Flames Defense

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

On the PP, we may see Brodie - Stone.  On the PK, we can sit Brodie and Hamilton on the bench.  I would run with Hamonic and Stone on the RD on the PK.

Interesting to note stone had 6 points in 19 games with us, I thought he showed some good flashes of his offence when he was here. I would be happy with him to produce 20 points on the season from the back end, would give us a ton for a third pairing guy.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

All this Hamonic hype, don't forget Stone showed us an elite slap shot from the point.  He could man the point on the PP and give us a cannon of a shot, something Brodie and Hamilton couldn't give us.

 

On the PP, we may see Brodie - Stone.  On the PK, we can sit Brodie and Hamilton on the bench.  I would run with Hamonic and Stone on the RD on the PK.

 

Hammy was effective in getting the shot on net, but mostly wristers.  Gio had a very hard time getting his shots through.  Almost every one-timer he had resulted in a broken stick or blocked shot.  I agree that Stone has a good point shot.  

 

I'm not sure I agree running with two RHS on the same PK unit.  Maybe you could swap in Stone with Gio and leave Hamonic with Brodie on the PK.  Or even Gio-Hamonic and Brodie-Stone.  Hammy is a bit underrated, but I would just give him more minutes elsewhere and save him for the PP and evens.

[MAC331]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

Hammy was effective in getting the shot on net, but mostly wristers.  Gio had a very hard time getting his shots through.  Almost every one-timer he had resulted in a broken stick or blocked shot.  I agree that Stone has a good point shot.  

 

I'm not sure I agree running with two RHS on the same PK unit.  Maybe you could swap in Stone with Gio and leave Hamonic with Brodie on the PK.  Or even Gio-Hamonic and Brodie-Stone.  Hammy is a bit underrated, but I would just give him more minutes elsewhere and save him for the PP and evens.

I agree with you about Giordano and his shooting this past season but every year is different. He could return to being just as good as in the past which was good, not to worried. Brodie is the one that concerns me, he really needs to get his head on straight and become a force again in the O zone, mostly b shooting when the shot is there.

[travel_dude]

24 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I agree with you about Giordano and his shooting this past season but every year is different. He could return to being just as good as in the past which was good, not to worried. Brodie is the one that concerns me, he really needs to get his head on straight and become a force again in the O zone, mostly b shooting when the shot is there.

 Pairing him with Stone on the PP should resolve this.  He didn't have enough time to trust Stone enough and the rest of the time he was with the unmentionable.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Hammy was effective in getting the shot on net, but mostly wristers.  Gio had a very hard time getting his shots through.  Almost every one-timer he had resulted in a broken stick or blocked shot.  I agree that Stone has a good point shot.  

 

I'm not sure I agree running with two RHS on the same PK unit.  Maybe you could swap in Stone with Gio and leave Hamonic with Brodie on the PK.  Or even Gio-Hamonic and Brodie-Stone.  Hammy is a bit underrated, but I would just give him more minutes elsewhere and save him for the PP and evens.

 

Well definitely don't have 2 RHS on the PP.  Giordano -Hamilton.  Then Brodie - Stone.

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 Pairing him with Stone on the PP should resolve this.  He didn't have enough time to trust Stone enough and the rest of the time he was with the unmentionable.

Hope so

[travel_dude]

43 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Well definitely don't have 2 RHS on the PP.  Giordano -Hamilton.  Then Brodie - Stone.

 

You had listed Hamonic-Stone as the PK, which I was commenting on. 

[manu11]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Well definitely don't have 2 RHS on the PP.  Giordano -Hamilton.  Then Brodie - Stone.

 

If that are our guys on the blueline for the PP units, I must question why we re-signed Versteeg?!

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

You had listed Hamonic-Stone as the PK, which I was commenting on. 

 

Oh I didn't mean to list them as a pairing.  Just that the two will be key to the PK.  I imagine, Gio-Hamonic and Kulak-Stone together.  I would sit Hamilton and Brodie on PK.

[The_People1]

26 minutes ago, manu11 said:

 

If that are our guys on the blueline for the PP units, I must question why we re-signed Versteeg?!

 

Versteeg is sold depth regardless.  Most likely RW for Bennett.  Versteeg is not PP or bust.

[conundrumed]

10 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Good summary of the two players.  

 

I think a lot of people would have liked to have Larsson, as a young guy with potential.  Had we dealt a 1st and 2 2nds for him, there would have been more complaining, though.  The Oilers paid big for potential, but as you say, also paid for a top 2.  They also paid almost as much for a player that Vegas took for nothing.  We have paid for two top 4 players with nothing more than a handful of draft picks.  And one of them is already a top 2.  We didn't have to send away our top scoring LW to do it. 

