Flames Defense

[AlbertaBoy12]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I would agree that Engelland has not been the problem in these first three games.

 

However, just like people keep saying it's "too early" to sound the alarm, I think it's too early to annoint Engelland as any more than he was last season or the season before.

 

IMHO, he has essentially played sheltered minutes.   Our top four D have let us down so badly (specifically Wideman), that teams have not targetted Engelland's weaknesses.

 

Engelland, for the most part, has been playing teams that are Defending their leads.

 

These first 3 games have been encouraging, but it will take a lot more than that to justify him.   Even then,  "Playing as expected for his role" may not bee good enough if that role becomes extinct.  It's not so much about bashing Engelland, but there's a lot of Fantastic prospects out there who are not getting opportunities they should (hard to pick them out in Stockton, but that's another discussion).

 

And what are we doing with engelland and his 3 million dollar contract to give these prospects a chance? 

Engelland is overpriced for a 5/6 D men but hes been nothing but successful in calgary since hes been here, hes good for his role.

 

I dont agree that we have loads of prospects missing out on opportunities, I dont think any of the players that got sent to the A are ready for NHL action, none of them looked good in the preseason which is lesser competition, some might be ready soon but even kulak who was the best of the D prospects group didnt look amazing last night, just fine. 

[CheersMan]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Kulak played 13 mins last night. That is hardly top 5 D.he was fine but that's just it, he was fine but that's all you should expect from a 6th dman. 

 I wish people would get off Engellands back. He's been solid since signing here and is off to another good start this year. Other than getting trapped in that Canuck goal for way too long a shift the D last night was very good. 

 

1 hour ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I agree. He has not been that much of a liability on D. He does not have to be the puck carrier here, so does not need to be a world class skater. His skating is adequate for his role with the Flames.

 

I agree as well.  His skating is fine and he plays the position well enough.  With the true enforcer gone from the game Engelland’s role on this team is even more important.  He is the only player on this team (minus Bolig) that keeps the opposition tough guy/ahole honest.  See game 1 vs Lucic.

[jjgallow]

6 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

And what are we doing with engelland and his 3 million dollar contract to give these prospects a chance? 

....

I dont agree that we have loads of prospects missing out on opportunities,

 

Oh, I completely agree with you on our prospects, we don't have anyone to take his place.   But that's a separate discussion imho, I'm referring to the hockey market as a whole.

 

The 3 million was a sunk cost the moment it was signed, imho.   Sure, we might be stuck with him for now.  But I don't believe he should fly under the radar just because of it.

 

Yes, if he continues to play really well, he Might fly under the radar.    And if the Flames fail to address the issue that we don't have an adequate prospect pipeline.   Then, yes, he could.

[AlbertaBoy12]

Just now, jjgallow said:

 

Oh, I completely agree with you on our prospects, we don't have anyone to take his place.   But that's a separate discussion imho, I'm referring to the hockey market as a whole.

 

The 3 million was a sunk cost the moment it was signed, imho.   Sure, we might be stuck with him for now.  But I don't believe he should fly under the radar just because of it.

 

Yes, if he continues to play really well, he Might fly under the radar.    And if the Flames fail to address the issue that we don't have an adequate prospect pipeline.   Then, yes, he could.

Yea I agree. But we payed the market standard for a player in free agency that I guess we thought we needed at the time. There is nothing much we can do with it at this time. If Engelland was paid 1 million a year I dont think anyone would talk about him, but like I said not much we can do. 

 

I listened to Rob Kerr and Pat Steinberg talk about how they were dissapointed that no flames prospects made a big push at camp even though the opportunities were there for the taking. 

 

This team is going to look different next year when alot of contracts come off the books.

[MAC331]

1 minute ago, jjgallow said:

 

Oh, I completely agree with you on our prospects, we don't have anyone to take his place.   But that's a separate discussion imho, I'm referring to the hockey market as a whole.

 

The 3 million was a sunk cost the moment it was signed, imho.   Sure, we might be stuck with him for now.  But I don't believe he should fly under the radar just because of it.

 

Yes, if he continues to play really well, he Might fly under the radar.    And if the Flames fail to address the issue that we don't have an adequate prospect pipeline.   Then, yes, he could.

We have a very good defense pipeline just give it a year. Engelland will have served his purpose all along his contract.

[MAC331]

Just now, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Yea I agree. But we payed the market standard for a player in free agency that I guess we thought we needed at the time. There is nothing much we can do with it at this time. If Engelland was paid 1 million a year I dont think anyone would talk about him, but like I said not much we can do. 

 

I listened to Rob Kerr and Pat Steinberg talk about how they were dissapointed that no flames prospects made a big push at camp even though the opportunities were there for the taking. 

 

This team is going to look different next year when alot of contracts come off the books.

I don't think Kerr or Steinberg have a clue about our situation if that is their thinking.

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Kulak played 13 mins last night. That is hardly top 5 D.he was fine but that's just it, he was fine but that's all you should expect from a 6th dman. 

