Flames Defense

[rocketdoctor]

Great interview.

 

Candid, thoughtful and honest.

 

Love it.  He has matured a lot.

 

Definitely captain material.

 

 

[conundrumed]

Maybe I'm reading between the lines, but, "play not to lose" is 100% on the coach. It is saying don't take a risk, don't trust your instincts, don't rely on your goalie. Ouch.

Let's not do that anymore. The game is always about momentum back-and-forth. Build it or snuff it. You can't let the other team build it because you're afraid of taking a risk and bury your instincts.

[rocketdoctor]

15 hours ago, 420since1974 said:

Embrace the Chaos!

 

worth quoting this on a fresh page.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, rocketdoctor said:

worth quoting this on a fresh page.

So are we thinking Andersson as captain?

We all know the options. I've come around that it should be Backlund. He isn't going anywhere.

We're rolling this thing back. I don't really mind.

It's a pretty solid roster adding Ruzicka, Pelletier, Coronato and Duehr over Lewis, Lucic and Ritchie brothers.

So many line options when you're not anchored to an old-school 4th line. Better depth, better options.

We should improve on that alone.

[Heartbreaker]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

So are we thinking Andersson as captain?

We all know the options. I've come around that it should be Backlund. He isn't going anywhere.

...

 

I like Weegar for it, personally, but I'm pretty sure that it'll be Andersson, and I will have no qualms with that.

 

Love.

[jjgallow]

Defenceman can be captains?

 

I don't believe it.  But even if it were possible there's surely a rule against rhs captains 

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

Defenceman can be captains?

 

I don't believe it.  But even if it were possible there's surely a rule against rhs captains 

 

I think only LHS LW can be names captain, so we be all set.

[conundrumed]

13 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

I like Weegar for it, personally, but I'm pretty sure that it'll be Andersson, and I will have no qualms with that.

 

Love.

I'm really not heavily-pro anyone. But hearing Andersson describe Gio makes it very clear there has to be a captain.

I think we have lots of good options. Weegar or Andersson are probably best regarding term.

[conundrumed]

I'm interested to see what Oesterle can provide to the bottom pair. He's the definition of "journeyman" dmen but has never really been a part of as solid a D roster as ours in his career. He isn't big or remotely punishing but we could do a lot worse for a 6-7. The best part of his game is that you rarely notice him. He just plays D pretty well. Won't win or lose games, just makes sure things don't get out of control back there.

I'm kind of a fan of the bottom of the roster nuances. That's where the game either stays 0-0 or you're screwed. Why I love the Lewis' of the league a lot more than guys who are supposed to be top 6 but are so weak defensively that they have to rearrange their game to be bottom 6(hello Ritchie brothers, Lucic), effectively removing actual bottom 6 players that live and breathe that role. A word and a number. Stephane Yelle, 2004. One of the most, "leave it all on the ice" displays I've ever seen. Him and Draper are imprinted in my conscience. It's their fault that I love me a solid bottom 6 and bottom pairings.

Nobody, but nobody is winning cups without a bonafide bottom 6 and solid 3 pairing.. You can have all of the starpower that you want Toronto and Edmonton. Hat-tricks and -3s, go for it. Live by the PP.

Top 6 and pairings win you games, get the coin-filled adoration/heat. The bottom 6 guys live to give them that chance.

Depth is the first necessity imo.

 

[robrob74]

8 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I'm interested to see what Oesterle can provide to the bottom pair. He's the definition of "journeyman" dmen but has never really been a part of as solid a D roster as ours in his career. He isn't big or remotely punishing but we could do a lot worse for a 6-7. The best part of his game is that you rarely notice him. He just plays D pretty well. Won't win or lose games, just makes sure things don't get out of control back there.

I'm kind of a fan of the bottom of the roster nuances. That's where the game either stays 0-0 or you're screwed. Why I love the Lewis' of the league a lot more than guys who are supposed to be top 6 but are so weak defensively that they have to rearrange their game to be bottom 6(hello Ritchie brothers, Lucic), effectively removing actual bottom 6 players that live and breathe that role. A word and a number. Stephane Yelle, 2004. One of the most, "leave it all on the ice" displays I've ever seen. Him and Draper are imprinted in my conscience. It's their fault that I love me a solid bottom 6 and bottom pairings.

Nobody, but nobody is winning cups without a bonafide bottom 6 and solid 3 pairing.. You can have all of the starpower that you want Toronto and Edmonton. Hat-tricks and -3s, go for it. Live by the PP.

