So Where do we go from here? Analysis & Predictions

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 hour ago, cccsberg said:

It returns both players to (near) their hometowns and both play similar positions.  It would be a pretty fair trade but not sure why a team would make it, unless the players were starting to complain.  I think it might motivate both guys to higher success as they would both be close, but not at the place they really wanted to be.

Well hall is from kingston... and really his intagibles whether true or not dont exactly inspire confidence that I want him on this team.

 

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

Seriously I don't think the Flames are unsatisfied with Gaudreau enough to trade him. He is very much part of the plan here. I hope he learned some things about himself this season and spends the offseason making some positive changes to be better next season.

I agree with this completely, I dont think the flames are going to trade gaudreau because he had a "bad" season, he struggled at times but hes also still very young. I would expect him to learn a few things and come back next year in a much better place. Someone made the point that very few times does a player have contract disputes last so long and come out to have a good season. I saw plenty of push back from gaudreau in the playoffs, and while he didnt take a game over, neither has mcdavid. Gaudreau will be fine. 

 

If all Gaudreau is, is this 60 point player who struggles a bit at times, I would still want him on my team. Gaudreau in the 2nd half started to look way better defensively and I think he will be fine next season.

[MAC331]

3 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Well hall is from kingston... and really his intagibles whether true or not dont exactly inspire confidence that I want him on this team.

 

I agree with this completely, I dont think the flames are going to trade gaudreau because he had a "bad" season, he struggled at times but hes also still very young. I would expect him to learn a few things and come back next year in a much better place. Someone made the point that very few times does a player have contract disputes last so long and come out to have a good season. I saw plenty of push back from gaudreau in the playoffs, and while he didnt take a game over, neither has mcdavid. Gaudreau will be fine. 

 

If all Gaudreau is, is this 60 point player who struggles a bit at times, I would still want him on my team. Gaudreau in the 2nd half started to look way better defensively and I think he will be fine next season.

Aside from contracts etc etc I think he has to improve his mental game and get rid of all these spin-a-rama moves of his just to cough up the puck. He is quick enough and good enough to simply beat most defenders with straight forward moves. Gaudreau and Brodie drove me crazy this season. 

[robrob74]

On 2017-04-25 at 3:46 PM, cross16 said:

 

Well except for the fact that teams have failed more often than succeeded using that criteria. See Islanders, Lightning, Florida, Phoenix/Arizona, Avalanche, Columbus, St Louis, Capitals, 

But your right past is the past. Future is bright and that's all that should matter

 

The truth is, only one team wins the cup every year. The Blues have been a powerhouse for the last 5+ years but just can't get it done. The Caps the past few years, same thing, but this year could be their year. The Coyotes and Avs, well, they're them... as well as the Oilers, but they've changed with a goalie, generational talent and so on. 

 

The islanders have elbowing management . But I think the People has a bit of a point. The Hawks, Pens and so on proved it over the last ten years. The lightening have gotten deep a few times in the past few years. Calling their rebuild a failure isn't fair. I get that winning cups are the goal, but I think the only goal that is fair is manning a team that has a very good chance every year. 

 

The Sharks, blues, Wild (this year), Pens (in the past), Capitals, and many more that were favourites have not gone on to win. I'd have preferred to be in the Sharks situation over the 15 years than the Flames and had the chance to win than being mired in mediocrity for so long. At least they had the chanc...

 

things are looking up. 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Aside from contracts etc etc I think he has to improve his mental game and get rid of all these spin-a-rama moves of his just to cough up the puck. He is quick enough and good enough to simply beat most defenders with straight forward moves. Gaudreau and Brodie drove me crazy this season. 

 

Plus, utilizing his teammates in positions allowing them to continue a forward motion, or not waiting so long that he has to pass into a bunch of opponents sticks.

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Seriously I don't think the Flames are unsatisfied with Gaudreau enough to trade him. He is very much part of the plan here. I hope he learned some things about himself this season and spends the offseason making some positive changes to be better next season.

 

I 100% agree with you that the Flames are happy with Gaudreau, and that he is part of the long term plan.