 I wish people would get off Engellands back. He's been solid since signing here and is off to another good start this year. Other than getting trapped in that Canuck goal for way too long a shift the D last night was very good. 

 

 

I was at the game game last night and I think Engelland looked like one of the best of all our D. He was involved and always mucking it up with the nuck's players. 

 

Hamilton and Gio didn't look great. They may have played better than Engelland overall, but they're probably at 80% of their abilities. Brodie looked just ok too.  

 

Although as a whole, aside from a few shifts, the D played a good road game and Johnson could see most of the shots. If he didn't, he was square and in position to make the save. 

 

Miller had had a similar night as he didn't have to make any spectacular saves. The game was about a 55-45 split in my opinion. The Flames outplayed them for the most part. The shift killed us as Johnson couldn't get a stoppage, and I could see the legs catching up slowly in the 3rd. 

 

Engelland has been good and looked like one of the better ones. Hamilton was disappointing. Given how long it took for him to get used to the system last year, it could be a long first 2 months for him.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

I don't think Kerr or Steinberg have a clue about our situation if that is their thinking.

 

What are you talking about? We are all disappointed none of our prospects looked good given their opportunity to do more. Monahan and Gaudreau out gave others ample opportunity to make a case for themselves. The only one was Tkachuk. What could be considered veteran prospects, like Poirier and maybe now Shinkurak, they didn't do anything to make a case. 

 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, CheersMan said:

 

 

I agree as well.  His skating is fine and he plays the position well enough.  With the true enforcer gone from the game Engelland’s role on this team is even more important.  He is the only player on this team (minus Bolig) that keeps the opposition tough guy/ahole honest.  See game 1 vs Lucic.

 

 

Something i noticed last noght too was, guys like Engelland keeping the other team's guys in line. When they crashed the net there was more response than what I've seen since well before Hartley. 

[MAC331]

35 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

What are you talking about? We are all disappointed none of our prospects looked good given their opportunity to do more. Monahan and Gaudreau out gave others ample opportunity to make a case for themselves. The only one was Tkachuk. What could be considered veteran prospects, like Poirier and maybe now Shinkurak, they didn't do anything to make a case. 

 

I was talking more about our defence prospects however the same could be said for any forward prospects. I have gone a step further in saying this camp was not a very good one as many did not shine through and this new coaching staff was trying to get a look at players in many different scenerios. We could still see Shinkaruk if Tkachuk goes back to Junior but in the meantime he continues developing. Poirier I have said may have to change up his game to that of a 3rd liner with better defensive aspects to his game. A number of these players are close and this gives us or should give us a reliable pipeline which is why I think they were smart to add Versteeg

[MAC331]

38 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

Something i noticed last noght too was, guys like Engelland keeping the other team's guys in line. When they crashed the net there was more response than what I've seen since well before Hartley. 

I like Engelland and what he provides for us.

[ABC923]

I actually think dougie's been our best d-man so far this season.  He's taken more penalties than he should, but he does a lot of good things out there.  I don't notice him cough up the puck as often as Gio or Brodie have this year, and he's generally well positioned.  Not as physical as you would like, but he never has been.  Did you know he leads the team in shots on goal (and it isn't even close)?  I like him paired with Jokipakka, for the most part they make a good second pairing.

[ABC923]

I actually think dougie's been our best d-man so far this season.  He's taken more penalties than he should, but he does a lot of good things out there.  I don't notice him cough up the puck as often as Gio or Brodie have this year, and he's generally well positioned.  Not as physical as you would like, but he never has been.  Did you know he leads the team in shots on goal (and it isn't even close)?  I like him paired with Jokipakka, for the most part they make a good second pairing.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I was at the game game last night and I think Engelland looked like one of the best of all our D.

 

I would regrettably agree.

 

I know we all have slightly different thoughts on Engelland.  But, if we take a step back and look at this statement for what it is......and I Do agree with it 3 games in...

 

Oh Wow.   The Flames are displaying bigger issues than the future of Engelland, for that statement to hold any water.

[conundrumed]

7 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I would regrettably agree.

 

I know we all have slightly different thoughts on Engelland.  But, if we take a step back and look at this statement for what it is......and I Do agree with it 3 games in...

 

Oh Wow.   The Flames are displaying bigger issues than the future of Engelland, for that statement to hold any water.

I get what you're saying I think maybe after 4 reads. lol

Or I make it up, either way.

The highlight of last night was Wideman in the press box.

[travel_dude]

32 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I get what you're saying I think maybe after 4 reads. lol

Or I make it up, either way.

The highlight of last night was Wideman in the press box.

 

Given that Wideman sat out and the defense looked better with Kulak in the lineup, what is Gully's next move?  Wideman continue to sit?  Take Kulak out and put Wideman back in?  Sit Hamilton?  Sit Yokipakka?  

[cross16]

I see no reason you would make a change on D. They played well, need forwards to step up. 

