Flames Defense

[cross16]

I'm really suprised this debate has gone on thing long to be honest because the answer is really simple... it is both. Both need to be improved. . Flames were 11th in shots against but were 7th last in scoring chances and 5th last in quality scoring chances so they do need to improve in that area there is no questions about it. The debate should be how you fix it and that's where I see people like TD and Kehatch going with this. I happen to agree that the talent the Flames D core has is good enough and IMO the have an average D core. They do not execute at the level of an average D core but that doesn't mean the talent isn't there. As i've said in multiple threads now, I believe this issue is more at the systems/execution level then it is a talent level. If you look at the D cores in the Western conference I don't see a massive gap from them to the Flames. I think the Flames on paper compare very well to teams like Minnesota, Dallas (I would say they are better than Dallas actually), and peole may laugh but I don't think the drop from the Hawks to the Flames is huge. Hawks big 3 is better but th eFlames depth is better, but if you watch the Hawks play the EXECUTE significantly better than the Flames, especially when it comes to team Defence. That's another forgttoen point, people keep pointing to the Flames defence without remembering that defence is a team issue. Forwards are equally at fault IMO.

 

I would agree thought that goaltending is the biggest reason for the 30th ranking in GA. In fact its really quite as simple as saying the Flames are ranked 30th because of Jonus HIller. If you exclude HIller and Backstrom, Ortio and Ramo combined for a GAA of 2.68 and a save percentage of .905. That would put the Flames 18th and 20th in the league for those 2 rankings. So again, not good and not good enough but a lot better than where they are because of Hiller and they all played behind the same D core. Its why I really disagree with this notion that the Flames are so bad that no one can play well behind this D core. I don't consider Ortio or Ramo to be above average goalies and they were not that bad playing behind the Flames D core. 

 

So as I said above I do agree the Flames need to improve at both especially as they want to build towards being a contender. I believe very strongly, and the numbers tell you this very clearly, that the Flames are in the playoff race with even average goaltending. however, I do agree they in order to become a contender in the next few seasons they will need to improve their D zone coverage and IMO that comes from improving your systems, executing better, and gaining more experience. 

[cccsberg]

Thanks ccsberg,    I'm forced to respond in essay format....  but short answer:  You need both.  Offense/Defense, these days.  Often in the same player.  Agreed.   But having an offensive defenceman, doesn't mean you have both.

 

I guess, to answer that we have to go back to what the topic is, and what "defense" means.  Is it a position?   A responsibility?  A system?

 

The start of this topic (no offense to anyone) was an eery reminder of what I fear we see defense as, and what you confirmed in much of your reflective quote above.

 

This topic was started with the subject line "Defense", followed by a list of the top Flames point producers.

http://fans.flames.nhl.com/community/topic/21053-flames-defense

 

By my understanding of defense, it is hard for me to post on here, without being "off topic" given that direction.    Yet, the thread is frighteningly popular. My own thoughts on what a team "should" look like, maybe don't matter that much.   But, everyone else's visions of a  5-forward team, or the future of hockey, maybe aren't the most relevant either.

 

So the first question you need to ask, is what we want.

 

I really, honestly, truly....want a Stanley cup in Calgary.    That's it, that's all.    But that's NOT what everyone else necessarily wants.

 

Many on here want Entertainment.   They want to be entertained, they're often willing to pay for it.  They want entertainment consistently.  

 

They want entertainment....  win or lose.  Effort.  Excitement.  Red lights, Fire.

 

And, I get it.  I really do.   My needs might also be more complex, if I was a season ticket holder, or otherwise financially invested.   

 

 

But when it comes to the Stanley Cup....Sometimes, you don't get to have both.   And, we have to at least recognize, that they are Not the same thing.

 

• Los Angeles has NOT been an exciting team over the last 5 years.  But, they are one of the Only teams that plays into summer.
• Boston is NOT an exciting team.  But they Do have a recent cup and Often succeed Post-season.
• Chicago Can sometimes be an exciting team.   And, possibly, the team that many on here model the Flames after.   

But, we may be modelling ourselves after some of chicago's weaknesses, instead of their strengths, and definitely the exception to the rule in terms of playoff success.

 

So...ok...we can talk about Chicago.  Not about my ideal D lineup.  Say we talk about the last Stanley Cup winner.   (because if we talked about LA, or Boston, there ...just ...wouldn't be anything to compare)

 

So...for example:  Doug Hamilton.  He is NOT a top 4 defenceman on an NHL contender right now.   He has the potential, and I think he will reach it.   But he just Isn't defensively responsible in that role.  Yet.   We all bank him in.  I've been guilty of it too.   We're getting ahead of ourselves.   The blackhawks have nobody, never did have anybody, who was this much of a defensive project.   We need to realize, while I support it, we're taking on a lot here.   And Los Angeles, or Boston?  NOT A CHANCE.

 

Compare that, to, say, Duncan Keith.    We do not have a Single player that does, defensively, what Duncan Keith does.  People seem to think, that because Gio and Brodie put similar (or even better) points up, that they are better defensemen.   They are clearly not, defensively better, and Nobody outside of this City thinks they are.   We sometimes like to kid ourselves.   And it holds us back.  We have nobody like him defensively.  Period.  Not in the NHL, not in the development system, not anybody we've drafted.

 

Seabrook....Defensively, I would say the same, to only a slightly lesser degree.    At times, Gio could compare.   Unfortunately, Gio is getting older.  And yes, offensively, we've got lots to talk about.  But..that's only half the game.

 

 

The famous comparison:   Too often on here, it is said:

Keith+Seabrook   = Brodie+ Gio.

 

No.  Offensively, maybe.   Defensively, Brodie/Gio lack the size, sense, system, and play to be compared.    They compare in offensive categories only.  They are OK defensively.  But for the minutes they take up, we would need a much deeper supporting cast of defense than we do.

 

And our prospect pool?   All offense.  Even the defencemen.   Or, B-C grade defensemen.

 

 

So....to be honest....gaps can be filled in, yes.  But we need those Top D, who are all things.  Offensive, Defensive, at a world class level.  And if you have to favour one over the other, Defensive Still wins more cups.   And probably will continue to.

