Calgary Flames Drafting and Development: Your Analysis

[The_People1]

31 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

I for one do not wish for trap style hockey again, even now look at the teams that plug up the neutral zone, the team doesn't know how to deal with it. Right now this team is built for quick pass run and gun hockey, a two line pass rule would affect this team immensely, and not for the good.

 

Except no.  Some of the highest scoring eras in hockey happened under the trap and the two line pass rule.  Teams breaking out the zone got burnt by great defense and defensive strategies.  What hurt scoring and slowed the game down was clutch and grab alone.  Trap didn't slow the game down (except of course you get more icing and two line pass whistles).  But i mean the action was just as fast if not more demanding.

 

International hockey was always more boring.  Make a long stretch pass then hold the puck for a bit while the rest of the team enters the offensive zone.   That's basketball.  Hockey used to have neutral zone action but no more.

[cross16]

15 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Well, when you can clutch, grab, and water ski off your opponents, then you need size and strength to break free.  It was pretty much within the rules to pin players against the boards for as long as you can hold them there.  You had to be big or you wouldn't make it.  

 

You didn't need that much skill though.  Certainly not as much skill as Gaudreau.  Big but with enough skill was good enough.  I don't fault Sutter for his draft philosophy because that was the era.

 

Clutch and grab was for sure a part of it but then who look at teams winning cup and you see the likes of St Louis, Richards, Leclavier, Elias, Niedermayer, Scott Gomez etc.

youve always needed skill to win a cup and drafting big guys just because they were big didn’t really work for anyone, including the flames so I for sure pin that on Sutter. It’s changed for sure since clutch and grab but I don’t think as much as you are suggesting. You still needed a skilled roster to win a cup in those days. 

[robrob74]

20 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Except no.  Some of the highest scoring eras in hockey happened under the trap and the two line pass rule.  Teams breaking out the zone got burnt by great defense and defensive strategies.  What hurt scoring and slowed the game down was clutch and grab alone.  Trap didn't slow the game down (except of course you get more icing and two line pass whistles).  But i mean the action was just as fast if not more demanding.

 

International hockey was always more boring.  Make a long stretch pass then hold the puck for a bit while the rest of the team enters the offensive zone.   That's basketball.  Hockey used to have neutral zone action but no more.

 

The way goalies played net, the size of goalies and their equipment killed scoring in the NHL. They were stand up goalies until Patrick Roy came along.

 

Did you how much net there was? You don’t see that anymore 

[The_People1]

8 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Clutch and grab was for sure a part of it but then who look at teams winning cup and you see the likes of St Louis, Richards, Leclavier, Elias, Niedermayer, Scott Gomez etc.

youve always needed skill to win a cup and drafting big guys just because they were big didn’t really work for anyone, including the flames so I for sure pin that on Sutter. It’s changed for sure since clutch and grab but I don’t think as much as you are suggesting. You still needed a skilled roster to win a cup in those days. 

 

Sure but i would even argue in today's NHL, you need the size.

 

Do you draft a small skilled player hoping he can play big? or do you draft a big player hoping he can develop some skill?  

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

The way goalies played net, the size of goalies and their equipment killed scoring in the NHL. They were stand up goalies until Patrick Roy came along.

 

Did you how much net there was? You don’t see that anymore 

 

Ya true too.  Goalie equipment has had an effect.  There's no net to shoot at nowadays.

 

Still, "trap" became guilty by association to "clutch and grab" and that's unfortunate.  Trap was an offensive weapon when you didn't have the puck.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Except no.  Some of the highest scoring eras in hockey happened under the trap and the two line pass rule.  Teams breaking out the zone got burnt by great defense and defensive strategies.  What hurt scoring and slowed the game down was clutch and grab alone.  Trap didn't slow the game down (except of course you get more icing and two line pass whistles).  But i mean the action was just as fast if not more demanding.

 

International hockey was always more boring.  Make a long stretch pass then hold the puck for a bit while the rest of the team enters the offensive zone.   That's basketball.  Hockey used to have neutral zone action but no more.