I was listening to Stauffer on the CHED today, if you've got time for a funny story...

He was comparing the Russell signing to our Hamonic trade in a kind of, "we did better by not losing a handful of high picks" approach.

But let's face it, it's kind of a July conversation that even my ADD wouldn't think to drift into a comparison on that.

So his guest comes on, and Stauffer plies into this again, and I learned I wasn't the only one confused by the point he was trying to make.

When he laid out the Hamonic for a 1st and 2 2nds, his guest immediately responded, "that's like the Reinhardt trade to Edmonton, I think Calgary gave up one more pick, but they got a heavily experienced NHLer. Edmonton got a prospect that they lost for nothing".

It was classic. I think his guest was just as confused as I was when he was making whatever point it was prior to having the guest on.....Stauffer never did get on point with his guest about it.

Sideshow Bob, is that you?

 

[manu11]

20 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Versteeg is sold depth regardless.  Most likely RW for Bennett.  Versteeg is not PP or bust.

 

Scoring wise yes, but IMO he isn't a very good 5on5 player and he didn't work well with Bennett. And I'd say his play on the blue line on the PP was his biggest asset to the team, followed by his shootout moves.

[jjgallow]

 

My general thoughts here, when reflecting on this current thread:   I think expectations may be a tad too high.

 

We made some upgrades to D, on paper at least.   But I feel like the mood on here is best-case scenario.  And maybe it should be.   But it definitely is that.

[travel_dude]

42 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I was listening to Stauffer on the CHED today, if you've got time for a funny story...

He was comparing the Russell signing to our Hamonic trade in a kind of, "we did better by not losing a handful of high picks" approach.

But let's face it, it's kind of a July conversation that even my ADD wouldn't think to drift into a comparison on that.

So his guest comes on, and Stauffer plies into this again, and I learned I wasn't the only one confused by the point he was trying to make.

When he laid out the Hamonic for a 1st and 2 2nds, his guest immediately responded, "that's like the Reinhardt trade to Edmonton, I think Calgary gave up one more pick, but they got a heavily experienced NHLer. Edmonton got a prospect that they lost for nothing".

It was classic. I think his guest was just as confused as I was when he was making whatever point it was prior to having the guest on.....Stauffer never did get on point with his guest about it.

Sideshow Bob, is that you?

 

 

That's what I would expect out of him.  Wasn't it also him that talked about trading Hall netted Lucic and Larsson?

[Flyerfan52]

11 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

My general thoughts here, when reflecting on this current thread:   I think expectations may be a tad too high.

 

We made some upgrades to D, on paper at least.   But I feel like the mood on here is best-case scenario.  And maybe it should be.   But it definitely is that.

Yes & no.

We upgraded our D in a big way, changed the nameplates @ goalie (I'm still not sure if for better but we know what we had last year didn't work) but @ forward basically stood pat.

Of the 3 positions the only 1 I feel really secure about is defense.

 

But a possitive attitude is 1/2 the battle. If the players are as confident as we are we're good.

[conundrumed]

26 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

My general thoughts here, when reflecting on this current thread:   I think expectations may be a tad too high.

 

We made some upgrades to D, on paper at least.   But I feel like the mood on here is best-case scenario.  And maybe it should be.   But it definitely is that.

Do you expect us to have more points than last year? Last year we were loathesome out of the gate. That alone is reason for optimism. Last year it looked like a crime scene.

I truly believe it actually helps teams that have heavy workloads early to come together and get it together.

[travel_dude]

29 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

My general thoughts here, when reflecting on this current thread:   I think expectations may be a tad too high.

 

We made some upgrades to D, on paper at least.   But I feel like the mood on here is best-case scenario.  And maybe it should be.   But it definitely is that.

 

When we traded for and signed Dougie, there was a lot of excitement for having a pretty darn good top 3.  Took awhile, but it turned out well.  

Let me put it another way.  Not having Wideman has improved our team by leaps and bounds.  Engelland, bless his heart, was not top 4 material.

So, we have improved just replacing Wideman with Hamonic.  Stone replaces Engelland.  That is more than a small upgrade.     

[travel_dude]

22 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

That's what I would expect out of him.  Wasn't it also him that talked about trading Hall netted Lucic and Larsson?

 

And by the same logic, they got Russell and Strome for Eberle.  What an awesome deal that is.

Let's add it up:

Hall + Eberle + 2015 1st and 2015 2nd for Larsson + Lucic + Russell at $4m x 4 years.

Davidson for (a few months of) Deharnais so they wouldn't lose anybody important.

 

Hahaha.

[conundrumed]

8 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Thanks. Somehow my old sig disappeared so I hunted around a bit & found this. LCB was always my favorite line.

Still no Bernie though...sacrilege I tells ya!

