Flames Defense

[tachaudh]

Anybody wanna tell me why David Schlemko was penalized against Winnipeg for a follow through?

[robrob1974]

I kind of thought the same, but then I wondered if the follow through was up for too long?

Possible the ref only caught the tail end when the player skated directly into the stick

[The_People1]

I get the lack of love for Backlund (injuries, lack of offense).  But he is the best possession forward we have. He regularly faces the toughest competition.  Unless you have one of the rookies show repeatedly that can do that, losing him would set us back more than you think.

 

Backlund is quickly turning into a Matt Lombardi, a player drafted with offensive potential but ultimately defining himself as a primary shut down Center only.  With the injuries, the lack of consistent scoring, and lack of finish, both careers look like they parallel one another.  When the Flames traded Lombardi, i felt it was a mistake and a large reason for that is the Flames haven't groomed a replacement for him before hand.

 

Before we trade Backlund, i think we need to be sure Sam Bennett can produce in a 2nd line role with good two-way play and shut down capability.  I don't feel Stajan is nearly the same level.  Granlund and Jooris are close but not quite the same level of effectiveness.

[robrob1974]

I wonder if Bennett ends up a LWer. We maybe "deeper" at C now, but you still never know. With Bennett's size right now, he could be better a winger.

I am rooting for him to be a C though.

Something about Backlund is, he's been the ultimate team guy and playing a defensive role that doesn't get as much credit on the score sheet and in the long term that's what a player is judged on.

We haven't really given Backlund guys to play with to put up numbers.

[Flyerfan52]

Backlund is quickly turning into a Matt Lombardi, a player drafted with offensive potential but ultimately defining himself as a primary shut down Center only.  With the injuries, the lack of consistent scoring, and lack of finish, both careers look like they parallel one another.  When the Flames traded Lombardi, i felt it was a mistake and a large reason for that is the Flames haven't groomed a replacement for him before hand.

 

Before we trade Backlund, i think we need to be sure Sam Bennett can produce in a 2nd line role with good two-way play and shut down capability.  I don't feel Stajan is nearly the same level.  Granlund and Jooris are close but not quite the same level of effectiveness.

As those in chat know I manage to catch a Flames game from time to time.

In my humble opinion Stajan is that Swiss army knife type that plays well regardless of line. To me he's more valuable.

 

I'd qualify Backlund to keep his rights.

When trade talks happen during the summer the worth of Backlund depends how trade talks go. If they go well for a reasonable contract & a team asks for Stajan I'm open to trading him.

 

If it comes to either/or I'd prefer to keep Stajan.

[MAC331]

I'm with you FF, Stajan is signed, both are 3rd line C's and Backlund likely has more perceived value in a trade.

[kehatch]

Backlund isn't Lombardi. There are similarities. Both were injury prone. Both could net you between 40 to 50 points with most of the production coming even strength. Both played the PK. Both were a little soft.

But Backlund is a high end defensive forward while Lombardi didn't bring much to the table when he wasn't producing. People are underestimating a 0.5 ppg player with high end defensive skills. That isn't bad production especially considering his role. That is a very useful player.

I don't disagree that he may and even should be moved. You can't have too much C depth, but he may get you back a position you need more (ie D). I just don't get the lack of respect he gets from some fans. He is a good player.

[420since1974]

+1 for sure.

[CheersMan]

Backlund isn't Lombardi. There are similarities. Both were injury prone. Both could net you between 40 to 50 points with most of the production coming even strength. Both played the PK. Both were a little soft.

But Backlund is a high end defensive forward while Lombardi didn't bring much to the table when he wasn't producing. People are underestimating a 0.5 ppg player with high end defensive skills. That isn't bad production especially considering his role. That is a very useful player.

I don't disagree that he may and even should be moved. You can't have too much C depth, but he may get you back a position you need more (ie D). I just don't get the lack of respect he gets from some fans. He is a good player.

 

Similarly, I don’t get the lack of respect many here give our defense.  We don’t need another top 4 dman, we have 4 already.  It’s extremely unfortunate if our top dman goes down to injury.  It would be similar for other teams as well if say Subban, Doughty, Karlsson, Keith or Weber got injured.  You don’t replace these guys.  You chip in by committee and do a little more until your injured player returns.  

 

Gio-Brodie (solidified)

Wideman-Russell (solidified)

Schlemko-Engelland-Diaz-Potter-Smid-Wotherspoon-etc-etc-etc (healthy competition, best 2)

 

Removing Backlund in the offseason does not improve this team.  Right now there is no one who can play those minutes better than he.  When Bennett (or anyone else) proves they can play those minutes better, then we can have the discussion of trading Backlund.