Gonna have to disagree. If you go watch a replay of any game during the early 90's I think you'll see a big difference in the overall speed of the game. The game was slower, the amount of goals has never been an issue with me but I'm sure there's stats somewhere that show even the difference in scoring chances from that era to this.

 

Don't forget players nowadays can basically enter the zone without worrying about anything more than a stickcheck or a pinch out to the boards. The days of dump and chase are long gone, todays players would be alot more selective on how they enter the off zone if the likes of Stevens or Samulesson were still a thing.

[The_People1]

55 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

Gonna have to disagree. If you go watch a replay of any game during the early 90's I think you'll see a big difference in the overall speed of the game. The game was slower, the amount of goals has never been an issue with me but I'm sure there's stats somewhere that show even the difference in scoring chances from that era to this.

 

Don't forget players nowadays can basically enter the zone without worrying about anything more than a stickcheck or a pinch out to the boards. The days of dump and chase are long gone, todays players would be alot more selective on how they enter the off zone if the likes of Stevens or Samulesson were still a thing.

 

The game flows more continuously today with less whistles because of less offsides and icings, that's for sure.  Clutching and grabbing got out of hand after they instituted the fighting instigator rule in 1992 because prior to that, you can punch a guy in the face if they held you.  So speed was still relatively fast before that.

 

The 80s was exciting hockey with speed, lots of goals, and exciting transitional play.  I think that's the more accurate measure of "the trap" in hockey.  It's a team system to generate turnovers.  Turn overs lead to odd man rushes and goals.

[robrob74]

4 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya true too.  Goalie equipment has had an effect.  There's no net to shoot at nowadays.

 

Still, "trap" became guilty by association to "clutch and grab" and that's unfortunate.  Trap was an offensive weapon when you didn't have the puck.

 

The year that the Canucks played Minni and lost was a beautiful sight to see! The Wild were down 5-3 and it felt like it was not in doubt. The wild played their trap game to perfection and I saw beauty in their game. Maybe it was because it was Vancouver they played against but it wasn’t boring to me at all.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

The game flows more continuously today with less whistles because of less offsides and icings, that's for sure.  Clutching and grabbing got out of hand after they instituted the fighting instigator rule in 1992 because prior to that, you can punch a guy in the face if they held you.  So speed was still relatively fast before that.

 

The 80s was exciting hockey with speed, lots of goals, and exciting transitional play.  I think that's the more accurate measure of "the trap" in hockey.  It's a team system to generate turnovers.  Turn overs lead to odd man rushes and goals.

There were a few games late in the season last year (Stars and Yotes for sure) where once the other team had a lead they just put up a wall on the blue line and pretty much neutralized the top line. It made for some dull/frustrating hockey. I can only assume teams will do that more often this year, especially if the scoring doesn't get spread out.

 

sorry for getting off topic............again.

[cross16]

5 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Sure but i would even argue in today's NHL, you need the size.

 

Do you draft a small skilled player hoping he can play big? or do you draft a big player hoping he can develop some skill?  

 

Deprnds how you define skill it in most cases I’m taking the skill. 

 

The odds that skill, such as hockey sense, puck handling, IQ and skating are learned post draft are extremely rare and not likely to happen so you wind up with a bunch of guys they can’t play. Exactly what happened with Sutter. 

 

This isn’t an either or thing either. Of course you can find players who have both and that’s the goal. My point would be the fall back shouldn’t be guys who have holes but are “big” with “intangibles” the fallback should be skill. And if that means small so be it. At least if you draft for skill and they don’t pan out they can be depth, trade assets , or play other roles. If they are big and unskilled and they don’t pan out they are in the AHL 

[The_People1]

46 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

The odds that skill, such as hockey sense, puck handling, IQ and skating are learned post draft are extremely rare and not likely to happen so you wind up with a bunch of guys they can’t play. Exactly what happened with Sutter. 