 

 

I believe there are lots of areas to get us from bad to average, but in terms of getting from Average to Elite, this is the area the Flames will need to focus on the most.

 

Yes, we have some offense now.  Even there, probably not enough.   Because....the Truth is....when we actually start playing a system and take defense seriously.....

 

Other teams are going to stop laying their backups against us.

 

Only then will we even know how much offense we really have.

Ok, GREAT response.  Well thought out and elaborated.  

 

I would agree that our best overall D is Giordano, and I might argue he compares favourably with anybody out there.  Keith, Seabrook, Doughty, whoever.   That being said its a steep drop-off down to Brodie and even more to Hamilton, who defensively has a lot to prove as he continues to mature and grow.  

 

As for the prospects, the big three seem to be in the same mold, though I'm not certain on Andersson.  Of the others I think guys like Ollas-Maatson, Kanzig, Sieloff and Bruce all could be very fine, defensively, one day but certainly skating may get them to the NHL but is never going to be Elite.  

 

Getting back to my original question, though, nobody else really has a great top 4 with the exception of perhaps Nashville from what I see.  Chicago is top 3 only, LAK top 2/3 maybe, Boston in their prime top 2/3 only, TBL now top 2/3 maybe, ANA now top4 very good but not great.... and on it goes.  That seems to be the requirement, so having all top 6 offensive guys just might do it, if you play a strong system and have strong supporting guys?

 

I finally fully agree on your overall assessment of this thread and general thinking on D, its all about the numbers.  Though this is concrete and entertaining I'm not sure its the primary reason for team success.   But then again, look at perhaps the best D/best player to ever play the game: Bobby Orr.... ALL offence, so much that he pretty much single-handedly changed the NHL for all time! 

[JTech780]

I'm really suprised this debate has gone on thing long to be honest because the answer is really simple... it is both. Both need to be improved. . Flames were 11th in shots against but were 7th last in scoring chances and 5th last in quality scoring chances so they do need to improve in that area there is no questions about it. The debate should be how you fix it and that's where I see people like TD and Kehatch going with this. I happen to agree that the talent the Flames D core has is good enough and IMO the have an average D core. They do not execute at the level of an average D core but that doesn't mean the talent isn't there. As i've said in multiple threads now, I believe this issue is more at the systems/execution level then it is a talent level. If you look at the D cores in the Western conference I don't see a massive gap from them to the Flames. I think the Flames on paper compare very well to teams like Minnesota, Dallas (I would say they are better than Dallas actually), and peole may laugh but I don't think the drop from the Hawks to the Flames is huge. Hawks big 3 is better but th eFlames depth is better, but if you watch the Hawks play the EXECUTE significantly better than the Flames, especially when it comes to team Defence. That's another forgttoen point, people keep pointing to the Flames defence without remembering that defence is a team issue. Forwards are equally at fault IMO.

I would agree thought that goaltending is the biggest reason for the 30th ranking in GA. In fact its really quite as simple as saying the Flames are ranked 30th because of Jonus HIller. If you exclude HIller and Backstrom, Ortio and Ramo combined for a GAA of 2.68 and a save percentage of .905. That would put the Flames 18th and 20th in the league for those 2 rankings. So again, not good and not good enough but a lot better than where they are because of Hiller and they all played behind the same D core. Its why I really disagree with this notion that the Flames are so bad that no one can play well behind this D core. I don't consider Ortio or Ramo to be above average goalies and they were not that bad playing behind the Flames D core.

So as I said above I do agree the Flames need to improve at both especially as they want to build towards being a contender. I believe very strongly, and the numbers tell you this very clearly, that the Flames are in the playoff race with even average goaltending. however, I do agree they in order to become a contender in the next few seasons they will need to improve their D zone coverage and IMO that comes from improving your systems, executing better, and gaining more experience.

I agree. For me the biggest reasons for our poor goals against is goaltending, special teams/systems and lack of defensive effort from our top line(s) forwards.

I was hoping to see more of a jump in Monahan's defensive game this year.

[Flyerfan52]

I have no idea how many of you watched the Caps/Flyers series but 1 thing I kept seeing was Mike Richards out there logging 11 & 1/2 minutes, scoring 0 points but playing better defense than most listed on D.

We could use a player like him to teach the rest there is more to the game then offense. 

To me even stars like Toews take on defensive responsibility. He can do that & garner points @ dang near a PPG. The prevents probably = that in 60 minutes.

Every TC Olympic team uses centers like that even if on the 3rd line with gunners on the top 2. That shows the value.

[cross16]

I agree. For me the biggest reasons for our poor goals against is goaltending, special teams/systems and lack of defensive effort from our top line(s) forwards.

I was hoping to see more of a jump in Monahan's defensive game this year.

 

I personally disagree on Monahan I thought he did take some steps forward but maybe not a giant leap.

 

Part of the problem is pretty easy to diagnose, they lack experience. We should not expect guys like Mony, Gaudreau, Bennett, Ferland to have very good defensive games, it takes times for guys like that. I think the real problem is where is their support? From a bottom 6 perspective Hartley has to use guys like Jooris, Bolig, Stajan, Colborne all of which are IMO not very good in their own zone. Stajan is OK but thats just is he is ok. Outside of Backlund/Frolik, they don't really have guys that currently play a solid defensive game and that needs to be addressed and part of the reason I say the Flames need to compeltely re work their bottom 6. It's really below average from an NHL standpoint.

 

You look at a team like the Blackhawks, when they were building up their dynasty they had guys like Yanic Perrault, John Madden, Martin Havlat, Robert Lang, Patrick Sharp etc etc. They had veteran guys who knew the finer defensive details of the game. The Flames have not supported their young case with the same type of players.

 

It take time, didn't happen overnight for the Hawks either but this is just one of the may things you can look at as to why the Goals against is where it is. There is no 1 fix to rectify it there are many and IMO forward is a bigger need than defence. I really don't think changing the D is going to get you a significant result, you need more experience up front. 

