Flames Defense

[cross16]

2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

pretty sure that's what you implied in the arguement you just made above.  Seems circular, but I can give it the benefit of the doubt and go with "a little unclear"

 

 

Don't see how that conclusion is reached. My point is that goaltending wasn't great last year and the fact that the Flames have a top 10 defensive team and yet were that bad in save % points to the fact the goalies weren't great, my point. If the goalies really weren't great last year then you are far more likely to get the same or better than you did last year and much less likely to get worse as its difficult to get much worse.

 

But to each his own. 

 

 

[redfire11]

I'll continue this conversation in the Goaltending thread

[jjgallow]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Don't see how that conclusion is reached. My point is that goaltending wasn't great last year and the fact that the Flames have a top 10 defensive team and yet were that bad in save % points to the fact the goalies weren't great, my point. If the goalies really weren't great last year then you are far more likely to get the same or better than you did last year and much less likely to get worse as its difficult to get much worse.

 

But to each his own. 

 

Well maybe I'm misunderstanding, so my apologies.   But I'm definitely not clear.   Also, when save percentage and team shots against are in direct contradiction with each other, I wouldn't necessarily draw the conclusion that we have a great defensive team.

 

I think most would assume that the low shots against is a symptom of the poor save percentage.

 

I didn't see a top defensive team, I saw a team that lacked confidence in their goaltending.   And I expect far more of that going forward.

[cross16]

5 on 5 the Flames were:

10th best in Corsi - so controlled the puck at a top 10 level

6th best in Shots against

12th best in GAA

3rd best in scoring chances against

8th best in High danger scoring chances against

 

That's 5 on 5 but the rankings don't change much if you want to include PK and PP. I don't because I think 5 on 5 gives you your best look at what caliber of team you have. That is also the full season so if you give them a break while they were adjusting to the new system and look from Nov 15th on, the rankings are better.

 

Everyone has their own standard but by the ones I really care about, including my own eyes, the Flames were a top 10 defensive unit last year. While I would agree if it was imply shots against the Flames were good at, its difficult to single out goalies but when this many categories point to the defensive performing at a high level its impossible for me to dismiss. 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

5 on 5 the Flames were:

 

10th best in Corsi - so controlled the puck at a top 10 level  

                            -Corsi  - developed by Oilers fans:   And that's not what it's intended for.

                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsi_(statistic)

 

6th best in Shots against

                             - I get 8th, but sure, as discussed.

 

12th best in GAA

                             -  Again, this is differentiated from goaltending how?    Or differentiates itself from cautious play how?

 

                             -And 12th is good, how?

 

3rd best in scoring chances against

                             - As opposed to cautious play, how is it differentiated?   And how are the scoring chances determined?

 

8th best in High danger scoring chances against

                           -You have to admit this sounds like slop.  English I'd expect if I'd secured overseas consulting from the lowest bidder.

 

 

But what I will give you, is if you're happy with what you see on the ice...ok.  Fair.

 

I just disagree.

[cross16]

I'm happy with what I see defensively yes.

 

Offensively, not at all. 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

But what I will give you, is if you're happy with what you see on the ice...ok.  Fair.

 

I just disagree.

 

I think I am 50/50 in what I saw. The team had good possession stats but I felt like threats weren't too high. But defensively I remember brain farts once in awhile that cost us. Hoping another year of experience helps us. 

 

The thing that I think killed us were the mental mistakes. Hopefully the possession stats lead to better, more fruitful scoring chances.

[Flyerfan52]

SN had a clip of Dougie Hamilton's twist on the "Drive By Dunk". He stops in front of houses with a goalie net in the yard & fires a road hockey ball @ it.

[420since1974]

#1D: Giordano
#2D: Hamilton
#3D: Brodie
#4D: Hamonic
#5D: Stone
#6D: Kulak
#7D: Bartkowski

 

If I had been told last season, that this would be our likely defense lineup for 2017/2018, I would have been ecstatic.

I feel that league average goaltending should be enough to garner the Flames a play-off spot.

[nevermissashift]

On 8/3/2017 at 1:47 PM, 420since1974 said:

#1D: Giordano
#2D: Hamilton
#3D: Brodie
#4D: Hamonic
#5D: Stone
#6D: Kulak
#7D: Bartkowski

 

If I had been told last season, that this would be our likely defense lineup for 2017/2018, I would have been ecstatic.