 

That is essentially my whole issue here.   The Flames have repeatedly shown that they will do what it takes to "make the playoffs", and nothing more.    There is no plan for succeeding in the playoffs, of having a shot at the cup.    They're not alone in this regard.   It takes incredible business and financial risks to set a team up for cup success.  A huge number of teams make the moves necessary to stay competitive, and focus the rest of their efforts on marketing.   That has been the Flames for some time now.  I have listened to "we have a plan, and a direction" for 28 years now and in those 28 years, we've gotten worse (with various ebbs and flows).

 

You're right there.  I don't see a trade happening.   I just disagree that it couldn't happen to the benefit of the organization.   They're just unlikely willing to assume the risk involved, as well as forego the marketing investment.

[MAC331]

48 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I 100% agree with you that the Flames are happy with Gaudreau, and that he is part of the long term plan.

 

That is essentially my whole issue here.   The Flames have repeatedly shown that they will do what it takes to "make the playoffs", and nothing more.    There is no plan for succeeding in the playoffs, of having a shot at the cup.    They're not alone in this regard.   It takes incredible business and financial risks to set a team up for cup success.  A huge number of teams make the moves necessary to stay competitive, and focus the rest of their efforts on marketing.   That has been the Flames for some time now.  I have listened to "we have a plan, and a direction" for 28 years now and in those 28 years, we've gotten worse (with various ebbs and flows).

 

You're right there.  I don't see a trade happening.   I just disagree that it couldn't happen to the benefit of the organization.   They're just unlikely willing to assume the risk involved, as well as forego the marketing investment.

I think they are on the right path and just need to stick with the plan they have now. We have the opportunity to replace some expiring contracts with better talent. Our young core keeps gaining the necessary experience and maturity. A few shrew trades and signings could have us with a very good team next season.

[jjgallow]

46 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I think they are on the right path and just need to stick with the plan they have now. We have the opportunity to replace some expiring contracts with better talent. Our young core keeps gaining the necessary experience and maturity. A few shrew trades and signings could have us with a very good team next season.

 

Ok, but that same young core had exponentially better success in the playoffs two years ago than it's having now.   Against the same team.

 

While they are still young, their room for improvement diminishes each year.   And they have a Lot of ground to cover.

 

If you think they can cover the ground, great.   But you're counting on the same GM who oversaw those two years.

[MAC331]

Just now, jjgallow said:

 

Ok, but that same young core had exponentially better success in the playoffs two years ago than it's having now.   Against the same team.

 

While they are still young, their room for improvement diminishes each year.   And they have a Lot of ground to cover.

 

If you think they can cover the ground, great.   But you're counting on the same GM who oversaw those two years.

What ? are you for real. "their room for improvement diminishes each year" not with the age of this group. Why do you persist on using a fluke lucky year of 2015 team to draw any comparison. You don't see anything wrong with that thinking ?

[jjgallow]

9 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

What ? are you for real. "their room for improvement diminishes each year" not with the age of this group. Why do you persist on using a fluke lucky year of 2015 team to draw any comparison. You don't see anything wrong with that thinking ?

 

Players improve less each year, until eventually they stop improving, and start declining.  Yes, it's true right from the age of 4 to 40.  It's a parabolic curve.  That's just a known fact, it doesn't matter what their age is, they're still part of that curve.

 

Nobody thought 2015 was lucky in 2015.  That's just how we look at it now.   Look, it wasn't a fluke, it was just unsustainable because of the makeup of that team.

 

The makeup of this team is sustainable, if you are ok with fighting for the playoffs every year.  Past that, there isn't enough improvement left in it to compensate for the decline in some players approaching or past 30.   Some would even say the improvement may be isolated to one player, Tkachuk.  Or two...if you count Bennett.

 

That doesn't cut it.  I see no plan to be a contender there.  If you're ok with that, great.  I expected more.

[cccsberg]

4 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Well hall is from kingston... and really his intagibles whether true or not dont exactly inspire confidence that I want him on this team.

 

I agree with this completely, I dont think the flames are going to trade gaudreau because he had a "bad" season, he struggled at times but hes also still very young. I would expect him to learn a few things and come back next year in a much better place. Someone made the point that very few times does a player have contract disputes last so long and come out to have a good season. I saw plenty of push back from gaudreau in the playoffs, and while he didnt take a game over, neither has mcdavid. Gaudreau will be fine. 

