Flames Defense

[DirtyDeeds]

23 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

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.

If Stone can produce 20 points with his 3rd pairing minutes he will be getting, then we will likely have among the best D in the league. I suppose if they give him lots and lots of PP & PK time on top ..maybe.

[DirtyDeeds]

2 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

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".

There is a problem with "taking just a portion of a season" and saying things like we were a top 5 team winning after the bad start. A small window of a season is not the best idea for making projections on their future play.

 

Every team has ups and downs during a full season. Every team plays through injuries with some seasons being worse than other seasons.

 

Stats are just for presenting how things went and not for projecting how things will go.

 

Luck has nothing to do with it. Every team goes through periods of good and bad bounces.

[AlbertaBoy12]

4 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

There is a problem with "taking just a portion of a season" and saying things like we were a top 5 team winning after the bad start. A small window of a season is not the best idea for making projections on their future play.

 

Every team has ups and downs during a full season. Every team plays through injuries with some seasons being worse than other seasons.

 

Stats are just for presenting how things went and not for projecting how things will go.

 

Luck has nothing to do with it. Every team goes through good and bad bounces.

It wasent a small window though it was from november onwards about the time that johnny got injured as far as I remember, and that includes a really rough stretch in january. I agree completely we cant project that calgary will be a top 5 because of this, I dont think its fair to say things are going to go poorly next year because we got lucky last season.

 

18 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

If Stone can produce 20 points with his 3rd pairing minutes he will be getting, then we will likely have among the best D in the league. I suppose if they give him lots and lots of PP & PK time on top ..maybe.

He didnt play too much on the pp when he was here for those 19 games, in fact he had no PP points. Obviously it would be very difficult for him to get 20 at even strength, but I dont think anyone gives him enough credit. I think it looks to be one of the best on paper, and unless something goes horribly wrong it should perform that way.

[jjgallow]

On 21/07/2017 at 5:37 PM, travel_dude said:

So, we have improved just replacing Wideman with Hamonic.  

 

13 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Hamonic and Wideman do not really belong in the same sentence.  

 

hmm?

[cross16]

22 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

There is a problem with "taking just a portion of a season" and saying things like we were a top 5 team winning after the bad start. A small window of a season is not the best idea for making projections on their future play.

 

 

While true, from November 15th on the flames had the 4th most wins in the NHL. That's a sample size of 66 games. So for 3/4 of the season they were a very good team and were terrible for 1 quarter. The bad start is the small sample size. 

 

I dont get the "stars aligning or luck" argument because imo last year was he opposite. The flames had horrible puck luck at times and overal got avg to below avg goaltending, and their stars struggled so I'm not seeing how the stars aligned for them last year. They were very healthy though so it's very possible they get a key injury or two this season and that would have an impact. 

[conundrumed]

On 7/23/2017 at 8:59 AM, cross16 said:

 

While true, from November 15th on the flames had the 4th most wins in the NHL. That's a sample size of 66 games. So for 3/4 of the season they were a very good team and were terrible for 1 quarter. The bad start is the small sample size. 

 

I dont get the "stars aligning or luck" argument because imo last year was he opposite. The flames had horrible puck luck at times and overal got avg to below avg goaltending, and their stars struggled so I'm not seeing how the stars aligned for them last year. They were very healthy though so it's very possible they get a key injury or two this season and that would have an impact. 

Not to be a stick in the mud. But your 1st paragraph is to DD.

I had to go back in the thread to find out the 2nd paragraph is responding to jj.

I like both of those cats, but they are definitely varying cats.

Your post reads like it's all DD, that's why I went, wuh?

Just for clarity.

Else-wise, I have no argument to what your laying down, yet again!

[The_People1]

On 7/21/2017 at 11:35 AM, AlbertaBoy12 said:

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.

 

Stone showed us he has a hard shot.  He deserves a long look on the point on the PP.

[Flyerfan52]

Seems the Rags want to trade Nick Holden so they can add another center. They also only have about 0.5 in cap space.

I think we can help them by giving them Freddie Hamilton (0.6125 x 1) for Holden (1.65 x 1) to add further to our D if they throw in a 3rd in 2018.

 

Sometimes I'm so good hearted I surprise myself.