 

Flames have too many guys in their bottom 6 who IMO are not NHlers. Bolig isn't, not full time anyway, Jooris isn't, Ferland wasn't last year but that is a learning process, and personally I don't think Grant is either. I think the Flames should have alot of interest in guys like Mike Richards, Boyd Gordon, Kyle Brodziak, Chris Kelly etc. I think they need that veteran presence especially on the PK.

 

People are going to jump all over me about how  the "youth needs to get played" and "giving prospects a chance". My counter, is the Flames already get the most production into the NHL out of their youth, its time to support that youth. 

[MAC331]

I personally disagree on Monahan I thought he did take some steps forward but maybe not a giant leap.

 

Part of the problem is pretty easy to diagnose, they lack experience. We should not expect guys like Mony, Gaudreau, Bennett, Ferland to have very good defensive games, it takes times for guys like that. I think the real problem is where is their support? From a bottom 6 perspective Hartley has to use guys like Jooris, Bolig, Stajan, Colborne all of which are IMO not very good in their own zone. Stajan is OK but thats just is he is ok. Outside of Backlund/Frolik, they don't really have guys that currently play a solid defensive game and that needs to be addressed and part of the reason I say the Flames need to compeltely re work their bottom 6. It's really below average from an NHL standpoint.

 

You look at a team like the Blackhawks, when they were building up their dynasty they had guys like Yanic Perrault, John Madden, Martin Havlat, Robert Lang, Patrick Sharp etc etc. They had veteran guys who knew the finer defensive details of the game. The Flames have not supported their young case with the same type of players.

 

It take time, didn't happen overnight for the Hawks either but this is just one of the may things you can look at as to why the Goals against is where it is. There is no 1 fix to rectify it there are many and IMO forward is a bigger need than defence. I really don't think changing the D is going to get you a significant result, you need more experience up front. 

 

Flames have too many guys in their bottom 6 who IMO are not NHlers. Bolig isn't, not full time anyway, Jooris isn't, Ferland wasn't last year but that is a learning process, and personally I don't think Grant is either. I think the Flames should have alot of interest in guys like Mike Richards, Boyd Gordon, Kyle Brodziak, Chris Kelly etc. I think they need that veteran presence especially on the PK.

 

People are going to jump all over me about how  the "youth needs to get played" and "giving prospects a chance". My counter, is the Flames already get the most production into the NHL out of their youth, its time to support that youth. 

I know what you are saying however I don't think BT is going to accelerate this rebuild in that fashion.

[cccsberg]

I personally disagree on Monahan I thought he did take some steps forward but maybe not a giant leap.

 

Part of the problem is pretty easy to diagnose, they lack experience. We should not expect guys like Mony, Gaudreau, Bennett, Ferland to have very good defensive games, it takes times for guys like that. I think the real problem is where is their support? From a bottom 6 perspective Hartley has to use guys like Jooris, Bolig, Stajan, Colborne all of which are IMO not very good in their own zone. Stajan is OK but thats just is he is ok. Outside of Backlund/Frolik, they don't really have guys that currently play a solid defensive game and that needs to be addressed and part of the reason I say the Flames need to compeltely re work their bottom 6. It's really below average from an NHL standpoint.

 

You look at a team like the Blackhawks, when they were building up their dynasty they had guys like Yanic Perrault, John Madden, Martin Havlat, Robert Lang, Patrick Sharp etc etc. They had veteran guys who knew the finer defensive details of the game. The Flames have not supported their young case with the same type of players.

 

It take time, didn't happen overnight for the Hawks either but this is just one of the may things you can look at as to why the Goals against is where it is. There is no 1 fix to rectify it there are many and IMO forward is a bigger need than defence. I really don't think changing the D is going to get you a significant result, you need more experience up front. 

 

Flames have too many guys in their bottom 6 who IMO are not NHlers. Bolig isn't, not full time anyway, Jooris isn't, Ferland wasn't last year but that is a learning process, and personally I don't think Grant is either. I think the Flames should have alot of interest in guys like Mike Richards, Boyd Gordon, Kyle Brodziak, Chris Kelly etc. I think they need that veteran presence especially on the PK.

 

People are going to jump all over me about how  the "youth needs to get played" and "giving prospects a chance". My counter, is the Flames already get the most production into the NHL out of their youth, its time to support that youth. 

Its a balancing act.  If the Flames replaced marginal guys like Bollig, Stajan, Jooris with solid vets, they can still play enough prospects to  transition the team.. Part of the problem is being active at keeping the best players and not getting fixated on vets who aren't really helping. 

[Flyerfan52]

I personally disagree on Monahan I thought he did take some steps forward but maybe not a giant leap.

 

Part of the problem is pretty easy to diagnose, they lack experience. We should not expect guys like Mony, Gaudreau, Bennett, Ferland to have very good defensive games, it takes times for guys like that. I think the real problem is where is their support? From a bottom 6 perspective Hartley has to use guys like Jooris, Bolig, Stajan, Colborne all of which are IMO not very good in their own zone. Stajan is OK but thats just is he is ok. Outside of Backlund/Frolik, they don't really have guys that currently play a solid defensive game and that needs to be addressed and part of the reason I say the Flames need to compeltely re work their bottom 6. It's really below average from an NHL standpoint.

 

You look at a team like the Blackhawks, when they were building up their dynasty they had guys like Yanic Perrault, John Madden, Martin Havlat, Robert Lang, Patrick Sharp etc etc. They had veteran guys who knew the finer defensive details of the game. The Flames have not supported their young case with the same type of players.

 

It take time, didn't happen overnight for the Hawks either but this is just one of the may things you can look at as to why the Goals against is where it is. There is no 1 fix to rectify it there are many and IMO forward is a bigger need than defence. I really don't think changing the D is going to get you a significant result, you need more experience up front. 

 

Flames have too many guys in their bottom 6 who IMO are not NHlers. Bolig isn't, not full time anyway, Jooris isn't, Ferland wasn't last year but that is a learning process, and personally I don't think Grant is either. I think the Flames should have alot of interest in guys like Mike Richards, Boyd Gordon, Kyle Brodziak, Chris Kelly etc. I think they need that veteran presence especially on the PK.