 

If all Gaudreau is, is this 60 point player who struggles a bit at times, I would still want him on my team. Gaudreau in the 2nd half started to look way better defensively and I think he will be fine next season.

Your comment through me for a loop because I was pretty sure Hall is Calgary born and raised, and he is.  He lived here and learned hockey before heading to the OHL in his mid-teens.  Outside of that I can't disagree with your comments, though I think Hall back here might be very successful for him.

[MAC331]

20 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Players improve less each year, until eventually they stop improving, and start declining.  Yes, it's true right from the age of 4 to 40.  It's a parabolic curve.  That's just a known fact, it doesn't matter what their age is, they're still part of that curve.

 

Nobody thought 2015 was lucky in 2015.  That's just how we look at it now.   Look, it wasn't a fluke, it was just unsustainable because of the makeup of that team.

 

The makeup of this team is sustainable, if you are ok with fighting for the playoffs every year.  Past that, there isn't enough improvement left in it to compensate for the decline in some players approaching or past 30.   Some would even say the improvement may be isolated to one player, Tkachuk.  Or two...if you count Bennett.

 

That doesn't cut it.  I see no plan to be a contender there.  If you're ok with that, great.  I expected more.

The more you talk the more nonsense comes out.

[cccsberg]

30 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Players improve less each year, until eventually they stop improving, and start declining.  Yes, it's true right from the age of 4 to 40.  It's a parabolic curve.  That's just a known fact, it doesn't matter what their age is, they're still part of that curve.

 

Nobody thought 2015 was lucky in 2015.  That's just how we look at it now.   Look, it wasn't a fluke, it was just unsustainable because of the makeup of that team.

 

The makeup of this team is sustainable, if you are ok with fighting for the playoffs every year.  Past that, there isn't enough improvement left in it to compensate for the decline in some players approaching or past 30.   Some would even say the improvement may be isolated to one player, Tkachuk.  Or two...if you count Bennett.

 

That doesn't cut it.  I see no plan to be a contender there.  If you're ok with that, great.  I expected more.

I kinda agree with your premise, especially that the primary avenues of major LT improvement with this group is Tkachuk and Bennett, and that's about it.  The hope is that our prospects coming in will be better than the vets they will be replacing, AND have room to improve, but that is fraught with doubt even though I think (hope) it may happen.  Can Jankowski/Klimchuk/Mangiapanne/Tuulolo/Shinkaruk/Hathaway be significantly better than Stajan/Bouma/Chiasson/Brouwer/Versteeg/FHamilton on an NHL regular day basis?  Can Kylington/Anderson/Kulak/Fox/Hickey be better than Stone/Engelland/Bartkowski/Wideman/Smid on a regular NHL basis?  Can Gillies/Rittich/Parsons be better than Elliot/Johnson on a regular NHL day-to-day basis.  I believe the answer is YES to all three questions, but it remains to be proven.  Gradual improvement is fine, but until/unless one or more of these guys makes a huge jump, or we see the same in management/coaching I think its going to be very, very difficult.  

[DirtyDeeds]

On 4/27/2017 at 8:57 PM, Flyerfan52 said:

......

I don't go to that board anymore but I figure the former Hall fans have mothballed those jerseys in favor of McDavid 1s.

A....

Or maybe they threw all the Hall Jerseys on the ice..

[jjgallow]

3 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

I kinda agree with your premise, especially that the primary avenues of improvement with this group is Tkachuk and Bennett, and that's about it.  The hope is that our prospects coming in will be better than the vets they will be replacing, AND have room to improve, but that is fraught with doubt even though I think (hope) it may happen.  Can Jankowski/Klimchuk/Mangiapanne/Tuulolo/Shinkaruk/Hathaway be significantly better than Stajan/Bouma/Chiasson/Brouwer/Versteeg/FHamilton on an NHL regular day basis?  Can Kylington/Anderson/Kulak/Fox/Hickey be better than Stone/Engelland/Bartkowski/Wideman/Smid on a regular NHL basis?  Can Gillies/Rittich/Parsons be better than Elliot/Johnson on a regular NHL day-to-day basis.  I believe the answer is YES to all three questions, but it remains to be proven.  Gradual improvement is fine, but until/unless one or more of these guys ages a huge jump, or we see the same in management/coaching I think its going to be very, very difficult.  