Top 6 and pairings win you games, get the coin-filled adoration/heat. The bottom 6 guys live to give them that chance.

Depth is the first necessity imo.

 

I think this is where BT failed, the depth. He was touted for depth, but I think the 4th line is the fail. 
 

id have spent the money on Hathaway. While a bit extra, I think we tried to fill holes in his spot. 
 

im with you on Lewis. He was good in year 1, but misused in year 2. I think Sutter didn't line match, the part of coaching where he could have made a difference by playing scoring line vs certain lines, instead of just rolling the lines. 
 

but I think he could have done a better job with the 4th. That first year with Lewis I felt they finally got that 4th line right. But that second year Sutter relied on them in improper situations. 

 

id have spent on Hathaway instead of spending on Neal. There were probably better options for less. 
 

But I'm with you, you don't have to spend too much, but you also have to get that part of the lineup right. I don't know if Reaves is the right fit in Toronto, but BT believes in a certain kind of toughness. I think there needs to be toughness on D to clear the net, and someone to help police the other team. But at the same time, I want them to be able to play. It's the reason I don't think we can trade Zadorov until he has a replacement. He can keep other teams honest in front of the net. 
 

I do want size in the lineup, but not at the expense of not being able to skate or play. 
 

 

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, robrob74 said:

I think this is where BT failed, the depth. He was touted for depth, but I think the 4th line is the fail. 
 

id have spent the money on Hathaway. While a bit extra, I think we tried to fill holes in his spot. 
 

im with you on Lewis. He was good in year 1, but misused in year 2. I think Sutter didn't line match, the part of coaching where he could have made a difference by playing scoring line vs certain lines, instead of just rolling the lines. 
 

but I think he could have done a better job with the 4th. That first year with Lewis I felt they finally got that 4th line right. But that second year Sutter relied on them in improper situations. 

 

id have spent on Hathaway instead of spending on Neal. There were probably better options for less. 
 

But I'm with you, you don't have to spend too much, but you also have to get that part of the lineup right. I don't know if Reaves is the right fit in Toronto, but BT believes in a certain kind of toughness. I think there needs to be toughness on D to clear the net, and someone to help police the other team. But at the same time, I want them to be able to play. It's the reason I don't think we can trade Zadorov until he has a replacement. He can keep other teams honest in front of the net. 
 

I do want size in the lineup, but not at the expense of not being able to skate or play. 
 

 

 

The 4th line was okay for some games, but you can't just roll them as a line.  You have to plan how to use them.  If you can't figure out that when you put them out for a minute that the other team will counter with their top 6, then you shouldn't be coaching.  They almost never were able to play to a draw, which was a big problem.  We saw other teams shut down our top 6 with a 4th line.  That is a problem.  

 

The big and tough don't match energy.  Maybe works in playoff games when you just want to spend a shift pounding the D into the boards.  That works as long as you are in the offensive end.

 

I think the problem with depth is that you are scouting players in a different cinference.  Rooney was decent on NY, but they play different style.  Doesn't work for us.  Not the way we wanted to play.  Send out Ruzicka to be physical, which was not his game.  He needs to learn it, but you don't sit him because he let a guy off the hook in a check situation.

[robrob74]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The 4th line was okay for some games, but you can't just roll them as a line.  You have to plan how to use them.  If you can't figure out that when you put them out for a minute that the other team will counter with their top 6, then you shouldn't be coaching.  They almost never were able to play to a draw, which was a big problem.  We saw other teams shut down our top 6 with a 4th line.  That is a problem.  

 

The big and tough don't match energy.  Maybe works in playoff games when you just want to spend a shift pounding the D into the boards.  That works as long as you are in the offensive end.

 

I think the problem with depth is that you are scouting players in a different cinference.  Rooney was decent on NY, but they play different style.  Doesn't work for us.  Not the way we wanted to play.  Send out Ruzicka to be physical, which was not his game.  He needs to learn it, but you don't sit him because he let a guy off the hook in a check situation.

I don't think you can teach Ruzicka to be physical. He is what he is. Like Monahan, just a gentle giant. Not that Monahan was a giant, but tall, but also no angry bone in his body, and when he did have one he broke the bone.

 

but ya, definitely needed to be planned on usage of the 4th line. I think the whole team could be planned on usage really. 

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I don't think you can teach Ruzicka to be physical. He is what he is. Like Monahan, just a gentle giant. Not that Monahan was a giant, but tall, but also no angry bone in his body, and when he did have one he broke the bone.

 

but ya, definitely needed to be planned on usage of the 4th line. I think the whole team could be planned on usage really. 