[DirtyDeeds]

Lol.. Timmy is a free agent and likely cheap.. anyone for this former 1st round pick?

 

Tim Carl Erixon (born 24 February 1991) is a Swedish professional ice hockey defenseman who is currently a free agent.

 

Don't hold back.. tell us what you think.....

[redfire11]

Like we did in 2011 I'll take Wotherspoon over him.

[conundrumed]

5 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Lol.. Timmy is a free agent and likely cheap.. anyone for this former 1st round pick?

 

Tim Carl Erixon (born 24 February 1991) is a Swedish professional ice hockey defenseman who is currently a free agent.

 

Don't hold back.. tell us what you think.....

Is Erixon a Swedish word for entitlement over earning?

Perhaps we should have taken almost anyone else in the 2009 top 2 rounds...except Ryan Howse...oh wait...

[Flyerfan52]

6 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Lol.. Timmy is a free agent and likely cheap.. anyone for this former 1st round pick?

 

Tim Carl Erixon (born 24 February 1991) is a Swedish professional ice hockey defenseman who is currently a free agent.

 

Don't hold back.. tell us what you think.....

Sign him! 2 way @ league minimum.

Then we flip him to the Canucks for their 2nd rounder.

 

[The_People1]

8 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Lol.. Timmy is a free agent and likely cheap.. anyone for this former 1st round pick?

 

Tim Carl Erixon (born 24 February 1991) is a Swedish professional ice hockey defenseman who is currently a free agent.

 

Don't hold back.. tell us what you think.....

 

You'd think one of the interview questions during scouting is, "how would you feel playing for the Calgary Flames?"

[jjgallow]

On 2017-07-24 at 7:17 PM, conundrumed said:

Not to be a stick in the mud. But your 1st paragraph is to DD.

I had to go back in the thread to find out the 2nd paragraph is responding to jj.

I like both of those cats, but they are definitely varying cats.

Your post reads like it's all DD, that's why I went, wuh?

Just for clarity.

Else-wise, I have no argument to what your laying down, yet again!

 

For the record...me:

[jjgallow]

On 2017-07-23 at 8:59 AM, cross16 said:

 

While true, from November 15th on the flames had the 4th most wins in the NHL. That's a sample size of 66 games. So for 3/4 of the season they were a very good team and were terrible for 1 quarter. The bad start is the small sample size. 

 

I dont get the "stars aligning or luck" argument because imo last year was he opposite. The flames had horrible puck luck at times and overal got avg to below avg goaltending, and their stars struggled so I'm not seeing how the stars aligned for them last year. They were very healthy though so it's very possible they get a key injury or two this season and that would have an impact. 

 

And health is the major angle I was referring to there, mostly.   With respect to goaltending, whether it was lucky or unlucky this year, I'm not sure we've taken positive steps there going forward for this season.  

[cross16]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

And health is the major angle I was referring to there, mostly.   With respect to goaltending, whether it was lucky or unlucky this year, I'm not sure we've taken positive steps there going forward for this season.  

 

Ya I think it's  a reasonable argument to question whether they will get better goaltending but I also don't think it's likely they will get worse. Even with the same level of goaltending last year, they are a very good team. 

[jjgallow]

11 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Ya I think it's  a reasonable argument to question whether they will get better goaltending but I also don't think it's likely they will get worse. Even with the same level of goaltending last year, they are a very good team. 

 

Maybe for another thread, but I personally believe it is very reasonable to expect worse goaltending this year from Eddie Lack and Mike Smith.   Eddie Lack imho is a straight downgrade.    Mike Smith showed some attitude issues leaving Arizona, exemplifying the reason the Flames presumably acquired him:   His very average Save Percentage there was allegedly a result of the very poor team in front of him.    This is what we're all telling each other about this 36 year old.

 

I have a very different take on that.   His Save percentage actually improved when he moved to the Coyotes, even though he was in his prime on a very good Tampa Bay team previously.   Which, to be honest, is common.   A lot of goalies actually have better save percentages on worst teams just due to the number of shots.   Also, because sometimes those teams have under-rated defence due to poor offence and puck possession.