[travel_dude]

Similarly, I don’t get the lack of respect many here give our defense.  We don’t need another top 4 dman, we have 4 already.  It’s extremely unfortunate if our top dman goes down to injury.  It would be similar for other teams as well if say Subban, Doughty, Karlsson, Keith or Weber got injured.  You don’t replace these guys.  You chip in by committee and do a little more until your injured player returns.  

 

Gio-Brodie (solidified)

Wideman-Russell (solidified)

Schlemko-Engelland-Diaz-Potter-Smid-Wotherspoon-etc-etc-etc (healthy competition, best 2)

 

Removing Backlund in the offseason does not improve this team.  Right now there is no one who can play those minutes better than he.  When Bennett (or anyone else) proves they can play those minutes better, then we can have the discussion of trading Backlund.

 

I get what you are saying, but the bottom line is we don't even have prospects trending towards a top 4 role.  Diaz and Schlemko are bottom 2.  Wotherspoon could become a top 4, but we don't know (his offense doesn't suggest this, unless you consider a top 4 to be strictly shutdown).  Ramage, Kulak, Culkin are possible NHL'ers in the future, but again, likely bottom 2.  Kanzig, Rafikov, Gilmour, Mattsson, Roy and Hickey...These guys are a few years from projecting, but apart from Rafikov (QB on PP), I don't know if any will even make the NHL. 

 

We need top 4 D-men in the system, ready to step up. We lost Gio for the biggest part of our season, and almost didn't make it. As our senior defence keep aging, they become more likely to be lost for injuries.  Two years in a row, Gio was injured. Last year Wideman was out with a wrist issue and came back flat.

 

As much as Diaz and Engelland have taken bigger roles on this team, we can't expect to improve if that is our solution to lack of depth.  Making the playoffs is great, but we want to improve every year.  We can't just say "we have top 4 now so we are set". 

[420since1974]

The Flames definitely need more Top 4 D depth for the future.

 

The question is where do they find it?

 

This season, I recall only 3 D of that quality moving in trades, Boychuk, Leddy, & Myers.

[CheersMan]

I get what you are saying, but the bottom line is we don't even have prospects trending towards a top 4 role.  Diaz and Schlemko are bottom 2.  Wotherspoon could become a top 4, but we don't know (his offense doesn't suggest this, unless you consider a top 4 to be strictly shutdown).  Ramage, Kulak, Culkin are possible NHL'ers in the future, but again, likely bottom 2.  Kanzig, Rafikov, Gilmour, Mattsson, Roy and Hickey...These guys are a few years from projecting, but apart from Rafikov (QB on PP), I don't know if any will even make the NHL. 

 

We need top 4 D-men in the system, ready to step up. We lost Gio for the biggest part of our season, and almost didn't make it. As our senior defence keep aging, they become more likely to be lost for injuries.  Two years in a row, Gio was injured. Last year Wideman was out with a wrist issue and came back flat.

 

As much as Diaz and Engelland have taken bigger roles on this team, we can't expect to improve if that is our solution to lack of depth.  Making the playoffs is great, but we want to improve every year.  We can't just say "we have top 4 now so we are set". 

 

I’m all for adding young defenseman prospects and I’m sure BT will address that at this year’s draft.  We are not in panic mode on the blue line with our top guys at or just surpassing 30 yrs.  I keep reading here that we need to add a top 4 dman that will step in right away, which I disagree with.  This type of addition will also come with a 5m cap hit plus it messes with existing team chemistry which has been working out just fine.  Let’s save those $$’s for the ones that are here already and require significant raises.

[travel_dude]

I’m all for adding young defenseman prospects and I’m sure BT will address that at this year’s draft.  We are not in panic mode on the blue line with our top guys at or just surpassing 30 yrs.  I keep reading here that we need to add a top 4 dman that will step in right away, which I disagree with.  This type of addition will also come with a 5m cap hit plus it messes with existing team chemistry which has been working out just fine.  Let’s save those $$’s for the ones that are here already and require significant raises.

 

The top 4 has done a valiant job. On some teams they would be all top 4, while on others, only 2 would be.  Do you only want to stay the same at best, considering all 4 have had career years?  Or do you continually seek to at minimum stay the same, and more likely improve?  We have to decrease the number of shot attempts, shots on goals and goals against.

[CheersMan]

The top 4 has done a valiant job. On some teams they would be all top 4, while on others, only 2 would be.  Do you only want to stay the same at best, considering all 4 have had career years?  Or do you continually seek to at minimum stay the same, and more likely improve?  We have to decrease the number of shot attempts, shots on goals and goals against.

