2017 development camp

[conundrumed]

6 hours ago, Dmac1103 said:

Here are some recent undrafted  college FA's that should show a better example of players that have gone to have pretty good NHL careers. I am not saying Foo is going to be great but he could very well add some more skill to the bottom 6 and maybe in the future move to a top 6 role. These players my not all had HOF careers but did put together above average careers.

1. Rich Peverley

2. Curtis Glenncross

3. Chris Kunitz

4. Dustin Penner

5. Dan Boyle

6. Martin St. Louis

I think maybe the word recent needs some defining. I'd have gone with Wheeler, Toews and Parise, personally.

[jjgallow]

13 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Even the best laid plans can go wrong. I like the sequence of order now though with Smith, Lack, Rittich (should injury occur). This will keep both Gilles and Parsons on their development paths.

 

While that's true, just because the plan goes wrong regularly doesn't necessarily mean it was a best laid plan

 

13 hours ago, MAC331 said:

If he can play and perform with Gaudreau and Monahan turn him loose. If he can't put him in Stockton.

 

Don't see it myself.   If so, great.    Wow, Monahan would be spending all his time protecting them though, rather than what he's good at.

 

More than likely, he makes it work on the third line to start off, and that would be just fine with me.  A great addition.

[MAC331]

17 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

While that's true, just because the plan goes wrong regularly doesn't necessarily mean it was a best laid plan

 

 

Don't see it myself.   If so, great.    Wow, Monahan would be spending all his time protecting them though, rather than what he's good at.

 

More than likely, he makes it work on the third line to start off, and that would be just fine with me.  A great addition.

I don't think the Hiller/Ramo plan was wrong at the time providing a rebuild a veteran goalie and a hopeful followed by our next best hopeful Ortio. If anything it is an illustration of why you need a good supply of quality goalie hopefuls in your pipeline. Elliott and Johnson were another tandem caught in a lot of changes and still provided good goaltending for us. I like what we have now.

Why do say Monahan would need to protect those two Gaudreau and Foo ? if those two are moving the way they can nobody should be able to catch them to hit them. Less of a cycle game in the opposing end is something I hope they incorporate. Use speed where they can.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

I don't think the Hiller/Ramo plan was wrong at the time providing a rebuild a veteran goalie and a hopeful followed by our next best hopeful Ortio. If anything it is an illustration of why you need a good supply of quality goalie hopefuls in your pipeline. Elliott and Johnson were another tandem caught in a lot of changes and still provided good goaltending for us. I like what we have now.

Why do say Monahan would need to protect those two Gaudreau and Foo ? if those two are moving the way they can nobody should be able to catch them to hit them. Less of a cycle game in the opposing end is something I hope they incorporate. Use speed where they can.

 

I'll leave the goalie part for the goalie thread....I disagree but I DO really like some components of what we have now (Gillies, Parsons).

 

With regards to Gaudreau and Foo on the same line:

1.   Gaudreau has already shown that he gets rubbed out (neutralized) in the playoff hockey due to his size and subsequent style of play.   And that's when two larger forwards are on the ice.    Sure, it's not an issue in the regular season.

 

2.   Foo isn't like Gaudreau.    He's good but Gaudreau is one of a kind special.    We have no reason at this point to assume Foo's a second line player, let alone a first line player.   If that changes, then great.    I don't mean to be negative, I just don't want to contribute to unrealistic expectations.

[MAC331]

Just now, jjgallow said:

 

I'll leave the goalie part for the goalie thread....I disagree but I DO really like some components of what we have now (Gillies, Parsons).

 

With regards to Gaudreau and Foo on the same line:

1.   Gaudreau has already shown that he gets rubbed out (neutralized) in the playoff hockey due to his size and subsequent style of play.   And that's when two larger forwards are on the ice.    Sure, it's not an issue in the regular season.

 

2.   Foo isn't like Gaudreau.    He's good but Gaudreau is one of a kind special.    We have no reason at this point to assume Foo's a second line player, let alone a first line player.   If that changes, then great.    I don't mean to be negative, I just don't want to contribute to unrealistic expectations.

I thought you would buy in right away to unrealistic expectations. Foo is 6' 185-190 lbs so I wouldn't say he is small and he is fast and quick which should be a compliment to the other two. What is it you think we should wait for ? Foo is what we need in order to free up more space for Gaudreau to work his magic. We should get it going now, this is the season IMO to get these players such as Foo and Jankowski into the mix if we want to be constant challenger after this season.