 

If any of that is the case here, and he goes back to his Tampa Bay performance (or worse, due to his age)....we're completed hooped.   And Eddie Lack ain't gonna save us.  Maybe Gillies, but that's unlikely and I'm more hopeful on that than anyone.

 

Smith had ONE really impressive season in 2011-2012.   Full stop, impressive.  

 

That was 6 years ago.   

 

I'm not saying I'm right, but without a doubt, there's an arguement there.

[AlbertaBoy12]

35 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Maybe for another thread, but I personally believe it is very reasonable to expect worse goaltending this year from Eddie Lack and Mike Smith.   Eddie Lack imho is a straight downgrade.    Mike Smith showed some attitude issues leaving Arizona, exemplifying the reason the Flames presumably acquired him:   His very average Save Percentage there was allegedly a result of the very poor team in front of him.    This is what we're all telling each other about this 36 year old.

 

I have a very different take on that.   His Save percentage actually improved when he moved to the Coyotes, even though he was in his prime on a very good Tampa Bay team previously.   Which, to be honest, is common.   A lot of goalies actually have better save percentages on worst teams just due to the number of shots.   Also, because sometimes those teams have under-rated defence due to poor offence and puck possession.

 

If any of that is the case here, and he goes back to his Tampa Bay performance (or worse, due to his age)....we're completed hooped.   And Eddie Lack ain't gonna save us.  Maybe Gillies, but that's unlikely and I'm more hopeful on that than anyone.

 

Smith had ONE really impressive season in 2011-2012.   Full stop, impressive.  

 

That was 6 years ago.   

 

I'm not saying I'm right, but without a doubt, there's an arguement there.

I see what youre saying JJ, but mike smith also had a very good high danger save percentage last season, that just doesnt happen if you arent a good goaltender. I see what youre saying, but I guess it depends if you think he just got better with age, and has been very good on  a poor arizona team the whole time or not.

 

In regards to lack, he went from a just over league average goalie in vancouver playing a decent amount of games, to the gutter when he went to carolina, so did he suddenly forget how to play goalie? Its a real question if the rumors are true that the hurricanes asked him to change his style, combined with the way the hurricanes play hockey lead to worse numbers for him. I didnt watch the hurricanes at all last year so I have no idea, but if we get the lack from vancouver hopefully he should be consistent and thats good enough for a back up. 

[MAC331]

Just now, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I see what youre saying JJ, but mike smith also had a very good high danger save percentage last season, that just doesnt happen if you arent a good goaltender. I see what youre saying, but I guess it depends if you think he just got better with age, and has been very good on  a poor arizona team the whole time or not.

 

In regards to lack, he went from a just over league average goalie in vancouver playing a decent amount of games, to the gutter when he went to carolina, so did he suddenly forget how to play goalie? Its a real question if the rumors are true that the hurricanes asked him to change his style, combined with the way the hurricanes play hockey lead to worse numbers for him. I didnt watch the hurricanes at all last year so I have no idea, but if we get the lack from vancouver hopefully he should be consistent and thats good enough for a back up. 

A huge part of being a good goalie is having your head on straight, neither of these goalies were in situations they wanted to be in. Both seem thrilled to be Flames so I would kick previous stats out the back door and like most seasons hope they provide spectactular goaltending for us.

[cross16]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Maybe for another thread, but I personally believe it is very reasonable to expect worse goaltending this year from Eddie Lack and Mike Smith.   Eddie Lack imho is a straight downgrade.    Mike Smith showed some attitude issues leaving Arizona, exemplifying the reason the Flames presumably acquired him:   His very average Save Percentage there was allegedly a result of the very poor team in front of him.    This is what we're all telling each other about this 36 year old.

 

I have a very different take on that.   His Save percentage actually improved when he moved to the Coyotes, even though he was in his prime on a very good Tampa Bay team previously.   Which, to be honest, is common.   A lot of goalies actually have better save percentages on worst teams just due to the number of shots.   Also, because sometimes those teams have under-rated defence due to poor offence and puck possession.

 

If any of that is the case here, and he goes back to his Tampa Bay performance (or worse, due to his age)....we're completed hooped.   And Eddie Lack ain't gonna save us.  Maybe Gillies, but that's unlikely and I'm more hopeful on that than anyone.