 

People are going to jump all over me about how  the "youth needs to get played" and "giving prospects a chance". My counter, is the Flames already get the most production into the NHL out of their youth, its time to support that youth. 

I'll give you Gaudreau as he's a small guy out of college where defense is an afterthought. Guys like Toews are the exception.

Monahan was touted as a 2 way center in his draft year. Few others lost that merely because they moved to the NHL. Bennett carried the same label.

Ferland was never a star so would have been expected to check & the like in junior.

 

Stajan turned himself from a scorer only to a 2 way player. Those that started as such should have retained the ability rather than lose it because they signed a pro contract. Might be Stajan could hold a talk to remind them that they were drafted for a 2 way. If he can re-make himself to do what he wasn't they should be able to remember what got them drafted.

[Cowtownguy]

Sorry for the long post. I appreciate any who bother reading it. 

 

We go around and around in circles when we discuss defence and goaltending here. Part of the problem is that the NHL simply does not collect appropriate data to make intelligent assessments of play. NHL statistics are largely an heuristic device for the media to generate fan interest. Goaltending save percentage is not a valid statistic since a goalie can stand on his head, but if the defence is allowing a shooting gallery, it misrepresents what is happening in reality. As well, a goalie can play poorly, but if the defence is excellent, he is going to look unbeatable. Shot blocking can indicate great heart or poor defensive play. Puck possession is usually a good indicator of play, but the LA Kings were the best at that this year and look how they performed. They had the puck and were unable to translate that possession into offence. We can make similar arguments about other statistics including the Corsi that is based on already insufficient, invalid data. Anyone who uses Microsoft programs knows that placing crap upon crap results in mega-crap. As Quenville said before the last game, he makes decisions on the basis of his gut. I am not anti-statistic, I am saying that there is insufficient data to produce valid statistics. You just cannot Moneyball hockey at the moment.

 

The Flames suffered from Oilerthink this year when it comes to defence (and goaltending). On paper, we are excellent. Dougie has massive potential, Gio is great all around, and Brodie is simply amazing. But this does not mean that they are necessarily playing well in relation to other aspects of the game. All year, the front of our net has been a safe haven for other teams. I half expected that a family of Syrian refugees would set up camp in front of our net because nobody would ever remove them. It has made life very difficult for all of our goalies. So many times, we just dump the puck around the boards due to a lack of hustle, hope for the best, the puck goes to their point man, and they score. It was rinse, repeat playing Anaheim. Like the Oiler’s offence, we have great players who have not played great defence.

 

Compare that to the Hawks. They usually get to the puck first (is there a statistic for that?). If not, they bang away until they strip it from the other team (is there a statistic for that?). And then, they usually have several passing options when transitioning (any stats here?). That is almost rare for the Flames. We wait for the other team to give us the puck after they get a scoring opportunity. We hope our goalie stops the puck and it bounces to us before the other team gets it. If not, we start shot blocking.

 

Hartley does have some explaining to do in this regard, and I kind of like the guy overall. Is he aware of these problems, but the players are not responding? Are they unable to respond how he wishes? Or, is Hartley too focused on offensive play? Does anyone dispute that one of the best hits by one of our defencemen was when Wideman put the zebra in the hospital? Sometimes I wish Reggie was our defensive coach.

[conundrumed]

Sorry for the long post. I appreciate any who bother reading it. 

 

We go around and around in circles when we discuss defence and goaltending here. Part of the problem is that the NHL simply does not collect appropriate data to make intelligent assessments of play. NHL statistics are largely an heuristic device for the media to generate fan interest. Goaltending save percentage is not a valid statistic since a goalie can stand on his head, but if the defence is allowing a shooting gallery, it misrepresents what is happening in reality. As well, a goalie can play poorly, but if the defence is excellent, he is going to look unbeatable. Shot blocking can indicate great heart or poor defensive play. Puck possession is usually a good indicator of play, but the LA Kings were the best at that this year and look how they performed. They had the puck and were unable to translate that possession into offence. We can make similar arguments about other statistics including the Corsi that is based on already insufficient, invalid data. Anyone who uses Microsoft programs knows that placing crap upon crap results in mega-crap. As Quenville said before the last game, he makes decisions on the basis of his gut. I am not anti-statistic, I am saying that there is insufficient data to produce valid statistics. You just cannot Moneyball hockey at the moment.

 

The Flames suffered from Oilerthink this year when it comes to defence (and goaltending). On paper, we are excellent. Dougie has massive potential, Gio is great all around, and Brodie is simply amazing. But this does not mean that they are necessarily playing well in relation to other aspects of the game. All year, the front of our net has been a safe haven for other teams. I half expected that a family of Syrian refugees would set up camp in front of our net because nobody would ever remove them. It has made life very difficult for all of our goalies. So many times, we just dump the puck around the boards due to a lack of hustle, hope for the best, the puck goes to their point man, and they score. It was rinse, repeat playing Anaheim. Like the Oiler’s offence, we have great players who have not played great defence.

 

Compare that to the Hawks. They usually get to the puck first (is there a statistic for that?). If not, they bang away until they strip it from the other team (is there a statistic for that?). And then, they usually have several passing options when transitioning (any stats here?). That is almost rare for the Flames. We wait for the other team to give us the puck after they get a scoring opportunity. We hope our goalie stops the puck and it bounces to us before the other team gets it. If not, we start shot blocking.

 

Hartley does have some explaining to do in this regard, and I kind of like the guy overall. Is he aware of these problems, but the players are not responding? Are they unable to respond how he wishes? Or, is Hartley too focused on offensive play? Does anyone dispute that one of the best hits by one of our defencemen was when Wideman put the zebra in the hospital? Sometimes I wish Reggie was our defensive coach.

I don't think so.

What is the comparison to the Hawks? They have Toews-Hossa; Kane-Anamisov-Panarin, a bunch of others in the bag, even Teuravainen and Ladd as extras.

Are we near simply that? No, we aren't.

Why compare?

The Flames aren't the Hawks, and it ain't the difference between Quenneville and Hartley...

[cccsberg]

Sorry for the long post. I appreciate any who bother reading it. 