 

Ya but growing from 5'-7" to 5'-11" post draft is also impossible and you end up with a bunch of guys who can't play in that era of NHL.  You have to have extreme talents like Martin St.louis if you were small and you may as well buy a lottery ticket and pray at that point.

 

But that said, Sutter still missed on his picks and so while many were frustrated that he traded away so many second round picks, I only look back and wish he also traded away his first round picks too.  Boy, in hindsight, we could've won the Cup if we were open to trading the 1st rounder and got our #1 Center.

[The_People1]

51 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

There were a few games late in the season last year (Stars and Yotes for sure) where once the other team had a lead they just put up a wall on the blue line and pretty much neutralized the top line. It made for some dull/frustrating hockey. I can only assume teams will do that more often this year, especially if the scoring doesn't get spread out.

 

sorry for getting off topic............again.

 

You know what, that's the compensate.  Rather than setup the trap at the attacking blueline and make things exciting, you line up 4 guys at your own blueline and make things boring.

 

The thing with the trap is, if the attacking team broke through, then they in for a breakaway.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

The year that the Canucks played Minni and lost was a beautiful sight to see! The Wild were down 5-3 and it felt like it was not in doubt. The wild played their trap game to perfection and I saw beauty in their game. Maybe it was because it was Vancouver they played against but it wasn’t boring to me at all.

 

With Dan Cloutier, it's never in the bag.  It's always exciting when the Canucks lose.

[jjgallow]

 

[robrob74]

https://eyesonisles.com/2019/09/20/new-york-islanders-travis-hamonic-trade-worked/amp/

 

this is what kind of pisses me off about these kinds of trades. I like Hamonic but we give up a first pair D and possibly another yet more. I get it is hindsight and it expedited the rebuild a bit.

 

but just a year or two before that we gave up the same and missed out on a first line C. 

 

For me, my philosophy is build through the draft. The way it looks is that we may have to give up a pick to get rid of a contract or two to get cap compliant.

 

i am obviously frustrated with the state of the team. I am not quite sold that the team is a 2nd overall or Division winner.

[cccsberg]

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

https://eyesonisles.com/2019/09/20/new-york-islanders-travis-hamonic-trade-worked/amp/

 

this is what kind of pisses me off about these kinds of trades. I like Hamonic but we give up a first pair D and possibly another yet more. I get it is hindsight and it expedited the rebuild a bit.

 

but just a year or two before that we gave up the same and missed out on a first line C. 

 

For me, my philosophy is build through the draft. The way it looks is that we may have to give up a pick to get rid of a contract or two to get cap compliant.

 

i am obviously frustrated with the state of the team. I am not quite sold that the team is a 2nd overall or Division winner.

Yeah, if the Flames could accurately predict the future they'd be winning Stanley Cups almost every year.  Unfortunately they can't, but they do the best they can and last year that was #2 overall in the league.  As far as drafting, how about all those (5+) 2013 1st rounders?  We finally got 2 good ones, Monahan and Lindholm, but I believe we drafted/acquired 3-4 others.... And "missing out on a first line C".... how do you think Boston feels with three straight missed high-end first rounders?  Yikes!

[cross16]

I’m not a huge fan of the Hamonic trade but using a heavily slanted piece from a local beat writer is not the best way to analyze the trade. 

Pretty rose colored lenses he has viewing those prospects. 

[kehatch]

10 hours ago, robrob74 said:

https://eyesonisles.com/2019/09/20/new-york-islanders-travis-hamonic-trade-worked/amp/

 

this is what kind of pisses me off about these kinds of trades. I like Hamonic but we give up a first pair D and possibly another yet more. I get it is hindsight and it expedited the rebuild a bit.

 

but just a year or two before that we gave up the same and missed out on a first line C. 

 

For me, my philosophy is build through the draft. The way it looks is that we may have to give up a pick to get rid of a contract or two to get cap compliant.

 

i am obviously frustrated with the state of the team. I am not quite sold that the team is a 2nd overall or Division winner.