 

Pretty much.   I DO wonder if maybe Doug Hamilton still has a significant jump in him.  He "might", as D develop later.   But even if he does, it's highly unlikely that Hamilton, Tkachuk, and Bennett will all see significant jumps.  A better forecast would be 2 of the three.

 

Only two years ago, Wideman was seen as an elite key player in this group.  Now he's basically hated, to be blunt.  He gets a little older, slows a bit, and his flaws just jump out more.   We don't like to think it, but the same will eventually happen to some of our other beloved vets.   It may just take a bit longer because they don't have such blatant flaws.   I think we have the necessary pipeline to replenish this, but not enough for an overall improvement.

[MAC331]

15 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

I kinda agree with your premise, especially that the primary avenues of major LT improvement with this group is Tkachuk and Bennett, and that's about it.  The hope is that our prospects coming in will be better than the vets they will be replacing, AND have room to improve, but that is fraught with doubt even though I think (hope) it may happen.  Can Jankowski/Klimchuk/Mangiapanne/Tuulolo/Shinkaruk/Hathaway be significantly better than Stajan/Bouma/Chiasson/Brouwer/Versteeg/FHamilton on an NHL regular day basis?  Can Kylington/Anderson/Kulak/Fox/Hickey be better than Stone/Engelland/Bartkowski/Wideman/Smid on a regular NHL basis?  Can Gillies/Rittich/Parsons be better than Elliot/Johnson on a regular NHL day-to-day basis.  I believe the answer is YES to all three questions, but it remains to be proven.  Gradual improvement is fine, but until/unless one or more of these guys makes a huge jump, or we see the same in management/coaching I think its going to be very, very difficult.  

Really ? this is how you size up potential growth by trying lump one group into replacing another. WOW

How about a strategy to develop talent to replace aging players or under performing players in any given year ? How about trading for a talent you don't have or need for where you assess your team is within the compete level ? Players develop both physically and mentally with each year of gained experience let's not forget. You don't think Gaudreau, Monahan, Ferland, Lazar, Hamilton or Brodie have anything left to improve on or in your assessment are now incapable of improving ?

[Flyerfan52]

40 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Really ? this is how you size up potential growth by trying lump one group into replacing another. WOW

How about a strategy to develop talent to replace aging players or under performing players in any given year ? How about trading for a talent you don't have or need for where you assess your team is within the compete level ? Players develop both physically and mentally with each year of gained experience let's not forget. You don't think Gaudreau, Monahan, Ferland, Lazar, Hamilton or Brodie have anything left to improve on or in your assessment are now incapable of improving ?

Yep.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Players improve less each year, until eventually they stop improving, and start declining.  Yes, it's true right from the age of 4 to 40.  It's a parabolic curve.  That's just a known fact, it doesn't matter what their age is, they're still part of that curve.

 

Nobody thought 2015 was lucky in 2015.  That's just how we look at it now.   Look, it wasn't a fluke, it was just unsustainable because of the makeup of that team.

 

The makeup of this team is sustainable, if you are ok with fighting for the playoffs every year.  Past that, there isn't enough improvement left in it to compensate for the decline in some players approaching or past 30.   Some would even say the improvement may be isolated to one player, Tkachuk.  Or two...if you count Bennett.

 

That doesn't cut it.  I see no plan to be a contender there.  If you're ok with that, great.  I expected more.

 

 

I thought it was lucky un 2015 and understood it was an odd year and any other year we would not have been in that situation, and the same as the Canucks, which everything came back down to earth the year after. 

 

That team should not ever be the measuring stick we compare to. If you want to, then we will decline faster than you're suggesting. 

 

I think youre out of touch with reality. Monahan and Gaudreau still have a few more years of vast improvement ahead of them. Even Crosby still gets better each year. 

 

If you don't see a better product in comparison to 2015 the I don't know what else to say. You've argued for Ortio to keep playing and that he'd improve. By your measuring he should be in his decline by now. 

