So Where do we go from here? Analysis & Predictions

[jjgallow]

34 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

..... but having three goalies and not using them probably irked BT quite a bit.  Remember that BT also said they didn't agree on a lot of things.

 

I think you're right, it probably irked BT.  And it probably irked Hartley too.  At the end of the day...whatever happened isn't entirely clear, but the fact that we had a three-goalie system like we did....  that goes to BT.    That was ultimately him.

 

How the three goalies were managed...sure, that's Hartley.  But it's a situation which never needed to occur in the first place.  It troubles me that Hartley took the rap for it.  And yeah, I disagreed with how he handled it, but that was not a situation any coach would want or should have to deal with.   That's why there's a  GM.

[Carty]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

the one thing you failed to do in that incredibly long response (ironically, considering your criticisms), is explain what I accused you of saying that you didn't say.   That was your beginning and ending arguement and I saw nothing inbetween which addressed it.

 

The long response was necessary to try and address the list of points you made when you managed to shift away from the two points I had responded to in the first place, that I think there was sub par goaltending at times, and some questionable coaching decisions at times...   and yes, I did in fact address where you were insinuating that I said things that I had not...   I'll give you some clues, and then you can go read it again...   Look where I said "Go ahead and try and show me where I gave him the blind support you claim, because I didn't...", "Who said they did?..." and "Where did I post about"...   

[travel_dude]

Just now, jjgallow said:

 

I think you're right, it probably irked BT.  And it probably irked Hartley too.  At the end of the day...whatever happened isn't entirely clear, but the fact that we had a three-goalie system like we did....  that goes to BT.    That was ultimately him.

 

How the three goalies were managed...sure, that's Hartley.  But it's a situation which never needed to occur in the first place.  It troubles me that Hartley took the rap for it.  And yeah, I disagreed with how he handled it, but that was not a situation any coach would want or should have to deal with.   That's why there's a  GM.

 

The coach is part of the management group  that decides on the roster.

Keeping a 3rd goalie.

Not playing 3rd goalie until an injury forced him to be considered.

Keeping and playing Bollig.

Waiving Byron.  

Bringing up players, but they sit in the press box.

 

If they weren't on the same page, then it should not have ended up being a situation of "sure, I will keep the player, but how or if I use them is my business".  That is how it looked.  You're right, we will never know, but some of the comments seemed to point in that drection.

[jjgallow]

42 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I find that hard when it comes to you.

 

http://fans.flames.nhl.com/community/announcement/3-insultsname-calling-will-not-be-tolerated/

 

42 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

You only make sense in your own mind.

 

http://fans.flames.nhl.com/community/announcement/3-insultsname-calling-will-not-be-tolerated/

 

42 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

The Flames were in every one of those 4 games

 

We lost all four of them

 

42 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

and could have won 1 or 2 of them

 

we didn't

 

42 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

and still be playing,

 

we're not

 

42 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

wasn't to be.

 

apparently

 

42 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

As far as people cheering for the Oilers good for them, we have two team in Alberta and lots of migration between cities so there are Oiler fans around. Go to a Stampeder/Roughrider game same thing no shortage of Rider fans that live in Alberta and show up.

 

So you now understand that these were not Blue Jays fans?

[jjgallow]

10 minutes ago, Carty said:

 

The long response was necessary to try and address the list of points you made when you managed to shift away from the two points I had responded to in the first place, that I think there was sub par goaltending at times, and some questionable coaching decisions at times...   and yes, I did in fact address where you were insinuating that I said things that I had not...   I'll give you some clues, and then you can go read it again...   Look where I said "Go ahead and try and show me where I gave him the blind support you claim, because I didn't...", "Who said they did?..." and "Where did I post about"...   

 

Ooooohhhh  ... I know what happened.

 

I only take 50% responsiblity...due to your unoriginal logo choice, AlbertaBoy  

[jjgallow]

16 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 You're right, we will never know, but some of the comments seemed to point in that drection.

 

Yeah, tough to say.  Byron shouldn't have been waived.

 

But, I do think he should have been traded for assets (either him, or Gaudreau, or both).  Just too much small on one team.   Byron has done nothing in the playoffs.   And I'm talking about his weight as much as his height.

 

I still look at the GM there, and for some of the goalie choices that season.   But it's true we'll never know.   It's just that I still don't see the goalie situation solved now, and this definitely isn't Hartley.

[MAC331]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

http://fans.flames.nhl.com/community/announcement/3-insultsname-calling-will-not-be-tolerated/

 

 

http://fans.flames.nhl.com/community/announcement/3-insultsname-calling-will-not-be-tolerated/

 

 

We lost all four of them

 

 

we didn't

 

 

we're not

 

 

apparently

 

 

So you now understand that these were not Blue Jays fans?

