travel_dude Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 I am envisioning that Tkachuk is slotted to be Bennetts winger and in a 2nd line agitating scoring role. I think Backlund's 2nd line will become the 3rd line but continue on with the checking role. You missed the sarcasm? He was basically saying the Flames would turn him into Bouma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
420since1974 Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 I would prefer to see him playing back in London this season to see how he fares without Dvorak & Marner. That's not to say I wouldn't mind seeing him play 9 games in the NHL if he has a great camp. The Flames do not have to rush him onto their roster, if he starts in Stockton in 2017/2018, I'm still happy. Whichever development path gives him the best chance to reach his peak potential is the one I vote for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 You missed the sarcasm? He was basically saying the Flames would turn him into Bouma. When they don't put a smiley after sarcasm, then they are open game for a serious reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjgallow Posted July 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 You missed the sarcasm? He was basically saying the Flames would turn him into Bouma. What sarcasm? When they don't put a smiley after sarcasm, then they are open game for a serious reply. I like my humour dry.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 When they don't put a smiley after sarcasm, then they are open game for a serious reply. We need to get a sarcasm font. Tkachuk will do what ever he can to stay. If he shows up at camp and his first 9 games the way Monahan did or the way Johnny took off after the first 6 games, they will be hardpressed to send him back. The only unfortunate thing is that the first 5 games are against the Oilers, Nucks, Sabres and Canes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 And it's good all the Flames staff is here, because that would be weird if they were based in Medicine Hat, imho. The Flames have all the resources and minutes in place to develop Tkachuk into a third or fourth line checking role successfully. The OHL has all the resources to develop him as a superstar, and potential captain, that leads his team to another championship. All the resources to give him experience in the pressure situations. To be the difference between winning and losing for his team. To develop leadership qualities. I guess it depends what's more important to us. Even with Monahan, I feel he missed out on an opportunity to develop some of those things more. Although in that case, he forced the Flames hand. And Tkachuk might too, but even then it's not necesarily the best thing for him. Since I think there's a high probability he'd play with Bennett, I believe the results would be the exact opposite of what you have posited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 Even with Monahan, I feel he missed out on an opportunity to develop some of those things more. Although in that case, he forced the Flames hand. And Tkachuk might too, but even then it's not necesarily the best thing for him. I agree with you in principle except in Monahan's case, his Ottawa 67's team was downright brutal. Going back to junior would just have been a totally deflating and hopeless experience. Tkachuk and the London Knights are a different story. I expect them to be one of the better teams again this season and Tkachuk will get to experience top line minutes with completely new linemates and get to be the highlight of that line. So, i agree there. The environment of the London Knights alone would be a great developing tool whereas the Flames aren't a lock for the playoffs this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 There is no evidence to suggest that more time in junior = better player. In fact many of the best players in the NHL today came into the NHL at a young game. I think there is evidence that rushing players can derail development, but I don't think you can look at a success case like Monahan and suggest more junior time would have made him better. As for Tkachuk, junior is a very reasonable option. In fact it is the most likely one. But if the Flames think he has the maturity and he is amazing in the preseason and a 9 game trial then he should and will make the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjgallow Posted July 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 We need to get a sarcasm font. Tkachuk will do what ever he can to stay. If he shows up at camp and his first 9 games the way Monahan did or the way Johnny took off after the first 6 games, they will be hardpressed to send him back. The only unfortunate thing is that the first 5 games are against the Oilers, Nucks, Sabres and Canes. Jonny wasn't even close to ready his first camp, to be fair. Mony shocked us All. Not that Tkachuk can't do it, but we've been a bit spoiled lately and I think we shouldn't assume things that we never would have assumed before being so spoiled. If Tkachuk Is sent back to junior, I don't see it as a failure, at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjgallow Posted July 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 There is no evidence to suggest that more time in junior = better player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 I think your missing the point. I agree you can derail a prospect by rushing him, though people need to stop pointing to Edmonton to try and make a point. Teams across the league successfully integrate their prospects early, including Calgary. But it is a leap to suggest that Monahan would be a better player if he was kept in junior. Some prospect are ready right away. Some are not. We don't know if Tkachuk is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 Jonny wasn't even close to ready his first camp, to be fair. Mony shocked us All. Not that Tkachuk can't do it, but we've been a bit spoiled lately and I think we shouldn't assume things that we never would have assumed before being so spoiled. If Tkachuk Is sent back to junior, I don't see it as a failure, at all. I think you forget the impact Johnny had prior to his season start. 4 points in two games. The rest were less impressive by him, but we did get to see Johnny and Bennett, as well as Johnny and Jooris, and also Johnny and Monahan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjgallow Posted July 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 I think your missing the point. I agree you can derail a prospect by rushing him, though people need to stop pointing to Edmonton to try and make a point. Teams across the league successfully integrate their prospects early, including Calgary. But it is a leap to suggest that Monahan would be a better player if he was kept in junior. Some prospect are ready right away. Some are not. We don't know if Tkachuk is. I would agree that would be a leap with respect to Monahan, and that's why I said "might" instead of "would". But I think you're missing the point. Because this isn't about Monahan. He was just an extreme, rare example of a player who was actually so ready he forced the team's hand. Just because that happened, doesn't mean we change our whole approach and follow the Oilers into the abyss. That's the point. And I don't think you can entirely disagree with it. I think you forget the impact Johnny had prior to his season start. 