 

We are still improving and have a few more years to. I think in another 3 years the core will peak for another 3-4 years and then you hope to bring in youthful energy to be mentored by the core.

 

i think the reason we see other teams picking up and developing young players better than us has a lot to do with the kind of players we've had. Other teams have Thornton, Crosby, etc, elite and almost elite players to show them and improve them, make them look better. We have barely had elite talent in the last 20+ years. The bar has been set low.

[Flyerfan52]

3 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Players improve less each year, until eventually they stop improving, and start declining.  Yes, it's true right from the age of 4 to 40.  It's a parabolic curve.  That's just a known fact, it doesn't matter what their age is, they're still part of that curve.

 

Nobody thought 2015 was lucky in 2015.  That's just how we look at it now.   Look, it wasn't a fluke, it was just unsustainable because of the makeup of that team.

 

The makeup of this team is sustainable, if you are ok with fighting for the playoffs every year.  Past that, there isn't enough improvement left in it to compensate for the decline in some players approaching or past 30.   Some would even say the improvement may be isolated to one player, Tkachuk.  Or two...if you count Bennett.

 

That doesn't cut it.  I see no plan to be a contender there.  If you're ok with that, great.  I expected more.

You say that & yet insist players in their 20s have shown their best & no player nearing his 30s is worth signing for 5-6 years (yeah, I read your other posts).

So, what ages leave room for improvent according to your vast knowledge? Are guys like Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett, Tkchuk capable of improvement? Should Frolik, Backlund, etc. be cut loose or traded for children?

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said:

You say that & yet insist players in their 20s have shown their best & no player nearing his 30s is worth signing for 5-6 years (yeah, I read your other posts).

So, what ages leave room for improvent according to your vast knowledge? Are guys like Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett, Tkchuk capable of improvement? Should Frolik, Backlund, etc. be cut loose or traded for children?

 

I've made posts in that general direction, yes.  But I never spoke in absolutes ("no player ...worth signing") like you're accusing me of.  Or the "trading for children" accusation.

 

If I didn't know better, I'd say I'm getting a rise out of you.  You're uncharacteristically and needlessly escalating things.

 

My only question is, why do you have your back up?  Most everything has happened the way you wanted it.   The Flames didn't "tank", they've kept on the veterans, they've taken the "balanced" approach, if you will.  

 

So why so upset?

 

Is it really me you're so upset with, or the results (4-0 embarrassment in the playoffs)?

[AlbertaBoy12]

4 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Your comment through me for a loop because I was pretty sure Hall is Calgary born and raised, and he is.  He lived here and learned hockey before heading to the OHL in his mid-teens.  Outside of that I can't disagree with your comments, though I think Hall back here might be very successful for him.

Sorry I stand corrected his family moved to kingston in 2005. My memory is a little foggy of that time, Im sure he would be successful but I dont want him on my team.

[phoenix66]

4 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Sorry I stand corrected his family moved to kingston in 2005. My memory is a little foggy of that time, Im sure he would be successful but I dont want him on my team.

yep its on record he grew up cheering for the Flames 

[AlbertaBoy12]

15 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

yep its on record he grew up cheering for the Flames 

Yeah I just remember seeing him at the bar all the time when I was in kingston because his family lived there and totally forgot he grew up in calgay.

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

I've made posts in that general direction, yes.  But I never spoke in absolutes ("no player ...worth signing") like you're accusing me of.  Or the "trading for children" accusation.

 

If I didn't know better, I'd say I'm getting a rise out of you.  You're uncharacteristically and needlessly escalating things.

 

My only question is, why do you have your back up?  Most everything has happened the way you wanted it.   The Flames didn't "tank", they've kept on the veterans, they've taken the "balanced" approach, if you will.  

 

So why so upset?

 

Is it really me you're so upset with, or the results (4-0 embarrassment in the playoffs)?

I'm not upset. As you say there was no tanking & I saw some growth.

"Trading for children" wasn't an accusation. I quess I should have added a . Feel better now?

 

You don't have to be so defensive. I'm not running you down. I've told you that even though I needn't agree with your opinions I do read them to see if I can find suggestitions to inprove the Flames that don't involve tearing it all down.