[cross16]

I agree with JJ, if Foo is on the NHL team this years its a bonus. Honestly, IMO if he makes the NHL its a bonus. 

 

don't need to write him off and i'm not, but its far more likely that Foo plays in the AHL this year than the NHL. While ya he had a wicked move in the shootout, most of what i've read is that he didn't stand out as much in the scrimmage outside of that move. Given that I saw him last year and he didn't stand out at that point either, i'm very skeptical that suddenly this guy is a top 6 NHLer when he doesn't excel at development.

 

Possible, but very unlikely. Typically the young players who have jumped into the NHL, ala Monahan, Johnny etc, have excelled at Development camp. If he proves me wrong all the better. but I won't be planning on it. Guys who make as big a jump points wise as he did in his junior year give me a lot of pause. 

[MAC331]

11 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I agree with JJ, if Foo is on the NHL team this years its a bonus. Honestly, IMO if he makes the NHL its a bonus. 

 

don't need to write him off and i'm not, but its far more likely that Foo plays in the AHL this year than the NHL. While ya he had a wicked move in the shootout, most of what i've read is that he didn't stand out as much in the scrimmage outside of that move. Given that I saw him last year and he didn't stand out at that point either, i'm very skeptical that suddenly this guy is a top 6 NHLer when he doesn't excel at development.

 

Possible, but very unlikely. Typically the young players who have jumped into the NHL, ala Monahan, Johnny etc, have excelled at Development camp. If he proves me wrong all the better. but I won't be planning on it. Guys who make as big a jump points wise as he did in his junior year give me a lot of pause. 

Man you must be some kind of talent assessor if you can make those judgements at a 1 week development camp. The staff has all kinds of things to look at and consider so I high doubt NHL ability is determined this week but you seem to have formed opinions already.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I agree with JJ, if Foo is on the NHL team this years its a bonus. Honestly, IMO if he makes the NHL its a bonus. 

 

don't need to write him off and i'm not, but its far more likely that Foo plays in the AHL this year than the NHL. While ya he had a wicked move in the shootout, most of what i've read is that he didn't stand out as much in the scrimmage outside of that move. Given that I saw him last year and he didn't stand out at that point either, i'm very skeptical that suddenly this guy is a top 6 NHLer when he doesn't excel at development.

 

Possible, but very unlikely. Typically the young players who have jumped into the NHL, ala Monahan, Johnny etc, have excelled at Development camp. If he proves me wrong all the better. but I won't be planning on it. Guys who make as big a jump points wise as he did in his junior year give me a lot of pause. 

 

I get the pause.  Many NCAA players don't make the jump easily.  Callgiula and Vesey were both rookies that had "meh" seasons.  No big deal.  If Foo can win a spot and put up numbers similar to Chiasson in year one, that would be a win.  It's a pretty reasonable expectation.  The thing about Foo is that he didn't play his senior year, so you don't see the 2 years of success in the NCAA.  Does not mean he isn;t capable, just didn't get to display it.

 

We have a couple of natural RW's.  Giving them some competition would be good.  We also have LW's that can play RW.  Except for Frolik, none are high level.  Interesting to see if BT simply makes a move for a RW or Gully uses Ferland, Lazar, Tkachuk or other on the top line.

 

Rambling a bit.  

 

  

[cross16]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Man you must be some kind of talent assessor if you can make those judgements at a 1 week development camp. The staff has all kinds of things to look at and consider so I high doubt NHL ability is determined this week but you seem to have formed opinions already.

 

Just like yourself making assumptions on a player you've never seen?

 

Not sure how saying he will be given every chance to succeed but the odds are against him is making any opinions but to each his own. I just happen to agree that rather than pencil this guy in on the top 6 like some, it's more realistic to pencil him at the AHL level and then hope he surprised. But to each his own. 

 

 

[conundrumed]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Man you must be some kind of talent assessor if you can make those judgements at a 1 week development camp. The staff has all kinds of things to look at and consider so I high doubt NHL ability is determined this week but you seem to have formed opinions already.

Yikes. He's just giving his opinion...as the rest of us like to.

It doesn't make the content right...it makes us enjoy discussion.

If we aren't disagreeing, no one is learning. lol

[Cowtownguy]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Man you must be some kind of talent assessor if you can make those judgements at a 1 week development camp. The staff has all kinds of things to look at and consider so I high doubt NHL ability is determined this week but you seem to have formed opinions already.