I would you take some comments as constructive criticism not insults. You seem to take being a Flames fan rather personally if you get this embarrassed by their performances.

I think there was a lot of positive progress for the team this season given how they started and how they finished.

[MAC331]

40 minutes ago, lou44291 said:

Hey Mac! Sure, let me elaborate.

First, let me be clear that in my post I was suggesting Iginla as a replacement for Brouwer, and having Iggy as an option for PP. I'm not opposed to other players on the PP, I'm just flirting with the idea here if Iggy were back in the fold. 

 

Second, I'm not suggesting Iggy for 1st line RW instead of Oshie at all... it's just that Oshie doesn't pass my "eye test". Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of advanced stats as well, I just need someone else to do the math for me! LOL And  if we're going that route, I'd prefer to see Oshie's advanced stats as a member of St. Louis over Washington as I think it'll be a better indication of how Oshie would play with us. Getting back to Oshie though, I think he's a skilled player, but I also think he's too susceptible to injury the way he plays. I appreciate players with "fight and will" in them, but for some reason, I always see him losing those hard battles despite his moxie, and putting himself in precarious positions which could (or has) resulted in injury. I guess, I see him as a higher risk than I'm comfortable with?... but you may be fully correct in that he could potentially be the best fit for our top line given what's available on the market. I just haven't investigated alternatives to your suggestion, and hopefully I'll come back to this thread with another option.

 

It's worth a shot trying Brouwer with Backlund and Frolik, but from everything I've read on the 3M line and Brouwer, Brouwer seems to be a possession "slug" as they say, and the 3M line drives possession and other advanced stats heavily in our favour. Again, I think your suggestion is worth a try, but if the numbers curtail significantly with Brouwer on that line, we may be better off keeping him in a reduced role.

 

Regarding Brodie, yes I expect better next year as well. Rasmus Andersson is an interesting suggestion for a partner - I did watch a lot of Andersson as a member of the Barrie Colts - and he was impressive - I'm just not sure he's ready to jump in as a 2nd pairing D yet. And while he does have a lot of offensive skill, he doesn't have a lot of "bite" in his game and I'm not sure having 2 defencemen who are not very physical as a 2nd pairing will work well in our conference. I believe we should keep one of Stone or Engelland (unless Engelland is willing to take a significant cut to his salary to stay as well) and I'd like to see what a full year of Stone and Brodie looks like. Does Stone ever drop the mitts?

 

to be continued i guess 

I have a strong feeling Brouwer will still be with us come next season and a few after. I honestly think we don't do the Flames or Iginla any favors in bringing him back so I am out on Iginla.

I think next season will be time to break Tkachuk off of Backlund's line in order to further develop another scoring line of Tkachuk, Bennett and Lazar. Let the line of Frolik, Backlund and Brouwer keep the top lines of the opposition in check which is a very important aspect for the team.

Brodie is or should be mature enough to support Andersson, the question will be as you say, does Andersson support or compliment Brodie enough. Should they bring Stone back I would at least like to see GG experiment with the idea. Stone isn't a fighter but blames a tough checking game in the D zone.

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Ooooohhhh  ... I know what happened.

 

I only take 50% responsiblity...due to your unoriginal logo choice, AlbertaBoy  

That was carty im not sure how I got included in your debate.

 

Half the stuff that mac said about you only making sense in your own mind, is not an insult and is true, 95% of people on these forums dont agree with your ridiculous opinions. I dont see why you get upset when people insult your opinions it has nothing to do with you as a person, but your opinions are odd when it comes to this team.

 

Regardless of which way you few things if elliott makes a couple better saves, the games probably come out a different way. Whether you like it or not mac is right when he says the flames could have won a couple games and we were in every game far more then under BH. Elliotts lack of saves even on the easiest shots didnt do us any favors in this series. 

[FlameFan4Life]

I don't understand how any person can use a "what if" as a point in an discussion. If something happened it happened, if he didn't make the save then he didn't. I do not want to base the future on what if's or second chances. We are not in the playoffs anymore and it is largely due to bad goals. Johnny didn't show up, Mony was the only treat offensively on the top line. We took some really bad penalties at the worst times. All of the above are not opinions they are facts. There was many points in the series where we "could have" or "should have" but didn't.  What we need to be discussing is how "we can" next year, what are the solutions?

[FlameFan4Life]

Question for the open minded people on here, would you ever consider trading Johnny? and if so what would he cost you? 
 

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, FlameFan4Life said:

Question for the open minded people on here, would you ever consider trading Johnny? and if so what would he cost you? 
 

 

See a few pages ago.  Lots of people do.  