 

The Flames did build through the draft. The vast majority of our players were drafted and developed by the Flames. But you can't do it exclusively. There comes a time when you give up futures to win now. Otherwise you never win. 

 

The Flames gave up too much in the Hamonic deal for sure. But trading away picks to make the team better at that stage in the build made sense. 

[jefsmi]

Hamonic played well last year and was an important player in helping team finish first in West. These types of trades are required when you have a team that can win now; all those players NY drafted are still developing.

Lets also remember that Hamonic is still on our team and there is potential to trade him at the deadline depending on where the team is at.

We also drafted Rass, Val, Kyl, all 3 are NHL players DMen now.

were doing fine.

[travel_dude]

12 hours ago, robrob74 said:

https://eyesonisles.com/2019/09/20/new-york-islanders-travis-hamonic-trade-worked/amp/

 

this is what kind of pisses me off about these kinds of trades. I like Hamonic but we give up a first pair D and possibly another yet more. I get it is hindsight and it expedited the rebuild a bit.

 

but just a year or two before that we gave up the same and missed out on a first line C. 

 

For me, my philosophy is build through the draft. The way it looks is that we may have to give up a pick to get rid of a contract or two to get cap compliant.

 

i am obviously frustrated with the state of the team. I am not quite sold that the team is a 2nd overall or Division winner.

 

Unfortunately, we missed drafting some pieces that look good so far.

That's key though.

Would we have picked players and developed them to be as good as these supposed stars?

Who's to say.

 

Easy to make a claim that Dobson is a #1 soon.

The fact that he's never played a single pro games speaks volumes.

 

I'm annoyed when we trade picks for a player and end up losing that player for nothing.

Lazar, Bolig, Elliott, Smith...

There's a bunch of picks traded for.....nothing.

Yeah, it would have been nice to get Barzal if he was on our list.

Kyrou would have been a nice add too.

At least with Hamonic and Hamilton, we still have the player or turned the player into other players. 

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Yeah, if the Flames could accurately predict the future they'd be winning Stanley Cups almost every year.  Unfortunately they can't, but they do the best they can and last year that was #2 overall in the league.  As far as drafting, how about all those (5+) 2013 1st rounders?  We finally got 2 good ones, Monahan and Lindholm, but I believe we drafted/acquired 3-4 others.... And "missing out on a first line C".... how do you think Boston feels with three straight missed high-end first rounders?  Yikes!

 

Teah but this is where having trust in the scouting comes in. You don’t pay a premium on a player at the draft unless you’re trading for him or drafting him in the wrong spot (Jankowski). 

 

I al starting to believe in the process more than paying premium for players. We have increasingly drafted a lot better and believe they would’ve made the right choice. Sure you don’t know Barzal is going to fall, but if he does fall, and you don’t have a ticket, you don’t have the chance.

 

i think I am just saying I prefer building through the Draft, no more trading firsts. Start trading by making hockey trades with players who already have value. No more mortgaging the future.

[rickross]

On 9/20/2019 at 10:36 PM, robrob74 said:

https://eyesonisles.com/2019/09/20/new-york-islanders-travis-hamonic-trade-worked/amp/

 

this is what kind of pisses me off about these kinds of trades. I like Hamonic but we give up a first pair D and possibly another yet more. I get it is hindsight and it expedited the rebuild a bit.

 

but just a year or two before that we gave up the same and missed out on a first line C. 

 

For me, my philosophy is build through the draft. The way it looks is that we may have to give up a pick to get rid of a contract or two to get cap compliant.

 

i am obviously frustrated with the state of the team. I am not quite sold that the team is a 2nd overall or Division winner.

Classic Hindsight is 20/20. We likely did overpay in futures but Hamonic proved his worth last season imo. He’s a heart and soul player and it’s those intangibles that give him value. He’s still very capable at the position and is active in the community which is a bonus. He’s not my favourite D man by any means but he is a good defender.  