Foo is an exciting player, no doubt, and he deserves his chance. I admire your optimism and I kind of share it. It seems to me that he has made several adjustments to his game in just one season. That is impressive. He might be able to continue adjusting into an NHL environment fairly quickly too. It would be interesting to see.

 

As stated above, he seems to play so open (maybe sheltered) that he might get clocked. If he can keep his head up and deal with the roughing of the NHL, he could well be a big winner. My fear is that if the Flames put him on the first line after a good camp, he gets seriously Scott Stevend and is never the same. His confidence is high and a major challenge at this point could be troubling. So, I kind of hope that the boys are a little hard on him in camp.

 

By contrast, I highly doubt that Fox is going to get knocked around too much when he gets to the NHL. He might be a little on the short side of tall, but he has some serious thickness to him and is very alert on the ice. I am not sure how a little feller like him can see the ice that well, but he does it somehow. 

 

I really like Valimaki. I think that he will be amazing. That dude has huevos from what little I have seen of him. Having said that, I own a Phaneuf jersey. 

[MAC331]

46 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

Foo is an exciting player, no doubt, and he deserves his chance. I admire your optimism and I kind of share it. It seems to me that he has made several adjustments to his game in just one season. That is impressive. He might be able to continue adjusting into an NHL environment fairly quickly too. It would be interesting to see.

 

As stated above, he seems to play so open (maybe sheltered) that he might get clocked. If he can keep his head up and deal with the roughing of the NHL, he could well be a big winner. My fear is that if the Flames put him on the first line after a good camp, he gets seriously Scott Stevend and is never the same. His confidence is high and a major challenge at this point could be troubling. So, I kind of hope that the boys are a little hard on him in camp.

 

By contrast, I highly doubt that Fox is going to get knocked around too much when he gets to the NHL. He might be a little on the short side of tall, but he has some serious thickness to him and is very alert on the ice. I am not sure how a little feller like him can see the ice that well, but he does it somehow. 

 

I really like Valimaki. I think that he will be amazing. That dude has huevos from what little I have seen of him. Having said that, I own a Phaneuf jersey. 

I am just going on the pairs per line strategy that some are employing and I tend to agree with for this team. Gaudreau and Monahan are a pair that are now 4 seasons in ad I believe they need a player more like Foo than Ferland. I would make a few sacrifices this season to see players such as Foo and Jankowski gain the experience now so we can be that much better in 2018/19. Tkachuk managed it at 18 with Backlund and Frolik so why not roll the dice again, he can always head to Stockton if it does work.

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Just like yourself making assumptions on a player you've never seen?

 

Not sure how saying he will be given every chance to succeed but the odds are against him is making any opinions but to each his own. I just happen to agree that rather than pencil this guy in on the top 6 like some, it's more realistic to pencil him at the AHL level and then hope he surprised. But to each his own. 

 

 

Sorry cross I got carried away there.

[CBTC-FLAMES-EDITION]

We already know the type of player that has played the best with Gaudreau and Monahan in this league and it's Hudler. Foo has the same physical characteristics and similar hockey attributes so maybe he will work out great on the top line. Worst case is he doesn't. Big reach I know but why not dream? 

 

[The_People1]

29 minutes ago, CBTC-FLAMES-EDITION said:

We already know the type of player that has played the best with Gaudreau and Monahan in this league and it's Hudler. Foo has the same physical characteristics and similar hockey attributes so maybe he will work out great on the top line. Worst case is he doesn't. Big reach I know but why not dream? 

 

 

System has changed under GG so I'm not sure Hudler would even succeed if he was still here in his prime.

 

That said, we've been trying to give Johnny size on the wing to help with the cycle game.  Ferland, Chiasson, Brouwer, Colborne, etc. Johnny will probably work better with speed instead of size.  Versteeg has been the closest but not consistent enough.

 

Might as well give Foo a look.  He seems to have blazing speed.

[MAC331]

13 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

System has changed under GG so I'm not sure Hudler would even succeed if he was still here in his prime.

 

That said, we've been trying to give Johnny size on the wing to help with the cycle game.  Ferland, Chiasson, Brouwer, Colborne, etc. Johnny will probably work better with speed instead of size.  Versteeg has been the closest but not consistent enough.

 

Might as well give Foo a look.  He seems to have blazing speed.

I agree they need to get away from the cycling especially for the JG/SM line, play making has to be the order of the day. Hudler was very good with passing and being in the shooting lanes. Foo will of course lack the experience but could put his speed and quickness to good use.

[The_People1]

Was Poirier at camp?  Any news on how he is recovering from substance abuse?