 

The team is far from ideal (or even a contender) but I'll back them once they hit the playoffs where lucky bounces & a goalie playing way over his norm can > a better team.

The way I see it we have 3-4 forwards that will soon desperve being called top 6, a couple of good complimentary vets & a decent D corps. I think a goalie that can steal games (needn't be a big $ name 1) is the biggest need & have less faith in the pipeline than many. Better than it was but we are a few years out. Experience for the top enders will help more than a scatter gun approach involving drafting high & often. That only works with perfect timing (Pittsburgh style) when there are multiple drafts with high end talent coming up. No quarantee though because the 1st OA is just as possibly a Daigle or Yakupov as a Crosby or Ovechkin. In these over hyped days the media would have us believe all 1st OAs are going to be instant superstars & every draft has a generational player @ the top. By it's very definition there can't be that many generation 1s. There are always those that are best & some that are very good but a tier below. Teenagers are what they are in the last few years before the draft while playing against kids their age. That's why some never adjust to the harder competition of playing against men fighting for a job since just talent alone can't get you by. Late bloomers often end up being the best of their class as they are already inured to the harder slogging & working to overcome disadvantages.

[cccsberg]

6 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Really ? this is how you size up potential growth by trying lump one group into replacing another. WOW

How about a strategy to develop talent to replace aging players or under performing players in any given year ? How about trading for a talent you don't have or need for where you assess your team is within the compete level ? Players develop both physically and mentally with each year of gained experience let's not forget. You don't think Gaudreau, Monahan, Ferland, Lazar, Hamilton or Brodie have anything left to improve on or in your assessment are now incapable of improving ?

Not sure where you are getting the WOW from my comments.  I'm not lumping anyone, just looking at vets on the cusp or the way out versus prospects similarly on the cusp and the way in.  In any year there may be 1 or 2 or 3 changes, but over a few years there is mega turnover.  The point that was being made is that on whole, how likely is it that the new guys are going to be not only equal, but substantially better than the guys there now?  If they are not, or there is a significant risk they are not, then how does the team improve overall?  Of course, trades are a factor and one or two great trades can make a HUGE difference, but at the same time, the reverse is also true.  What is the likelihood that we can all of a sudden make great trades now that we've decided we're "in our window" and need to succeed?  Finally, yes players develop and that includes ours as well as the rest of the league.  If everyone is improving are we getting better relative to other teams?  Its the teams that make major improvements that make the big jumps and that is most likely with young players before they hit their prime.

[MAC331]

10 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Not sure where you are getting the WOW from my comments.  I'm not lumping anyone, just looking at vets on the cusp or the way out versus prospects similarly on the cusp and the way in.  In any year there may be 1 or 2 or 3 changes, but over a few years there is mega turnover.  The point that was being made is that on whole, how likely is it that the new guys are going to be not only equal, but substantially better than the guys there now?  If they are not, or there is a significant risk they are not, then how does the team improve overall?  Of course, trades are a factor and one or two great trades can make a HUGE difference, but at the same time, the reverse is also true.  What is the likelihood that we can all of a sudden make great trades now that we've decided we're "in our window" and need to succeed?  Finally, yes players develop and that includes ours as well as the rest of the league.  If everyone is improving are we getting better relative to other teams?  Its the teams that make major improvements that make the big jumps and that is most likely with young players before they hit their prime.

The WOW came from your comment about Tkachuk and Bennett being the only players from this group we could expect LT improvement from ? Explain this one.

As far as youth replacing aging or further experienced players of course there will be an experience laps but a some immediate physical benefit of play in certain cases. Some catch up and catch on fast others not so much. I don't think you can lump everyone into the same pace due to physical and mental make up of the individuals. There are many ingredients that form the make up of a successful team, needs we don't have can sometimes be dealt with by trades and sometimes you wait.

Who has decided we are in our window to succeed YOU ? what is your definition of success, winning the SC ? Your last 3 sentences are why there is a league in order to play the games and measure who the best teams are year to year. The Flames have some work to do in a few areas however IMO maturity and experience is the key for this current group. The position pieces are obvious.