 

We go around and around in circles when we discuss defence and goaltending here. Part of the problem is that the NHL simply does not collect appropriate data to make intelligent assessments of play. NHL statistics are largely an heuristic device for the media to generate fan interest. Goaltending save percentage is not a valid statistic since a goalie can stand on his head, but if the defence is allowing a shooting gallery, it misrepresents what is happening in reality. As well, a goalie can play poorly, but if the defence is excellent, he is going to look unbeatable. Shot blocking can indicate great heart or poor defensive play. Puck possession is usually a good indicator of play, but the LA Kings were the best at that this year and look how they performed. They had the puck and were unable to translate that possession into offence. We can make similar arguments about other statistics including the Corsi that is based on already insufficient, invalid data. Anyone who uses Microsoft programs knows that placing crap upon crap results in mega-crap. As Quenville said before the last game, he makes decisions on the basis of his gut. I am not anti-statistic, I am saying that there is insufficient data to produce valid statistics. You just cannot Moneyball hockey at the moment.

 

The Flames suffered from Oilerthink this year when it comes to defence (and goaltending). On paper, we are excellent. Dougie has massive potential, Gio is great all around, and Brodie is simply amazing. But this does not mean that they are necessarily playing well in relation to other aspects of the game. All year, the front of our net has been a safe haven for other teams. I half expected that a family of Syrian refugees would set up camp in front of our net because nobody would ever remove them. It has made life very difficult for all of our goalies. So many times, we just dump the puck around the boards due to a lack of hustle, hope for the best, the puck goes to their point man, and they score. It was rinse, repeat playing Anaheim. Like the Oiler’s offence, we have great players who have not played great defence.

 

Compare that to the Hawks. They usually get to the puck first (is there a statistic for that?). If not, they bang away until they strip it from the other team (is there a statistic for that?). And then, they usually have several passing options when transitioning (any stats here?). That is almost rare for the Flames. We wait for the other team to give us the puck after they get a scoring opportunity. We hope our goalie stops the puck and it bounces to us before the other team gets it. If not, we start shot blocking.

 

Hartley does have some explaining to do in this regard, and I kind of like the guy overall. Is he aware of these problems, but the players are not responding? Are they unable to respond how he wishes? Or, is Hartley too focused on offensive play? Does anyone dispute that one of the best hits by one of our defencemen was when Wideman put the zebra in the hospital? Sometimes I wish Reggie was our defensive coach.

You make a lot of great points, especially the lack of appropriate/good data on which to really figure out what is happening.  That is so, so true and why watching the game is so critical to really know what is happening, and who is either playing great or just benefitting from others.  

 

The more I'm thinking about these things it seems to me that each team has(or gets) a very few key players(or a coach) around which the team develops (usually) a unique personality based on those few players/coach.  For Calgary its a quick counterattack, kamikaze attack style of play that incorporates their forwards but also all their D.  Its fast, its high pressure and it feeds off the rush and catching the other team off-balance and out of place, and getting better than average scoring chances.  This is probably mostly a BH playing style, supported by BT, that uniquely fits our best players, Gaudreau, Giordano and Brodie to a "T".  It works well overall but it also leaves the team vulnerable to a slow, methodical cycling/possession game with an emphasis on physicality and wearing down our players.  It also makes us susceptible to a stacked D/trap system in the neutral zone that shuts down our fast break attack. 

 

Thinking back to our 1980's powerhouses we had massive skill and strength, but played more for break even at 5 v 5 then kill them on Special Teams.  

 

There probably is not 1 way to make a team, it will totally depend on a combination of players/coach and so hey, if we end up with 6 skilled offensive D in three years, great.  It will be more about execution and effort than anything else.....,

[DirtyDeeds]

Ok, I can work with a lot of your last post.   Except, this part above.

 

I get the importance of goaltending.   But, when you finish last in the league for goals against, and your farm team is following suit....

 

"Our defense is good to very good right now" is not a reasonable statement, imho, no matter who you have in net.   You can say we have good offensive defensemen.  You could argue that we have a bright future on defense (and I would disagree, currently), but if you come out of this season happy with our defensive coverage, that's honestly a Really hard sell.   I hope you can at least appreciate that, given our league-worst outcome.

 

IMHO, my guess on next season:

 

• We will improve out goaltending
• It will still not be elite, and thus you will still not be "happy"
• We will have a better season next year, and it Might even include a post-season.  
•       But it will leave many unfulfilled.  Including me, and you.
• From our conversation right now, I'm assuming you will blame this on a lack of "Elite Goaltending"
• However, more likely, the post-mortem will be more complex, pointing at just a bit too much "average"....Everywhere

 

And that....is my fear, because out of all the positions, Defense is the hardest one for an organization to bring from Average to Elite (and takes the longest).  Goaltending can change overnight.  We saw that with Kipper.   Offense develops quickly.   Defense requires initiatives at the organizational, team system, coaching, and development levels, as well as trades (GM) in many cases.

Just wanted to comment on this point. I don't think that you can compare our goaltending in AHL to the goaltending on the Flames this season. While the result is similar the reasons for the similar result are not....

 

 

The Baby Flames went through 11 goalies this year. I think that stat alone puts a lot of perspective on why the Baby Flames record/season was ..... 

[conundrumed]

 

The more I'm thinking about these things it seems to me that each team has(or gets) a very few key players(or a coach) around which the team develops (usually) a unique personality based on those few players/coach.  For Calgary its a quick counterattack, kamikaze attack style of play that incorporates their forwards but also all their D.  Its fast, its high pressure and it feeds off the rush and catching the other team off-balance and out of place, and getting better than average scoring chances.  This is probably mostly a BH playing style, supported by BT, that uniquely fits our best players, Gaudreau, Giordano and Brodie to a "T".

Every team employs sending a defenceman trailing on the rush or pressure nowadays. Our forward depth can't do it much, but we do it regardless.

I'm more interested in how we fix that.

[Cowtownguy]

I don't think so.

What is the comparison to the Hawks? They have Toews-Hossa; Kane-Anamisov-Panarin, a bunch of others in the bag, even Teuravainen and Ladd as extras.