I feel that league average goaltending should be enough to garner the Flames a play-off spot.

Do you think Smith is 'league average'? I like what I see albiet only 2 games worth... Big and fast and good/great with the puck.

 

The goals on the 2017 season opener in Redmonton were defensive lax in my opinion. Brodie should have dived and swiped, or clutch and grabbed for a penalty if he couldn't catch mcdee. Hamonic could have dived in there to bowl mcdee over or something. That kind of stuff is not just for the playoffs. The other 2 goals were gifts too.

 

Brodie sure put out in the home opener last night though.

 

I'm not sure what thread to discuss this stuff in?

[nevermissashift]

[MAC331]

52 minutes ago, nevermissashift said:

Do you think Smith is 'league average'? I like what I see albiet only 2 games worth... Big and fast and good/great with the puck.

 

The goals on the 2017 season opener in Redmonton were defensive lax in my opinion. Brodie should have dived and swiped, or clutch and grabbed for a penalty if he couldn't catch mcdee. Hamonic could have dived in there to bowl mcdee over or something. That kind of stuff is not just for the playoffs. The other 2 goals were gifts too.

 

Brodie sure put out in the home opener last night though.

 

I'm not sure what thread to discuss this stuff in?

We shouldn't forget that Brodie and Hamonic will take some time together to fully read each other on the ice.

I would say Smith has been above league average his whole career and he has been great so far. What a new dimension having his ability to handle the puck as well as he can.

[JTech780]

3 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

We shouldn't forget that Brodie and Hamonic will take some time together to fully read each other on the ice.

I would say Smith has been above league average his whole career and he has been great so far. What a new dimension having his ability to handle the puck as well as he can.

 

If last night was any indication, Brodie looks pretty comfortable with his new parter already. That was probably Brodie's best game as a Flame, he was dominant out there. It was really nice to see him shoot too, last year he was far too willing to pass off shots. Thru the first two games he has been doing a far better job of getting the puck through from the point. 

 

Defensively that pairing still looks a little disjointed at times, but it will come, both players are too good to not figure it out.

[MAC331]

16 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

If last night was any indication, Brodie looks pretty comfortable with his new parter already. That was probably Brodie's best game as a Flame, he was dominant out there. It was really nice to see him shoot too, last year he was far too willing to pass off shots. Thru the first two games he has been doing a far better job of getting the puck through from the point. 

 

Defensively that pairing still looks a little disjointed at times, but it will come, both players are too good to not figure it out.

Agree with you 100%. They have to change up Bartkowski,he has been brutal from the very beginning of camp. Hopefully we see Kulak get in for ANA on Monday.

[nevermissashift]

On 10/8/2017 at 0:17 PM, MAC331 said:

We shouldn't forget that Brodie and Hamonic will take some time together to fully read each other on the ice.

I would say Smith has been above league average his whole career and he has been great so far. What a new dimension having his ability to handle the puck as well as he can.

Hey MAC,

I forgot about it being a new pairing. That is true, and should be taken into consideration for sure.

 

I want to see each individual player ready to run mcdee out in whatever way available. Ham and/or Bro should have dove it there. I see where the two could expect the other one was going to do it but it's not illegal for both of them to take him out. DON'T GIVE MCDEE THE CHANCE TO TRY HIS HAND. I keep thinking back to his first year injury; those two guys moved him out together. There is nothing illegal about playing him hard when he storms the net. That's hockey.

 

[jjgallow]

 

 

How did this guy not get a tryout?    Do we have too many big high scoring RD?

 

ARTYOM MINULIN

 

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=312207

[TheBurn]

I have a feeling Bart is already scheduled to be move out of the bottom pairing. BT is just waiting for the 10th game cuts to occur so he can pick up waived players for D and 4th line. Bart and Freddie will be sent down.

[The_People1]

I don't get all this Bartkowski hate.  He's a decent Defensive D.  Biggest weakness is bad first pass out the zone but that's what you expect from a 3rd pair D.  When it comes to actual Defense and blocking the cycle, position in front of the net, tying up sticks, stuff like that, Bartkowski is good.

[cross16]

24 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

I don't get all this Bartkowski hate.  He's a decent Defensive D.  Biggest weakness is bad first pass out the zone but that's what you expect from a 3rd pair D.  When it comes to actual Defense and blocking the cycle, position in front of the net, tying up sticks, stuff like that, Bartkowski is good.

