a grand total of 0 points despite regular PP time and was a -7. Hartley said multiple times that he was "great in practice" up until the moment he was demoted. If thats not favoritism to the the detriment of the team I dont know what is. 

 

 

 

Anyways enough digression. I  am just glad he has been send down so he can actually play. 

 

For the umpteenth time, Seto was signed to a very cheap, low risk one year deal.  The chance that he could bounce back was worth the relatively low cost.  BH gave Seto (proven NHL’er) plenty of leash, with all parties knowing that this was likely Seto’s last chance at playing in the NHL.  BH has only good words for his players in public.  Have you ever heard him throw a player under the bus?  BH was fair and gave Seto an HONEST look before cutting bait.  There was no favouritism, just thorough asset management.

[ABC923]

Not to be 'that' guy or anything, but on this entire page of comments I have not seen Poiriers name used once, nor is he directly referenced.  I get the conversation is related, but it seems to diverged into more of a Bob Hartley conversation than Emile Poirier conversation.

 

Just saying

[420since1974]

Poirier could benefit from another season in the AHL.

 

I have little doubt that he will be a full-time RW for the Flames for the 2016/2017 season.

[Wrek]

He will be the perfect injury call up next season, he can strut his stuff then.

[Zirakzigil]

For the umpteenth time, Seto was signed to a very cheap, low risk one year deal.  The chance that he could bounce back was worth the relatively low cost.  BH gave Seto (proven NHL’er) plenty of leash, with all parties knowing that this was likely Seto’s last chance at playing in the NHL.  BH has only good words for his players in public.  Have you ever heard him throw a player under the bus?  BH was fair and gave Seto an HONEST look before cutting bait.  There was no favouritism, just thorough asset management.

And why did Seto deserve plently of leash but young kids like Poirier and Sven did not?

[CheersMan]

And why did Seto deserve plently of leash but young kids like Poirier and Sven did not?

 

Seto’s leash was 12 games. 

------------

Sven got 56 NHL gms plus 109 AHL gms spread over portions of 4 seasons…………then quit.

------------

The 20 yr old Poirier was one of 9 rookies to lace up for the Flames this season, he got a 7 game call up and should be grateful for the opportunity.  Poirier has a bright future, but he has some work to do.

------------

Players I’m calling rookies are Ferland, Gaudreau, Granlund, Poirier, Jooris, Shore, Knight, Wolf and Reinhart.   Bennett could make it 10.  You could almost call Ortio rookie #11.  The Flames have given opportunity to many.

[TrippinVdUb]

We will all know when Emile is ready, let this kid mature over the next few seasons and one of these days he will have one of those dominate welcome to the NHL games and he will stick with the club.

Id like him to skate with Bennett next training camp and see if there is some chemistry there, Johnny and Monahan have proven they can carry the first line maybe we have what could be one of the best 2nd lines in the game waiting in the shadows.

[travel_dude]

We will all know when Emile is ready, let this kid mature over the next few seasons and one of these days he will have one of those dominate welcome to the NHL games and he will stick with the club.

Id like him to skate with Bennett next training camp and see if there is some chemistry there, Johnny and Monahan have proven they can carry the first line maybe we have what could be one of the best 2nd lines in the game waiting in the shadows.

My concern with players like Poirier is that they are ready to play top 6, but we may have bottom 6 space only. Colborne gets top 9 minutes most nights, but plays more like a 4th liner. Raymond, well I am not really a fan. Other than offense (occasional), I don't see him being effective in 2-way play. Granlund will be a really good player in time, but likely 3rd or 2nd line tops. Jooris has speed and grit, but on a good team is 3rd or 4th line.

Players that have reached their shelf life on this team:

Raymond

Bollig

Jones (not down on Jones, just he is not the kind we need any more)

Rookies that could show enough to make the team next season:

Poirier (he has to ripen a bit, but could have a really strong camp)

Arnold (IMHO he could Stajan anytime - FO% and strong on the puck)

Agostino (solid kid, more of a sniper than playmaker)

Wolf (strong like bull)

[TrippinVdUb]

My concern with players like Poirier is that they are ready to play top 6, but we may have bottom 6 space only. Colborne gets top 9 minutes most nights, but plays more like a 4th liner. Raymond, well I am not really a fan. Other than offense (occasional), I don't see him being effective in 2-way play. Granlund will be a really good player in time, but likely 3rd or 2nd line tops. Jooris has speed and grit, but on a good team is 3rd or 4th line.

Players that have reached their shelf life on this team:

Raymond

Bollig

Jones (not down on Jones, just he is not the kind we need any more)

Rookies that could show enough to make the team next season:

Poirier (he has to ripen a bit, but could have a really strong camp)

Arnold (IMHO he could Stajan anytime - FO% and strong on the puck)

Agostino (solid kid, more of a sniper than playmaker)

Wolf (strong like bull)

If Poirer is ready for 2nd line duty next year he will find his way there, Bob has done the same with Bouma and Jooris, no reason to believe next years crop of rookie forwards dont get the same opportunity.

I am a huge fan of Arnold, i think he is the perfect 3rd line center in the making, cant wait to see him in Calgary silks.

With everything going on with the big club its easy to loose site of all the talent waiting in the wings, guys who can be difference makers in a few years.

[robrob1974]

I think we find a way to move Raymond. He hasn't done much to add to the team the last bunch of games. It's been a long time since I've noticed him being a difference maker. 

 

If he deserves to play, they will shuffle the roster to play him. 

I thought he looked good as a 4th liner, but we want him to play top 6 so keep him playing top 6 in the A if he's not ready.

[cccsberg]

I think we find a way to move Raymond. He hasn't done much to add to the team the last bunch of games. It's been a long time since I've noticed him being a difference maker. 

 

If he deserves to play, they will shuffle the roster to play him. 

I thought he looked good as a 4th liner, but we want him to play top 6 so keep him playing top 6 in the A if he's not ready.

Next year I don't disagree, but the last few games he has been flying and effective.  He had a great zone entry last night to draw defenders then dished it to a wide open Hudler leading to the second goal.