 

The foundation to our blue-line is in place.

 

I want to improve from the bottom pairing up.

 

I want our young D competing, working and earning their position on this team.

 

I want our young D pushing our vets to become better.

 

I want a homegrown solution because young top 4 potential dmen do not exist on the trade market.

 

It’s nice to pretend that a NYI young rockstar would look nice in Red but fact is those players are never truly available, it’s a pipe dream.

 

I don’t want Russell and Wideman playing on the bottom pairing with reduced minutes.  They would not only be less effective but it would be deflating to our young prospects knowing that they need to beat them out for a job.  Impossible.

 

I don’t want another 5m dman on this team chewing up previous cap and messing with chemistry.

 

I want to pay our existing and proven top 4 what they’re worth and leave the bottom pairing open for serious competition with our dmen already under contract and prospects from the farm.

 

----------

 

Our dmen continue to take the heat for our mostly inexperienced and under developed forwards. 

 

How often do we see our forwards cycle the puck for any length of time in the Ozone?  Very seldom.  The strength required to sustain an Ozone cycle is the same strength required to bust up a Dzone cycle.  Right now we are not very good at either.  When our forwards mature we will have overall improved team defense, reducing shots and goals against plus reduced time we are hemmed in our Dzone.  It also starts in the face-off circle, how are we there?

[MonyontheMoney]

I get what you are saying, but the bottom line is we don't even have prospects trending towards a top 4 role.  Diaz and Schlemko are bottom 2.  Wotherspoon could become a top 4, but we don't know (his offense doesn't suggest this, unless you consider a top 4 to be strictly shutdown).  Ramage, Kulak, Culkin are possible NHL'ers in the future, but again, likely bottom 2.  Kanzig, Rafikov, Gilmour, Mattsson, Roy and Hickey...These guys are a few years from projecting, but apart from Rafikov (QB on PP), I don't know if any will even make the NHL. 

 

We need top 4 D-men in the system, ready to step up. We lost Gio for the biggest part of our season, and almost didn't make it. As our senior defence keep aging, they become more likely to be lost for injuries.  Two years in a row, Gio was injured. Last year Wideman was out with a wrist issue and came back flat.

 

As much as Diaz and Engelland have taken bigger roles on this team, we can't expect to improve if that is our solution to lack of depth.  Making the playoffs is great, but we want to improve every year.  We can't just say "we have top 4 now so we are set". 

Don't forget about Morrisson. He and wotherspoon will make solid nhl defenseman imo. I also really like Hickey. That being said our defence in our prospect pool is probably the weakest part and rather than moving assets to improve that I think we can address it at the draft. There are numerous dmen that should be around in the second that I really like

[travel_dude]

Don't forget about Morrisson. He and wotherspoon will make solid nhl defenseman imo. I also really like Hickey. That being said our defence in our prospect pool is probably the weakest part and rather than moving assets to improve that I think we can address it at the draft. There are numerous dmen that should be around in the second that I really like

You have me there.  I am actually thinking he may be higher on the pecking order than Wotherspoon, but for a different reason. Spoon is more in the shutdown mode, while Morrison is higher offensive potential.

[MAC331]

This all nice and everything but if there exists a trade possibility to improve overall you explore it. If it means moving Russell to the 3rd pairing and others have to compete so be it. If they further develop and there still is no place for them you can trade them for another need.

 

As a GM I think you have to remain flexible not rigidly idealistic.

[CheersMan]

This all nice and everything but if there exists a trade possibility to improve overall you explore it. If it means moving Russell to the 3rd pairing and others have to compete so be it. If they further develop and there still is no place for them you can trade them for another need.

 

As a GM I think you have to remain flexible not rigidly idealistic.

 

Putting your assistant captain on the third pairing in a reduced role may not be the best use of the player, particularity when the player has proven he can play 25-30 min a game without being a liability.

Would you consider putting Hudler (assistant captain) on the third or fourth line in a reduced role to spread the skill around?

Do you think Morrison (or other promising young Dmen) would sign here if Russell and/or Wideman were blocking the door as third pairing D?

[MonyontheMoney]

You have me there.  I am actually thinking he may be higher on the pecking order than Wotherspoon, but for a different reason. Spoon is more in the shutdown mode, while Morrison is higher offensive potential.

I agree. Excited to see Morrison play. Small sample size in ahl is good so far (6 points in 8 games).