4 points in two games. The rest were less impressive by him, but we did get to see Johnny and Bennett, as well as Johnny and Jooris, and also Johnny and Monahan. I think you missed the fine print on my message. We must need sarcasm, and fine print font....if only for me.... Apples should be compared to apples... http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=634669 http://video.flames.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=184030 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 I would agree that would be a leap with respect to Monahan, and that's why I said "might" instead of "would". But I think you're missing the point. Because this isn't about Monahan. He was just an extreme, rare example of a player who was actually so ready he forced the team's hand. Just because that happened, doesn't mean we change our whole approach and follow the Oilers into the abyss. That's the point. And I don't think you can entirely disagree with it. I think you missed the fine print on my message. We must need sarcasm, and fine print font....if only for me.... Apples should be compared to apples... http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=634669 http://video.flames.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=184030 Who knows what the best thing is, at this early stage in the year. He's a driven player like Bennett was in his first camp. You have to winder where Bennett would have ended up if not for the surgery. I am ok with Tkachuk going back to junior if he isn't ready. Gives us more time to evaluate the other forward prospects. If you are going to use sarcasm, try the rolly eyes emoticon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 I am not suggesting Tkachuk will or should be on the opening line roster. At least not for game 10. I am just keeping an open mind to the idea because he might prove he is ready. A lot of the times this debate turns into generic arguments about the benefit or risks with a prospect making the team out of the draft. I don't think there is a generic answers. Each prospect and situation needs to be judged on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjgallow Posted July 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 I am not suggesting Tkachuk will or should be on the opening line roster. At least not for game 10. I am just keeping an open mind to the idea because he might prove he is ready. A lot of the times this debate turns into generic arguments about the benefit or risks with a prospect making the team out of the draft. I don't think there is a generic answers. Each prospect and situation needs to be judged on its own. Agreed with you there and definitely keeping an open mind to it. If Tkachuk turns out the way we hope, I think we're well on the way to having one of the most formidable offenses in the league (when everyone matures). It's hard to pick favourites of them, but Tkachuk has a heck of a lot of undeniable intangibles that are hard not to like, aside from the elite level skillset. As long as he's able to develop that properly, we're good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 Personally i think the whole argument that rushing a prospect and that is "ruins" them is overblown. There really is no evidence to support a causation link between putting a player in the NHL too soon and him being a bust. There is corelation, but to prove causation it isn't there. What's to say that player just never would have worked out even with multiple years of junior? I think if there was a causation argument to be made, we would be seeing more first overal busts but I dont' think we are. IN fact, I would argue that risk of a top 10 pick busitng has actually been reudced since the NHL has trended towards letting young players play earlier. I agree with Kehatch you have to look at it from an individual prosepct persepctive. JJ is right, Monahan was rare, he had already played 3 full seasons of Junior by the time he was drafted. 2-3 is my benchmark, I like top prosepcts to play at least 2-3 years of junior before they turn pro so I lean heavily towrads Tkahcuk in junior, but let's see what he can do. I think there are things he can improve upon in junior that are going to be more difficult to do in the NHL. If he has an amazing camp you have to make a plan for that, but it would take an unreal camp for me to put him on the tam. Even if he had a good to very good camp i'd still send him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 I might be reading to much into it, but the fact they gave him a hockey number suggests the Flames are leaning towards him starting in the NHL. Burke has a long standing tradition of giving Nascar numbers to the kids and only awarding them with a hockey number when they have truly made it. All of the other prospects at camps have the high number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 I might be reading to much into it, but the fact they gave him a hockey number suggests the Flames are leaning towards him starting in the NHL. Burke has a long standing tradition of giving Nascar numbers to the kids and only awarding them with a hockey number when they have truly made it. All of the other prospects at camps have the high number. I wouldn't read too much into the numbers. I think Tkachuk has a whole lot of proving, earning and learning to do before we can pencil him into the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 I wouldn't read too much into the numbers. I think Tkachuk has a whole lot of proving, earning and learning to do before we can pencil him into the roster. Definitely. I don't think they are ready to hand him a spot. But I think they are at least open to the possibility and perhaps even leaning in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 Definitely. I don't think they are ready to hand him a spot. But I think they are at least open to the possibility and perhaps even leaning in that direction. I’m pulling for the kid and hope he does make it. I gave JHG about 25% chance of making it his first season and look what he did LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjgallow Posted July 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 I’m pulling for the kid and hope he does make it. I gave JHG about 25% chance of making it his first season and look what he did LOL! He didn't make the cut, and went on to develop into a star at US college, making him what he is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 He didn't make the cut, and went on to develop into a star at US college, making him what he is now. He's talking about once he turned pro, and yes he did make the cut. He was not at any other Flames training camps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartbreaker Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 I noticed that Matthew Tkachuk hasn't been signed yet to his ELC... Brad Treliving is so disrespectful to our players! Jeez Louise! Love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 I noticed that Matthew Tkachuk hasn't been signed yet to his ELC... Brad Treliving is so disrespectful to our players! Jeez Louise! Love. Nice sarcasm bud. See below for BT's response: Roger MillionsVerified account@RogMillions #Flames GM indicates Matthew Tkachuk's signing with team will be "sooner than later" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.