Are we near simply that? No, we aren't.

Why compare?

The Flames aren't the Hawks, and it ain't the difference between Quenneville and Hartley...

I made the comparison to the Hawks (clearly a much better team right now) because they were once a terrible team that underwent a serious rebuild like we are. They struggled for years before that. They got a few excellent draft picks as we have and turned it around based on excellent, strategic play. As well, they have been successful based on drafting talent rather than snagging massive hulks like Anaheim or LA. I would argue that they may be the template we should be using.

[cross16]

 

 

I'll give you Gaudreau as he's a small guy out of college where defense is an afterthought. Guys like Toews are the exception.

Monahan was touted as a 2 way center in his draft year. Few others lost that merely because they moved to the NHL. Bennett carried the same label.

Ferland was never a star so would have been expected to check & the like in junior.

 

Stajan turned himself from a scorer only to a 2 way player. Those that started as such should have retained the ability rather than lose it because they signed a pro contract. Might be Stajan could hold a talk to remind them that they were drafted for a 2 way. If he can re-make himself to do what he wasn't they should be able to remember what got them drafted.

 

 

But Monahan is a two way center.. i'm not sure why you are going down the path that he is not. He isn't Toews or he isn't amongst the uppper echelon of the league but how many 21 year old centers are?

 

I think Monahan is a solid two way center but needs to become a very good to great 2 way center but that takes time. 

[cross16]

 

In terms of the Toews/Monahan comparison take a look at the chart. They see similar strenght of compeition, both start more in the d zone then they do offensive zone and yet the amount of scoring chances they give up against is not really that dissimilar. 

 

Not saying they are equal because IMO Toews is better, but my point is let's not act like Monahan isn't a good two way center because he is. 

[MAC331]

But Monahan is a two way center.. i'm not sure why you are going down the path that he is not. He isn't Toews or he isn't amongst the uppper echelon of the league but how many 21 year old centers are?

 

I think Monahan is a solid two way center but needs to become a very good to great 2 way center but that takes time. 

I don't think we need to worry to much about how players such as Monahan and Bennett will grow in the NHL, both are fundamentally sound. There are times they will think scoring overrides other responsibilities but they are smart enough to correct themselves or accept some reminders from coaches.

[MAC331]

Thanks ccsberg,    I'm forced to respond in essay format....  but short answer:  You need both.  Offense/Defense, these days.  Often in the same player.  Agreed.   But having an offensive defenceman, doesn't mean you have both.

 

I guess, to answer that we have to go back to what the topic is, and what "defense" means.  Is it a position?   A responsibility?  A system?

 

The start of this topic (no offense to anyone) was an eery reminder of what I fear we see defense as, and what you confirmed in much of your reflective quote above.

 

This topic was started with the subject line "Defense", followed by a list of the top Flames point producers.

http://fans.flames.nhl.com/community/topic/21053-flames-defense

 

By my understanding of defense, it is hard for me to post on here, without being "off topic" given that direction.    Yet, the thread is frighteningly popular. My own thoughts on what a team "should" look like, maybe don't matter that much.   But, everyone else's visions of a  5-forward team, or the future of hockey, maybe aren't the most relevant either.

 

So the first question you need to ask, is what we want.

 

I really, honestly, truly....want a Stanley cup in Calgary.    That's it, that's all.    But that's NOT what everyone else necessarily wants.

 

Many on here want Entertainment.   They want to be entertained, they're often willing to pay for it.  They want entertainment consistently.  

 

They want entertainment....  win or lose.  Effort.  Excitement.  Red lights, Fire.

 

And, I get it.  I really do.   My needs might also be more complex, if I was a season ticket holder, or otherwise financially invested.   

 

 

But when it comes to the Stanley Cup....Sometimes, you don't get to have both.   And, we have to at least recognize, that they are Not the same thing.

 

• Los Angeles has NOT been an exciting team over the last 5 years.  But, they are one of the Only teams that plays into summer.
• Boston is NOT an exciting team.  But they Do have a recent cup and Often succeed Post-season.
• Chicago Can sometimes be an exciting team.   And, possibly, the team that many on here model the Flames after.   

But, we may be modelling ourselves after some of chicago's weaknesses, instead of their strengths, and definitely the exception to the rule in terms of playoff success.

 

So...ok...we can talk about Chicago.  Not about my ideal D lineup.  Say we talk about the last Stanley Cup winner.   (because if we talked about LA, or Boston, there ...just ...wouldn't be anything to compare)

 

So...for example:  Doug Hamilton.  He is NOT a top 4 defenceman on an NHL contender right now.   He has the potential, and I think he will reach it.   But he just Isn't defensively responsible in that role.  Yet.   We all bank him in.  I've been guilty of it too.   We're getting ahead of ourselves.   The blackhawks have nobody, never did have anybody, who was this much of a defensive project.   We need to realize, while I support it, we're taking on a lot here.   And Los Angeles, or Boston?  NOT A CHANCE.

 

Compare that, to, say, Duncan Keith.    We do not have a Single player that does, defensively, what Duncan Keith does.  People seem to think, that because Gio and Brodie put similar (or even better) points up, that they are better defensemen.   They are clearly not, defensively better, and Nobody outside of this City thinks they are.   We sometimes like to kid ourselves.   And it holds us back.  We have nobody like him defensively.  Period.  Not in the NHL, not in the development system, not anybody we've drafted.

 

Seabrook....Defensively, I would say the same, to only a slightly lesser degree.    At times, Gio could compare.   Unfortunately, Gio is getting older.  And yes, offensively, we've got lots to talk about.  But..that's only half the game.

 

 

The famous comparison:   Too often on here, it is said:

Keith+Seabrook   = Brodie+ Gio.

 

No.  Offensively, maybe.   Defensively, Brodie/Gio lack the size, sense, system, and play to be compared.    They compare in offensive categories only.  They are OK defensively.  But for the minutes they take up, we would need a much deeper supporting cast of defense than we do.

 

And our prospect pool?   All offense.  Even the defencemen.   Or, B-C grade defensemen.