[MAC331]

I will say yes to the question regarding Morrison, of course he would sign here. This team has a lot of excitement around it. As for Hudler no I wouldn't use him on a 3rd line unless there were players that were better. The same goes for Russell. How much better would the entire D corp be if not pressed to playing that much time with the top two pairs.

[Flyerfan52]

The foundation to our blue-line is in place.

 

I want to improve from the bottom pairing up.

 

I want our young D competing, working and earning their position on this team.

 

I want our young D pushing our vets to become better.

 

I want a homegrown solution because young top 4 potential dmen do not exist on the trade market.

 

It’s nice to pretend that a NYI young rockstar would look nice in Red but fact is those players are never truly available, it’s a pipe dream.

 

I don’t want Russell and Wideman playing on the bottom pairing with reduced minutes.  They would not only be less effective but it would be deflating to our young prospects knowing that they need to beat them out for a job.  Impossible.

 

I don’t want another 5m dman on this team chewing up previous cap and messing with chemistry.

 

I want to pay our existing and proven top 4 what they’re worth and leave the bottom pairing open for serious competition with our dmen already under contract and prospects from the farm.

 

----------

 

Our dmen continue to take the heat for our mostly inexperienced and under developed forwards. 

 

How often do we see our forwards cycle the puck for any length of time in the Ozone?  Very seldom.  The strength required to sustain an Ozone cycle is the same strength required to bust up a Dzone cycle.  Right now we are not very good at either.  When our forwards mature we will have overall improved team defense, reducing shots and goals against plus reduced time we are hemmed in our Dzone.  It also starts in the face-off circle, how are we there?

It's the foundation. D typically take longer to develope.

Our current top 4 is adequate but only that.

 

I don't want a future rock star from the Isles or any other team unless we can use surplus assets to land 1. I'd be really happy to land Pulock but not ready to overpay.

 

What I want is a current top 4 D (or 2) to strengthen our defence. As I've often stated I value the defence part of the job description a heck of a lot more than a D that acts like a 4th forward. Top 4s are usually available in the 4.0 (give or take 0.5) price range. They are also very popular @ the trade deadline should a prospect outplay him enough to make him expendable.

[cross16]

I agree on the D, its adequate but not outstanding and if there was the right upgrade available I deifnetly would not say no to it. am I going out and looking for an upgrade, not necessarily, but I'm not locking in this top 4 and saying we can't upgrade. I view the Flames defence as a playoff caliber defence but not necessarily a cup winning defence so I still think there are improvements you can make. Also have to keep in mind, you had basically career seasons from Wideman - Russell do you get that again? Russell is a pending UFA do you pay to keep him? Gio is a FA next year and both Gio and Wideman are north of 30. Lots of considerations so I don't agree that D is locked in and can't be upgraded. Outside the top pairing I think the 2nd pairing, 3rd pairing and overall depth can all use the right type of upgrade but again I stress the right type of upgrade.

 

Would I use Backlund for it? probably not. I'm personally very reluctant to trade Backlund and unless the Flames struggle to get him signed I would rather keep him. Two way, defensive stud centers are not easy to find (case in point how many have the Flames had in the last 10 years) and as of right now I don't see a replacement on the roster who is close to Backlund's level. Not saying I wouldn't move him for the right deal, I'm just not keen to do it unless its really worth it.

 

When it comes to upgrades my preference would be a scoring winger who can play on the 2nd line. That would take priority for me over defence.

[The_People1]

I view the Flames defence as a playoff caliber defence but not necessarily a cup winning defence so I still think there are improvements you can make.

 

Thanks cross, that's exactly what I wanted to say too.  We've got a "good" D group but where are we in the standings?  Did we win a divisional title or anything?  We are in no position to have an untouchable top 4.

[MAC331]

After last night and some further thought I think Wideman is a serious liability on the 2nd pairing not Russell. Maybe we should be thinking of trading Wideman or knocking him down to the 3rd pairing and PP.

 

Also after last night and watching Bennett's style of play I think our forward positioning and scoring will be just fine for next year.

 

I have said this for a few years now regarding Backlund, he is a 3rd line C and our reality is with Stajan resigned for as long as he is now, one of them has to go. Backlund isn't a 2nd line C next year and Stajan isn't a 4th line C. I don't dislike either player, each has their own strengths.

 

Our depth is building and each will bring about a few changes so hopefully our GM makes good decisions

[Ameter]

After last night and some further thought I think Wideman is a serious liability on the 2nd pairing not Russell. Maybe we should be thinking of trading Wideman or knocking him down to the 3rd pairing and PP.

 

Troll troll troll your boat...