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 minute ago, FlameFan4Life said:

Question for the open minded people on here, would you ever consider trading Johnny? and if so what would he cost you? 
 

question for you. Why are we trading johnny ive seen alot of talk from people saying lets trade him and im curious why. I dont think he was as bad as people are making him out to be these playoffs, and it doesnt really make sense to trade johnny because we will lose that trade. If someone comes to me and says we are going to give you mark stone, thomas chabot and logan brown maybe then but otherwise doesnt make sense.

[AlbertaBoy12]

18 minutes ago, FlameFan4Life said:

I don't understand how any person can use a "what if" as a point in an discussion. If something happened it happened, if he didn't make the save then he didn't. I do not want to base the future on what if's or second chances. We are not in the playoffs anymore and it is largely due to bad goals. Johnny didn't show up, Mony was the only treat offensively on the top line. We took some really bad penalties at the worst times. All of the above are not opinions they are facts. There was many points in the series where we "could have" or "should have" but didn't.  What we need to be discussing is how "we can" next year, what are the solutions?

Also I think the what if is based on the fact that alot of people think we got out played and didnt show up because we lost the series 4-0. Chicago also lost their series 4-0 sometimes the playoffs is about bounces and goaltending, we got neither so theres your what if.

[FlameFan4Life]

1 minute ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Also I think the what if is based on the fact that alot of people think we got out played and didnt show up because we lost the series 4-0. Chicago also lost their series 4-0 sometimes the playoffs is about bounces and goaltending, we got neither so theres your what if.

I guess what I am getting at is, some people can't accept what happened or happens as what is. I have been on this chat site for many years and I personally HATE reading the comments where people defend failure. I love this team but I don't defend failure, I accept what is and hope for better. Now I also must add that certain things are not any ones fault. You can't blame Elliott when a puck get's past him off our defenders skate when he is standing in front of the net, but if it goes off a defender standing 20-25 feet out he should have that puck stopped. I know elbowing happens but to then turn around and say he is or should be resigned I think is crazy, we have already seen him at his best and at his worst. All together it was not good enough so I say "next". Just my opinion, don't freak out.....lol

[cross16]

15 minutes ago, FlameFan4Life said:

Question for the open minded people on here, would you ever consider trading Johnny? and if so what would he cost you? 
 

 

Absolutely. Return would have to be either a first line RW or a top pairing d and they would need to be under 25 and have term of least 2 years left. 

 

Hard for me to see a workable deal about there. If teams have those things I'd want they usually don't trade them. 

[jjgallow]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Absolutely. Return would have to be either a first line RW or a top pairing d and they would need to be under 25 and have term of least 2 years left. 

 

Hard for me to see a workable deal about there. If teams have those things I'd want they usually don't trade them. 

 

The frustrating part is that, when a very small percentage of us suggested trading Johnny at the start of the season...he was far more likely to command that.   But the problem with "sell high", is that's the least popular time to sell.

 

Not that he isn't valuable now.   He could be far more valuable, imho, to a big market team with his ticket and merchandise draw.

[cross16]

2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

The frustrating part is that, when a very small percentage of us suggested trading Johnny at the start of the season...he was far more likely to command that.   But the problem with "sell high", is that's the least popular time to sell.

 

Not that he isn't valuable now.   He could be far more valuable, imho, to a big market team with his ticket and merchandise draw.

 

I don't really agree on either count though. Problem with trading someone like Johnny doesn't have to do with when his value is highest, it has to do with finding a trade partner willing to part with a comparable piece. There is a reason why you don't tend to see hockey trades like this, why are teams willing to give up comparable talent? if a team has a top pairing dman why are they gojng to trade them? 

Case in point, Taylor hall only netted Adam Larson. Decent trade for the Oilers but a pretty poor return for Gaudrea imo.

[AlbertaBoy12]

45 minutes ago, FlameFan4Life said:

I guess what I am getting at is, some people can't accept what happened or happens as what is. I have been on this chat site for many years and I personally HATE reading the comments where people defend failure. I love this team but I don't defend failure, I accept what is and hope for better. Now I also must add that certain things are not any ones fault. You can't blame Elliott when a puck get's past him off our defenders skate when he is standing in front of the net, but if it goes off a defender standing 20-25 feet out he should have that puck stopped. I know elbowing happens but to then turn around and say he is or should be resigned I think is crazy, we have already seen him at his best and at his worst. All together it was not good enough so I say "next". Just my opinion, don't freak out.....lol

No there was some goals that defiantly werent his fault, and the bouma deflection would not be one of them. But the first goal in game 4 was really bad, and stuff like that just cant happen if you want to win a playoff series against a strong defensive team like anaheim.  I also posted in the goaltending thread that I think the flames should resign elliott, I dont blame the series loss on elliott but he definatly didnt do us any favors. Brodie/hamilton didnt do us any favors with their penalties in the first couple games. Overall the flames played well but we also did a good job of shooting ourselves in the foot. 