 

 

So....to be honest....gaps can be filled in, yes.  But we need those Top D, who are all things.  Offensive, Defensive, at a world class level.  And if you have to favour one over the other, Defensive Still wins more cups.   And probably will continue to.

 

 

I believe there are lots of areas to get us from bad to average, but in terms of getting from Average to Elite, this is the area the Flames will need to focus on the most.

 

Yes, we have some offense now.  Even there, probably not enough.   Because....the Truth is....when we actually start playing a system and take defense seriously.....

 

Other teams are going to stop playing their backups against us.

 

Only then will we even know how much offense we really have.

I think we all want to be entertained by well played hockey by our team. In reference to the type of defensemen we want or need, I don't think you want them all the same. Having said that you need them all to have solid puck moving abilities and hockey sense for what the opposing team is trying to accomplish on any certain play. Most of the physical tactics have been taken away from defensemen guarding the front of the net so they and the forwards have to be stronger to do the board work and smart enough to plug up the scoring lanes or areas.

[robrob1974]

We get it. You are right and everyone else is wrong. I for one got annoyed watching the Flames play a brilliant game, only to see big Buff score with less than 2 minutes on a gimme. Or seeing Hiller let in 3 goals on 5 shots. Or watch Weise get a hatty against us as well as Byron score a shorty.

Blame the forwards if you like. They can't always score 4 goals a game to make up for 3 GA. 11th on league scoring should result in a better league standing.

Blame the defense if you like. It seems after the defense tightened things up, the wins still weren't coming.

The Oilers are nowhere near what the Flames are. Goaltending would not help them alone. They need too much. I don't see any reason to use them as an example of why good goaltending doesn't fix things.

There were only a small handful of games where the flames played great. And then games where they got no puck luck because they didn't deserve it, games where they didn't deserve it but got it and won (end of the season), and games where they did but didn't get it. This season was more than a Jeklyl and Hyde one. Some remember the few good playing games more than a lot of the poor games.

The thing about for me is, a team who doesn't give it their all for the whole season and comes to play do not deserve playoffs and won't win the cup. The reason I am debating against goaltending is that unless this team comes to play 60 minutes, they're not a cup contender. Not finding a goaltender to mask the deficiencies that I see, which are a lot in my eyes.

For me, it is slow starts, there were a lot of games this year when the team was not present and engaged, and I agree, the fee games that they were, it would've been nice to have better goaltenders.

The team looks good when they give the effort. Too many times did they only give that effort against the higher end teams this year. They have to get up for all games. That's not happening.

I think we all want to be entertained by well played hockey by our team. In reference to the type of defensemen we want or need, I don't think you want them all the same. Having said that you need them all to have solid puck moving abilities and hockey sense for what the opposing team is trying to accomplish on any certain play. Most of the physical tactics have been taken away from defensemen guarding the front of the net so they and the forwards have to be stronger to do the board work and smart enough to plug up the scoring lanes or areas.

The one thing the D are allowed to do, which ours almost never does, is rough up the other team after they've hacked at the puck after our goalies cover it. When team do that to us, there are hardly any penalties. This is part of what I mean by easy to play with and not mean enough.

[MAC331]

There were only a small handful of games where the flames played great. And then games where they got no puck luck because they didn't deserve it, games where they didn't deserve it but got it and won (end of the season), and games where they did but didn't get it. This season was more than a Jeklyl and Hyde one. Some remember the few good playing games more than a lot of the poor games.

The thing about for me is, a team who doesn't give it their all for the whole season and comes to play do not deserve playoffs and won't win the cup. The reason I am debating against goaltending is that unless this team comes to play 60 minutes, they're not a cup contender. Not finding a goaltender to mask the deficiencies that I see, which are a lot in my eyes.

For me, it is slow starts, there were a lot of games this year when the team was not present and engaged, and I agree, the fee games that they were, it would've been nice to have better goaltenders.

The team looks good when they give the effort. Too many times did they only give that effort against the higher end teams this year. They have to get up for all games. That's not happening.

The one thing the D are allowed to do, which ours almost never does, is rough up the other team after they've hacked at the puck after our goalies cover it. When team do that to us, there are hardly any penalties. This is part of what I mean by easy to play with and not mean enough.

I wouldn't say they never stand up for their goalie but I know what you are saying. Giordano and Engelland are as close to nasty as we get only because we don't have that element within our ranks. Brodie likes to act tough but isn't and Hamilton isn't the type either. I don't have a problem with this so long as the other parts of their game are served with intelligence.

[cccsberg]

There were only a small handful of games where the flames played great. And then games where they got no puck luck because they didn't deserve it, games where they didn't deserve it but got it and won (end of the season), and games where they did but didn't get it. This season was more than a Jeklyl and Hyde one. Some remember the few good playing games more than a lot of the poor games.

The thing about for me is, a team who doesn't give it their all for the whole season and comes to play do not deserve playoffs and won't win the cup. The reason I am debating against goaltending is that unless this team comes to play 60 minutes, they're not a cup contender. Not finding a goaltender to mask the deficiencies that I see, which are a lot in my eyes.

For me, it is slow starts, there were a lot of games this year when the team was not present and engaged, and I agree, the fee games that they were, it would've been nice to have better goaltenders.

The team looks good when they give the effort. Too many times did they only give that effort against the higher end teams this year. They have to get up for all games. That's not happening.

The one thing the D are allowed to do, which ours almost never does, is rough up the other team after they've hacked at the puck after our goalies cover it. When team do that to us, there are hardly any penalties. This is part of what I mean by easy to play with and not mean enough.

The other thing which often seems to be a problem is being able/willing to box out the opposition in front of the net.  To me that comes down to a combination of will and strength, but perhaps its assignment too and I'm just missing something.  When we play Anaheim their big forwards just go straight to the net and camp out there, and personally I would like to see our D make it much harder for them to get there in the first place and make it miserable to stay there.  If big and strong enough you can jostle for position/push them out and that is something we rarely see from our D.  Engelland is pretty much the only guy that does so on a semi-consistent basis and Gio less so.  The others, not so much.