 

I think it's just the wrong idea to push players to be something they are not because you defined a role for them.  A role different than what brought them to the NHL in the first place.  Lindholm gives the occasional snark, but I would put him in the category of what you should strive for; a 2 way C.  Not everyone can do it, but stop trying to turn everyone into a Kassian.  We have enough guys that will do that level for us.  

[robrob74]

58 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think it's just the wrong idea to push players to be something they are not because you defined a role for them.  A role different than what brought them to the NHL in the first place.  Lindholm gives the occasional snark, but I would put him in the category of what you should strive for; a 2 way C.  Not everyone can do it, but stop trying to turn everyone into a Kassian.  We have enough guys that will do that level for us.  

exactly, if he is rough on D, put some one that is a two-way forward with some offensive sill with him, but it puts him in a position to succeed. 

[conundrumed]

4 game suspension for Andersson. So he shouldn't be getting hit on his moped in Detroit tomorrow.

[conundrumed]

Friedman reported on HNIC that the Flames and Hanifin are making progress towards a contract extension.

[Thebrewcrew]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Friedman reported on HNIC that the Flames and Hanifin are making progress towards a contract extension.

If it happens, another whiff by the hot take specialist, Seravalli.

[medatswhoP]

Losing Andersson for 4 games including the Heritage Classic will hurt us, on another note Hanafin trade is inevitable time to move on, there has already been too much talk about it.

Oilers lost tonight, time to make some movement in the standings sooner the better they will be a powerhouse once they get going.

[travel_dude]

19 minutes ago, medatswhoP said:

Losing Andersson for 4 games including the Heritage Classic will hurt us, on another note Hanafin trade is inevitable time to move on, there has already been too much talk about it.

Oilers lost tonight, time to make some movement in the standings sooner the better they will be a powerhouse once they get going.

 

He's appealing it, so they might just let him play after 3.  Not deserved maybe, but it sucks to hype the game then impose a suspension like that.  Dumb time to make a hit like that, but I have seen worse get less.

[rocketdoctor]

Hit was poor choice by Andersson but 4 games?  That seems harsh with some of the other Satoshi Nakamoto we see and not get penalised.

[jjgallow]

9 hours ago, medatswhoP said:

Losing Andersson for 4 games including the Heritage Classic will hurt us, on another note Hanafin trade is inevitable time to move on, there has already been too much talk about it.

Oilers lost tonight, time to make some movement in the standings sooner the better they will be a powerhouse once they get going.

 

if they get going.  lol.    

 

[jjgallow]

 

Sucks to see a suspension bump this thread, I don't agree with it.

 

Glad to see defense thread active though.

 

It's another example of our defense situation being quite precarious.   IMHO best solution is we need more D prospects.  by trade, by draft, whatever.   Andersson is our one bright light really, and even he's only a bit young now.

 

Morin and Poirier looking good, but both are LHS.     Right now I would say Morin has the higher ceiling but Poirier is the surer thing.   I was quite surprised that Poirier didn't make the team this year.    Still Poirer is still a super, super long shot to become a top line D.  I'm not complaining, very glad to have him.

 

My ask list:   One more LHS D of similar or greater caliber.   
          Three more RHS D of this caliber or higher.

 

Unreasonable?  of course not lol

[Thebrewcrew]

A Hanifin extension is pretty necessary, if they can get it done. He’s still a young enough player that an 8yr deal will still be worthwhile, for the most part.

 

It’s so hard to find top 4 D. You aren’t replacing him in UFA. Skjei, Pesce, Montour, Grzelcyk. Are all over 30. Hanifin is 27.

 

There was a time when I would have considered signing Kylington over Hanifin. That time has passed. 
 

The Flames are thin in D prospects. None are sure-fire top 4 guys. I like them, but there’s no Pavel Mintyukov in the system.

 

So yes, it’s a good thing if they can get it done.

[The_People1]

Yes, sign everyone except for the most important.  Lose Lindholm for nothing this summer.  

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

Yes, sign everyone except for the most important.  Lose Lindholm for nothing this summer.  

 

Normally I would argue here and say RD is more important,  but I'm just not that big of a Hanifin fan.   Lindholm,  meanwhile,  I find to be highly undervalued .

 

The smart move would be to trade them both for picks/prospects.   I think.

 

The impression I get is that Conroy may be more moderate though.   He may go for a balanced trade that doesn't tank us.

 

As always, I want lots of first rounders lol.

 

Shopping list:

Tij Iginla (we have to)

One RHS D.    There's a couple good ones in 2024