 

I do do hope we’re over using our #1,2 Draft picks as simply currency, went thru that during the Sutter years already. We have a decent group still on the rise but we do lack high end , blue chip prospects which will require some luck and lots of losing to get

[robrob74]

11 hours ago, rickross said:

Classic Hindsight is 20/20. We likely did overpay in futures but Hamonic proved his worth last season imo. He’s a heart and soul player and it’s those intangibles that give him value. He’s still very capable at the position and is active in the community which is a bonus. He’s not my favourite D man by any means but he is a good defender.  

 

I do do hope we’re over using our #1,2 Draft picks as simply currency, went thru that during the Sutter years already. We have a decent group still on the rise but we do lack high end , blue chip prospects which will require some luck and lots of losing to get

 

 

The window is “open” now and we need to start concentrating on the transition to when it closes. It’s premature as the stars seem to like Calgary but you need a contingency plan. So keeping those picks is necessary for the succession. 

 

We found Valamaki with a middle first which was great! We just hope his injuries are behind him now. We keep finding some gems in the later rounds that could turn out nice, maybe not first line material but guys who help with the depth. 

 

I think keeping the firsts give us a better chance of drafting a someone to play in the Top6, or a Top4 D. I am a lot more confident in our drafting than I was prior to  the Baertschi, Poirier, klimchuk days.

[travel_dude]

13 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

The window is “open” now and we need to start concentrating on the transition to when it closes. It’s premature as the stars seem to like Calgary but you need a contingency plan. So keeping those picks is necessary for the succession. 

 

We found Valamaki with a middle first which was great! We just hope his injuries are behind him now. We keep finding some gems in the later rounds that could turn out nice, maybe not first line material but guys who help with the depth. 

 

I think keeping the firsts give us a better chance of drafting a someone to play in the Top6, or a Top4 D. I am a lot more confident in our drafting than I was prior to  the Baertschi, Poirier, klimchuk days.

 

The good news is that defense take time.

We have some good pieces that could have very long NHL careers.

Add to them the vets that still have mileage.

BY the time Gio is retired, which could be a long time, the repacements will be up to speed.

Would love to have another Valimaki, but we at least have another Brodie in the making.

Unless things go really bad, we have a top 4 D for years.

 

The forwards are harder to plan around.

Always good to have a new top prospect joing the list.

But the thing is it's hard to maintain a stable of forwards in the AHL and other leagues.

Some have 3-4 years from draft to rookie season.

And that assumes they make the transition.

When they do, you have to have the spot ready for them or stick them in the AHL.

 

My point is that windows are arbitrary.

If you have a good team and draft one good player every year, you can integrate them when they make the cut.

They may not be the 1st overall in a year, but you have to have a really bad team to do that.

UNless you have an old team, you can rinse and repeat for years.

 

[robrob74]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The good news is that defense take time.

We have some good pieces that could have very long NHL careers.

Add to them the vets that still have mileage.

BY the time Gio is retired, which could be a long time, the repacements will be up to speed.

Would love to have another Valimaki, but we at least have another Brodie in the making.

Unless things go really bad, we have a top 4 D for years.

 

The forwards are harder to plan around.

Always good to have a new top prospect joing the list.

But the thing is it's hard to maintain a stable of forwards in the AHL and other leagues.

Some have 3-4 years from draft to rookie season.

And that assumes they make the transition.

When they do, you have to have the spot ready for them or stick them in the AHL.

 

My point is that windows are arbitrary.

If you have a good team and draft one good player every year, you can integrate them when they make the cut.

They may not be the 1st overall in a year, but you have to have a really bad team to do that.

UNless you have an old team, you can rinse and repeat for years.

 

 

 

That is the hope, so it’s why I think it’s best now to keep our draft picks and develop them while this team is good. 

 

Windows are arbitrary but so is age. Years can go by fast and this core will age. 

 

Monahan is smart, but he can slow down sooner than some considering he’s not that fleet of foot already. Although there are some vets who last to their 40s and do so because of their hockey iq.