[cross16]

The other thing which often seems to be a problem is being able/willing to box out the opposition in front of the net.  To me that comes down to a combination of will and strength, but perhaps its assignment too and I'm just missing something.  When we play Anaheim their big forwards just go straight to the net and camp out there, and personally I would like to see our D make it much harder for them to get there in the first place and make it miserable to stay there.  If big and strong enough you can jostle for position/push them out and that is something we rarely see from our D.  Engelland is pretty much the only guy that does so on a semi-consistent basis and Gio less so.  The others, not so much.

 

I agree and say the same thing but to me its coaching, 100%. They did this all year, they did it 5 on 5 and they did it on the PK. If a team does something like that with the consistancy they did to me its by design. And if its not the Hartley wanted them covering the front of the net and they just weren't well then he is probably the worst coach of all time because no team should have a major flaw like that go unfixed all year. For the recrod, I don't think Hartley is the worst coach of all time....

 

Its not just the Flames though, if you watch over teams you will see guys being left open in front of the net more often now. The problem is the league basiclaly officiated the rough play in front of the net out of the game. You can't lean on guys, you can't cross check and heck now you can't even stick check because if the guy drops his stick you're in the box. If you can't do it you have to avoid it and if you can't cover the front of the net you've got to stop shots from getting to the net. I think the :Flames have made the decision to base their defence around leaving guys in front of the net and focus on blocking shots so the puck just never gets to the net.  Right or wrong, its the decision they've made IMO and I don't think that is going to change. I dont' think it has anything to do with the size or nature of the Flames D its what they believe is the right way to defend and like I said its not like they are the only team doing it. 

[cccsberg]

I agree and say the same thing but to me its coaching, 100%. They did this all year, they did it 5 on 5 and they did it on the PK. If a team does something like that with the consistancy they did to me its by design. And if its not the Hartley wanted them covering the front of the net and they just weren't well then he is probably the worst coach of all time because no team should have a major flaw like that go unfixed all year. For the recrod, I don't think Hartley is the worst coach of all time....

 

Its not just the Flames though, if you watch over teams you will see guys being left open in front of the net more often now. The problem is the league basiclaly officiated the rough play in front of the net out of the game. You can't lean on guys, you can't cross check and heck now you can't even stick check because if the guy drops his stick you're in the box. If you can't do it you have to avoid it and if you can't cover the front of the net you've got to stop shots from getting to the net. I think the :Flames have made the decision to base their defence around leaving guys in front of the net and focus on blocking shots so the puck just never gets to the net.  Right or wrong, its the decision they've made IMO and I don't think that is going to change. I dont' think it has anything to do with the size or nature of the Flames D its what they believe is the right way to defend and like I said its not like they are the only team doing it. 

I think you're probably correct.  Certainly the rules have changed, and what elevated certain players to All-Star or cult status years ago (e.g. Scott Stevens) would probably get them suspended so often they would be out of the league in a few years via multiple suspensions....

[travel_dude]

There were only a small handful of games where the flames played great. And then games where they got no puck luck because they didn't deserve it, games where they didn't deserve it but got it and won (end of the season), and games where they did but didn't get it. This season was more than a Jeklyl and Hyde one. Some remember the few good playing games more than a lot of the poor games.

The thing about for me is, a team who doesn't give it their all for the whole season and comes to play do not deserve playoffs and won't win the cup. The reason I am debating against goaltending is that unless this team comes to play 60 minutes, they're not a cup contender. Not finding a goaltender to mask the deficiencies that I see, which are a lot in my eyes.

For me, it is slow starts, there were a lot of games this year when the team was not present and engaged, and I agree, the fee games that they were, it would've been nice to have better goaltenders.

The team looks good when they give the effort. Too many times did they only give that effort against the higher end teams this year. They have to get up for all games. That's not happening.

The one thing the D are allowed to do, which ours almost never does, is rough up the other team after they've hacked at the puck after our goalies cover it. When team do that to us, there are hardly any penalties. This is part of what I mean by easy to play with and not mean enough.

 

I will use two years and compare the two.

 

2014/15 - goaltending gave us a chance to win mostly every night.  The team was not usually deflated in the first 5 minutes of a game by a weak goal.  If there was a weak goal in a game, it was made up for by the goalie stopping everything else.  The 3rd period's had many more goals for than against.

 

2015/15 - goals against came in bunches.  It was fairly common that we would take an early lead and then allow 3 goals against.  Or a goal would be allowed on the 1st or 2nd shot of a game.  Third periods were our worst, since we were behind a lot.  We would make a push, score a goal, but allow 2.

 

Goaltending was not the only reason for losses this year.  It was the biggest cause.  You can only ask your forwards and defense to try to score 3-4 goals for, just to have a chance at winning the game.  

[robrob1974]

I will use two years and compare the two.

2014/15 - goaltending gave us a chance to win mostly every night. The team was not usually deflated in the first 5 minutes of a game by a weak goal. If there was a weak goal in a game, it was made up for by the goalie stopping everything else. The 3rd period's had many more goals for than against.

2015/15 - goals against came in bunches. It was fairly common that we would take an early lead and then allow 3 goals against. Or a goal would be allowed on the 1st or 2nd shot of a game. Third periods were our worst, since we were behind a lot. We would make a push, score a goal, but allow 2.

Goaltending was not the only reason for losses this year. It was the biggest cause. You can only ask your forwards and defense to try to score 3-4 goals for, just to have a chance at winning the game.

I agree and disagree with that. It still isn't a recipe for success to have your goalie bail you out for the first period. Also, in 2014/15 we had what, the second most comebacks in the league when trailing after the second period? That also isn't a recipe for success.

They did give us a chance to win and was a main reason we got to the playoffs that year. But on top of that, both LA and San Jose had bad years and should've made it but didn't. I don't think our play is well enough as a team and it is just not sustainable.

It was proven this year. While a goalie gets us close, the play has to be better. I love it when the team is engaged and playing well. But that was the case in a handful of games only.

Don't get me wrong, I really want to get a good and great goalie, but the team needs a lot of improvement as a whole.

That's part of a building team, we are just not there yet. A goalie will be a good add though. We will be closer to a playoff spot with one for sure...

But team defense needs to be addressed too.