[travel_dude]

30 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I see no reason you would make a change on D. They played well, need forwards to step up. 

 

Then you are saying Wideman continues to sit?  I have no issue with that, but....

[cross16]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Then you are saying Wideman continues to sit?  I have no issue with that, but....

 

For sure he sits. He has to know he's played like crap so far. He'll get in again and when he does, play better. 

[jjgallow]

36 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

For sure he sits. He has to know he's played like crap so far. He'll get in again and when he does, play better. 

 

I entirely agree with you cross.    But what is the likelihood of us agreeing on something, and it actually happening the way we want it to?

 

Zero.

 

Gully will put him back in.

[AlbertaBoy12]

8 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I entirely agree with you cross.    But what is the likelihood of us agreeing on something, and it actually happening the way we want it to?

 

Zero.

 

Gully will put him back in.

Well every coach has to give their veteran players a shot he cant have wideman sit in the pressbox the rest of the season. At the same time two seasons ago BH had wideman sit in the pressbox and he had his best season, so who knows. I feel like GG is a better coach then BH, so we will see what he does with wideman.

[cross16]

I think he should sit, but if they put Wideman back in next game its far from the worst decision. If Kulak played great sure it would be a no brainer but I thought Kulak was ok. He got the job done but hardly excelled so its not like this is a no brainer of a decision. 

 

Wideman is a vet and if he can turn it around its a huge win for the flames. Sitting him for 1 game and putting him back in to see how he responds also makes alot of sense. Not what I would do, but still a sound decision if GG wants to go that route. As AlbertaBoy mentioned, Hartley sat Wideman two years ago and he really responded. 

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

I think he should sit, but if they put Wideman back in next game its far from the worst decision. If Kulak played great sure it would be a no brainer but I thought Kulak was ok. He got the job done but hardly excelled so its not like this is a no brainer of a decision. 

 

Wideman is a vet and if he can turn it around its a huge win for the flames. Sitting him for 1 game and putting him back in to see how he responds also makes alot of sense. Not what I would do, but still a sound decision if GG wants to go that route. As AlbertaBoy mentioned, Hartley sat Wideman two years ago and he really responded. 

 

Here's the problem.  Wideman has not played close to top 4 ability.  Maybe Brodie and Gio  haven't been up to snuff, but Wideman has been more than a few steps back.  For that reason, he does not belong in the top 4.  So, that leaves you playing him with Engelland.  The last time they played together was a disaster.  If you go with the though that Engelland provides steady defense without footspeed, then adding Wideman on the wrong hand makes the pairing slower than with Kulak.

 

The only way I think you can put Wideman in is if he has a faster LD on his pairing.  Take your choice, sit Wideman or sit Engelland.  The other options are not great.  

 

The notion that Wideman will take the healthy scratch and become the player he was two years ago is flawed.  He came back into the lineup then as a top 4 pairing guy.  He is slower today than he was then.  He won't be gifted 20+ minutes a night with a Kris Russell in his glory days.  

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

I think he should sit, but if they put Wideman back in next game its far from the worst decision. If Kulak played great sure it would be a no brainer but I thought Kulak was ok. He got the job done but hardly excelled so its not like this is a no brainer of a decision. 

 

Wideman is a vet and if he can turn it around its a huge win for the flames. Sitting him for 1 game and putting him back in to see how he responds also makes alot of sense. Not what I would do, but still a sound decision if GG wants to go that route. As AlbertaBoy mentioned, Hartley sat Wideman two years ago and he really responded. 

 

Here's the problem.  Wideman has not played close to top 4 ability.  Maybe Brodie and Gio  haven't been up to snuff, but Wideman has been more than a few steps back.  For that reason, he does not belong in the top 4.  So, that leaves you playing him with Engelland.  The last time they played together was a disaster.  If you go with the though that Engelland provides steady defense without footspeed, then adding Wideman on the wrong hand makes the pairing slower than with Kulak.

 

The only way I think you can put Wideman in is if he has a faster LD on his pairing.  Take your choice, sit Wideman or sit Engelland.  The other options are not great.  

 

The notion that Wideman will take the healthy scratch and become the player he was two years ago is flawed.  He came back into the lineup then as a top 4 pairing guy.  He is slower today than he was then.  He won't be gifted 20+ minutes a night with a Kris Russell in his glory days.  

[cross16]

You really want your post count up eh TD? 

 

You are assuming that Wideman will not play any better then he did the first two games. assuming he won't get any better is equally as flawed as saying that if he got back in he will play better. Also, for the record I am not suggesting he would play as well as he did 2 year ago. I'm just saying in the past he reponsed well to being sat down so I see no reason to write it off now and say that he won't respond and play better this go around. If he doesn't then sit him again.

 

At the end of the day we are talking about someone who is likely going to play 3rd pairing for 15 mins a night.If Widmean can take care of the puck better we are not having this conversation and taking care of the puck is a correctable issue.