 

Smith had ONE really impressive season in 2011-2012.   Full stop, impressive.  

 

That was 6 years ago.   

 

I'm not saying I'm right, but without a doubt, there's an arguement there.

 

Well I guess to be fair, you can always make the argument just depend on how flimsy it is. 

 

Flames as a team had a save % of 90.7 last year and were 10th worst in the NHL. Given that out of his 6 years in Pheonix Smith was only ever below that number once I think its fair to say the Flames will at worst get similar calibre goaltending next year but as I said it is fair to question whether or not they got an upgrade. 

 

The argument about shots against comes down to an issue of quality shots against. While I completely agree with you that some goaltenders can pad their stats, particularly save %, but facing a high number of shots that would depend on the quality. Robin Lehner is a great example of this. People argue that Robin Lehner is a great goalie becuase they assume the Sabres are poor defensively, and his save % is impressive but if you look closer Robin Lehner is not that great a goalie, see below. However, contrast that with Smith who while yes he puts up a slightly above avg save % he does so while facing more quality of shots. So while I agree with your theory, I don't in terms of the application to trying to explain Smith's numbers. 

 

To be fair to your overall point though JJ, i'm not expecting anything more than avg level goaltending from Smith. I jsut happen to believe an Avg level is better than what the Flames got last year when you look at the whole season. 

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Well I guess to be fair, you can always make the argument just depend on how flimsy it is. 

 

Flames as a team had a save % of 90.7 last year and were 10th worst in the NHL.

 

Sure, just keep the track record in mind,

 

A year ago we were having this same arguement, and it was you defending all their goalie acquisitions, and trivializing my concerns.

 

Now you're once again defending the same strategy, and trivializing concerns, by....validating my concerns you trivialized last year.

 

In addition to that, my arguement this year is a much stronger one.  Much, much, much easier to find concerns with Mike Smith.

 

So, just as long as we're clear there.

[cross16]

53 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Sure, just keep the track record in mind,

 

A year ago we were having this same arguement, and it was you defending all their goalie acquisitions, and trivializing my concerns.

 

Now you're once again defending the same strategy, and trivializing concerns, by....validating my concerns you trivialized last year.

 

In addition to that, my arguement this year is a much stronger one.  Much, much, much easier to find concerns with Mike Smith.

 

So, just as long as we're clear there.

 

I don't share your view on the track record. I did defend the acquisition and still would. Didn't work out as well as we hoped but that does not mean it was a failure. Flames went from a lottery pick team to the playoffs and played at a very high level during the season which goaltending was a bit part of so I do not consider that a failure. Concern was could Elliott handle a starter load and turns out that concern was valid but given the Flames did not risk a ton (2nd rounder) I still defend that as a good acquisition. I don't think the Smith acquisition is a good one, based on what they gave up for the level of play I expect them to get, but I also don't think they got worse. I just think they could have filled the spot in FA without giving up an asset I really like in Hickey but I don't need to beat a dead horse there. 

 

You also were adamant that new goalies and a new coach was a failed strategy that never works and would not yield results but yet the Flames turned out to be a top 10 defensive unit last year. So i'm not sure where track record plays into this at all. 

[jjgallow]

4 hours ago, cross16 said:

Flames as a team had a save % of 90.7 last year and were 10th worst in the NHL.

 

47 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

the Flames turned out to be a top 10 defensive unit last year. So i'm not sure where track record plays into this at all. 

 

There's lots I'm unsure of too

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

There's lots I'm unsure of too

 

Well sure, if you think there is a perfect correlation, or even a high one, between save % and team defensive play you'll likely always be unsure. 

[jjgallow]

14 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Well sure, if you think there is a perfect correlation, or even a high one, between save % and team defensive play you'll likely always be unsure. 

 

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"

 

In any case, I think we can agree that goaltending was much improved last year, but still not good enough.

 

    My point is...what was the point, then, exactly?   But that's  another thread.

 

This year, we're doing it again, and as you pointed out, giving up even more of our future to do it....and....IMHO, getting even less.

 

 

If Elliot wasn't good enough....very unlikely Smith will be.  I think we could even agree on that, in terms of Stanley cups.   

 

But will it be worse?  yeah.  think so, personally.