 

Oh and, umm, hey old guy, save your sigs as photos on your hard drive.

A young guy taught me that....and as you see by my epic non-sig, I'm a fast learner!

[Flyerfan52]

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Still no Bernie though...sacrilege I tells ya!

 

Oh and, umm, hey old guy, save your sigs as photos on your hard drive.

A young guy taught me that....and as you see by my epic non-sig, I'm a fast learner!

BTW, it was saved until my previous computer died. When I got the new 1 I should have saved it again but us oldies have memory lapses.

 

What was this about? I forgot.

[jjgallow]

15 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Do you expect us to have more points than last year? Last year we were loathesome out of the gate. That alone is reason for optimism. Last year it looked like a crime scene.

I truly believe it actually helps teams that have heavy workloads early to come together and get it together.

 

I don't really expect more points, no.    I do think we are a better team this year.     I just think a lot of stars aligned last year, more than usual.    I believe we were more fortunate than we realize.   

[AlbertaBoy12]

6 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I don't really expect more points, no.    I do think we are a better team this year.     I just think a lot of stars aligned last year, more than usual.    I believe we were more fortunate than we realize.   

I dont see how we were more fortunate being a top 5 team in winning after the dreadful start. We were top 10 or top 15 in a ton of team statistics, I dont think there is anyway this team was fortunate, they made their own luck and did very well if anything. I dont think you can be a top 5 team in terms of winning, and be "fortunate".

[jjgallow]

15 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

When we traded for and signed Dougie, there was a lot of excitement for having a pretty darn good top 3.  Took awhile, but it turned out well.  

Let me put it another way.  Not having Wideman has improved our team by leaps and bounds.  Engelland, bless his heart, was not top 4 material.

So, we have improved just replacing Wideman with Hamonic.  Stone replaces Engelland.  That is more than a small upgrade.     

 

The Dougie trade was awesome without any doubt.   And, I expect him to continue to improve.   Just as I expect Gio to continue to decline.

 

Wideman is simply in decline.   Not too long on here, many on here thought very highly of him.   Replacing him with Hamonic is necessary maintenance.   Hamonic will never be Wideman at his peak.   But, of course Hamonic has a more rounded game. 

 

Stone replacing Engelland is perhaps an upgrade, but not a notable one.

 

At the end of the day, we were very lucky with chemistry and injuries last year imho.   So lucky that we take it for granted.  

 

[AlbertaBoy12]

36 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

The Dougie trade was awesome without any doubt.   And, I expect him to continue to improve.   Just as I expect Gio to continue to decline.

 

Wideman is simply in decline.   Not too long on here, many on here thought very highly of him.   Replacing him with Hamonic is necessary maintenance.   Hamonic will never be Wideman at his peak.   But, of course Hamonic has a more rounded game. 

 

Stone replacing Engelland is perhaps an upgrade, but not a notable one.

 

At the end of the day, we were very lucky with chemistry and injuries last year imho.   So lucky that we take it for granted.  

 

Interesting considering we only had one line and one D pairing going all season. Ill agree on injuries, but this team should have no problem dealing with injuries.

 

Further hamonic is a much better D man then wideman, and if you dont see how our top 4 is improved, I dont know what to tell you JJ.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

The Dougie trade was awesome without any doubt.   And, I expect him to continue to improve.   Just as I expect Gio to continue to decline.

 

Wideman is simply in decline.   Not too long on here, many on here thought very highly of him.   Replacing him with Hamonic is necessary maintenance.   Hamonic will never be Wideman at his peak.   But, of course Hamonic has a more rounded game. 

 

Stone replacing Engelland is perhaps an upgrade, but not a notable one.

 

At the end of the day, we were very lucky with chemistry and injuries last year imho.   So lucky that we take it for granted.  

 

 

Hamonic and Wideman do not really belong in the same sentence.  One was an offensive guy that couldn't skate very well or defend beyond a hip-check or deflecting the puck in his own net.  The other is less offensive minded, but knows how to defend, how to hit and rarely is in the wrong place.  He's more like a Gio than Wideman.

 

Engelland was noticebly slower than the players he was defending against.  Engelland also struggled with the first pass/clearing the puck.  I liked his PK most of the time.  Stone is better all-round.  He's closer to a top 4 than Engelland.  Maybe the difference isn;t dramatic, but it's enough to add to this team improvements.  

 

The only chemistry was Gio-Hammy.  By exploiting that, Gully ruined part of Brodie's season.  It was a huge adjustment for Brodie.  He never fully recovered.  Part of it was mental, but the other part was the parade of players.  Stone at least gave him the semblance of a true top 4 partner.  Just speculation on my part, but Hamonic should provide Brodie with the same level of support that Gio did.