 

32 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't really agree on either count though. Problem with trading someone like Johnny doesn't have to do with when his value is highest, it has to do with finding a trade partner willing to part with a comparable piece. There is a reason why you don't tend to see hockey trades like this, why are teams willing to give up comparable talent? if a team has a top pairing dman why are they gojng to trade them? 

Case in point, Taylor hall only netted Adam Larson. Decent trade for the Oilers but a pretty poor return for Gaudrea imo.

This is my biggest question when people suggest trading gaudreau, I dont see our return being good and unless it is pieces like I suggested ie mark stone and thomas chabot, im not making that trade, it doesnt make sense.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

The frustrating part is that, when a very small percentage of us suggested trading Johnny at the start of the season...he was far more likely to command that.   But the problem with "sell high", is that's the least popular time to sell.

 

Not that he isn't valuable now.   He could be far more valuable, imho, to a big market team with his ticket and merchandise draw.

In the "sell high" regard, what about Backs? Our best 2 way C so I know it's a tough one.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't really agree on either count though. Problem with trading someone like Johnny doesn't have to do with when his value is highest, it has to do with finding a trade partner willing to part with a comparable piece. There is a reason why you don't tend to see hockey trades like this, why are teams willing to give up comparable talent? if a team has a top pairing dman why are they gojng to trade them? 

Case in point, Taylor hall only netted Adam Larson. Decent trade for the Oilers but a pretty poor return for Gaudrea imo.

 

I don't disagree, it's rare and hard to do.  For sure.  But any player can also be traded, and that's also true.  Both sides have been known to win.

 

Taylor Hall was seriously damaged goods, and nobody is calling JH that.  More importantly imho, that was a salary trade that the Oilers were forced into.

 

I don't think that's the case here.  Although if we shaved some salary off it wouldn't be the worst thing (but likely means draft picks)

[JTech780]

1 minute ago, conundrumed said:

In the "sell high" regard, what about Backs? Our best 2 way C so I know it's a tough one.

 

I kind of go back and forth on the idea of trading him. On one hand who takes his defensive assignments if we trade him, on the other hand his value is probably pretty high and he is going to be looking for a raise on his next deal. The other thing I look at is that if we move Backlund does that open spots for Bennett to get 2nd line minutes and a spot for Lazar or Jankowski to get 3rd line minutes. For those players to take the next step they are going to need to be trusted with more minutes.

 

I think at the end of the day it has to be the right trade. If we can get a number 1 goalie or a top line RW in return I think you have to take a long hard look at it. I think we have the depth at center to, maybe not replace Backlund, but at least fill the gap.

[jjgallow]

5 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

In the "sell high" regard, what about Backs? Our best 2 way C so I know it's a tough one.

 

Yup.   He would command some serious return, and it would likely be an extremely unpopular trade.

 

But, we have others like Jankowski coming up.    We can afford to trade a center and there's no question he's never been more valuable.

[conundrumed]

I don't love the idea, but we need to explore all options. We keep pretending we can make our goats magically disappear when we should be looking at all avenues to get better.

I think we need to get harder to play at F. I like Backs, but we have to find a way to be tougher at wing. JG isn't tough, Chiasson, Brouwer, Versteeg, Bouma.

Imho, we are far too lightweight on the wings. There just isn't enough intensity there.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Yup.   He would command some serious return, and it would likely be an extremely unpopular trade.

 

But, we have others like Jankowski coming up.    We can afford to trade a center and there's no question he's never been more valuable.

 

One career year does not high value make. (said in my best Yoda voice).  He's had two injury free seasons.

What serious return do you think?

I know he has tremendous to the Flames, but are there that many GM's that would give real value?

 

35 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I don't love the idea, but we need to explore all options. We keep pretending we can make our goats magically disappear when we should be looking at all avenues to get better.

I think we need to get harder to play at F. I like Backs, but we have to find a way to be tougher at wing. JG isn't tough, Chiasson, Brouwer, Versteeg, Bouma.

Imho, we are far too lightweight on the wings. There just isn't enough intensity there.

 

If you have a small winger then the C or other wing should make up for him.  When Hudler was on, that line was unstoppable.  He was hobbled in around the first series, so he could not help in round 2.  

 

Chaisson doesn't shy away from hits, but his hockey sense in not that great.

Bouma?  Well, I just don't see the same player he used to be.  Takes himself out of the play for a hit.  Has little to no offense.  

Brouwer has size but doesn't play that game, or at least he didn't for us.

Versteeg is small, so you need to give him someone to make the space.

 

Inability to clear the zone was one of our biggest problems this year, especially the playoffs.  That starts with the defense.  Fix that first.  First pass still seems to be a problem with the breakout.  Instead of just looking for size, look for hockey sense.