 

I would still be a bigger fan of playing Kulak because I think there is some upside there (in terms of being an above avg 3rd pairing d) but I have to agree with this. He was terrible in the preseason but he's played just fine for a bottom pairing dman this year. Hard to complain about his game so far. 

[ABC923]

Bart suffers from the same problems as Russel did when it comes to defense.  Sure he can block shots and tie guys up, and that's great, but the puck hardly leaves our zone when he's on the ice.  And that's the problem.  And not being able to make a good first pass is a huge deal; he winds up icing it or giving it away too often, which prevents him from changing and gives the opposition more time in the offensive zone.  At least Russel could contribute on the offensive side of the ice from time to time.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

I don't get all this Bartkowski hate.  He's a decent Defensive D.  Biggest weakness is bad first pass out the zone but that's what you expect from a 3rd pair D.  When it comes to actual Defense and blocking the cycle, position in front of the net, tying up sticks, stuff like that, Bartkowski is good.

 

So here's two stats from last night.  Interpret them how you like:

 

With Bart on the ice last night, the Flames were outshot 17-2 and outchanced 6-0.  The effect carried over to Stone, who was fine on the PK, but the pair was getting buried 5v5.  It's not hate as much as it is frustration.  Maybe it's a result of starting 20 to 33% of the time in the D-zone, which plays against his strength.  Or maybe he can only play offensively.  Brodie made some real bonehead plays last night, but at least he made up for it in other ways.

[Flyerfan52]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

I don't get all this Bartkowski hate.  He's a decent Defensive D.  Biggest weakness is bad first pass out the zone but that's what you expect from a 3rd pair D.  When it comes to actual Defense and blocking the cycle, position in front of the net, tying up sticks, stuff like that, Bartkowski is good.

Decent. AKA not very good but will do when you lack better.

 

I guess with 5 that are better we can afford his limited minutes for now. I dread 1 of the top 4 going down with him trying to fill big skates.

[travel_dude]

32 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Decent. AKA not very good but will do when you lack better.

 

I guess with 5 that are better we can afford his limited minutes for now. I dread 1 of the top 4 going down with him trying to fill big skates.

 

I may be of the minority here, but I don;t think Bart is the 6th best d-man we have.  Even at 11 minutes, the holes show through.  Andersson outplayed him in the pre-season.  Simple as that.  What logic do you use to play your 7th or 8th guy every night, if that guy is not proving his value.  We are leaking shots every game.  What's our average, 39 shots now.  

 

I'll shut up now.   

[LouCifer]

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I may be of the minority here, but I don;t think Bart is the 6th best d-man we have.  Even at 11 minutes, the holes show through.  Andersson outplayed him in the pre-season.  Simple as that.  What logic do you use to play your 7th or 8th guy every night, if that guy is not proving his value.  We are leaking shots every game.  What's our average, 39 shots now.  

 

I'll shut up now.   

 

I'm with you TD. I heard Schlemko has a broken hand now, and Montreal is reeling... think they'd take a healthy Bart for Schlemko (broken hand and all?) 

I doubt it, but I still like Schlemko and think he's be a decent fit as 6D with Stone. 

 

Think Montreal would take Brouwer? 

[Flyerfan52]

17 minutes ago, lou44291 said:

 

I'm with you TD. I heard Schlemko has a broken hand now, and Montreal is reeling... think they'd take a healthy Bart for Schlemko (broken hand and all?) 

I doubt it, but I still like Schlemko and think he's be a decent fit as 6D with Stone. 

 

Think Montreal would take Brouwer? 

No & no.

We don't even have picks to offer as sweeteners.

 

The only feasible trade I see with the Habs is 1 I don't want to do as it involves Backlund. A year ago I was for trading him but now I'd trade any other center before him.

We have centers (or wannabe centers) that might make Backs disposable in the future but if I were the GM of a team that needs to win in the now I want Backlund rather than wait for a possibly more talented 1 to mature. If Montreal you want it while Price is still usually elite (& Habs fans are alreadt burning MB in effigy) so I pay for a center. Eyes are still on Tavares but if that ever happens it's too late.

We could maybe get Schemko, picks & possibly even dump a shorter contract than Brouwer if we throw in Bart to give them a warm body on the blueline.