[conundrumed]

Yes he was. All indications were that he looks a lot better. Huska discussed the change he sees in him already.

He's spending the summer in Calgary to work on his game and issues.

Some comments from camp I've heard spoke him being back to tempo and aggression.

Don't know how to think of him, personally. I'd written him off, but the news breaks out the compassion and I hope he gets himself on track.

He admitted he struggled with alcohol away from the rink, makes me wonder who he rooms with during the season?

Gives me pause on Huska also and how this could have gotten away from the coach.

Just imo, but if your the coach, you're babysitting a bunch of young men, you should be dealing with one of the main issues that seems to arise with regularity.

They need your help.

Makes me think of the Brian Sutter incident with the Hawks year ago, when the stars of the team couldn't stay out of the bar.

The Flyers with Richards and Carter and the "dry island".

These things tend to turn into a detriment to the person trying to put measures in place to get a handle on the problem.

[CBTC-FLAMES-EDITION]

2 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Yes he was. All indications were that he looks a lot better. Huska discussed the change he sees in him already.

He's spending the summer in Calgary to work on his game and issues.

Some comments from camp I've heard spoke him being back to tempo and aggression.

Don't know how to think of him, personally. I'd written him off, but the news breaks out the compassion and I hope he gets himself on track.

He admitted he struggled with alcohol away from the rink, makes me wonder who he rooms with during the season?

Gives me pause on Huska also and how this could have gotten away from the coach.

Just imo, but if your the coach, you're babysitting a bunch of young men, you should be dealing with one of the main issues that seems to arise with regularity.

They need your help.

Makes me think of the Brian Sutter incident with the Hawks year ago, when the stars of the team couldn't stay out of the bar.

The Flyers with Richards and Carter and the "dry island".

These things tend to turn into a detriment to the person trying to put measures in place to get a handle on the problem.

Completely agree. Most sports and hockey especially are generally not conducive to sobriety and recovery but I'm sure if the team sees enough talent there, he will get the support he needs from them. Unfortunately that's how it goes usually. For me, if he can learn to still be a good hockey player, good enough for the show, and he takes care of himself with a lot of support, he could earn himself another contract with us and a chance to make the team. He seemed to have played pretty well at camp this year. 19 goals and 42 points in 55 games in his first AHL season is not easy to do so there's is a lot of to take a chance on there. Wishing him all the best.  

[conundrumed]

2 minutes ago, CBTC-FLAMES-EDITION said:

Completely agree. Most sports and hockey especially are generally not conducive to sobriety and recovery but I'm sure if the team sees enough talent there, he will get the support he needs from them. Unfortunately that's how it goes usually. For me, if he can learn to still be a good hockey player, good enough for the show, and he takes care of himself with a lot of support, he could earn himself another contract with us and a chance to make the team. He seemed to have played pretty well at camp this year. 19 goals and 42 points in 55 games in his first AHL season is not easy to do so there's is a lot of to take a chance on there. Wishing him all the best.  

I'm all for it. I had left him for dead, so any progression is welcomed.

We are short a top 6 RW, it was meant to be him right now, I'm sure.

[MAC331]

14 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I'm all for it. I had left him for dead, so any progression is welcomed.

We are short a top 6 RW, it was meant to be him right now, I'm sure.

You know who I think Poirier would be good with is Backlund and Frolik on LW. He has the edge and tenaciousness to be effective and has the ability to score some goals.

[The_People1]

16 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Yes he was. All indications were that he looks a lot better. Huska discussed the change he sees in him already.

He's spending the summer in Calgary to work on his game and issues.

Some comments from camp I've heard spoke him being back to tempo and aggression.

Don't know how to think of him, personally. I'd written him off, but the news breaks out the compassion and I hope he gets himself on track.

He admitted he struggled with alcohol away from the rink, makes me wonder who he rooms with during the season?

Gives me pause on Huska also and how this could have gotten away from the coach.

Just imo, but if your the coach, you're babysitting a bunch of young men, you should be dealing with one of the main issues that seems to arise with regularity.

They need your help.

Makes me think of the Brian Sutter incident with the Hawks year ago, when the stars of the team couldn't stay out of the bar.

The Flyers with Richards and Carter and the "dry island".

These things tend to turn into a detriment to the person trying to put measures in place to get a handle on the problem.

 

Thanks, that's good to know.  I had also written him off but now realize he was playing under some difficult circumstances.  I'm willing to give him a second chance and hopefully he gets clean and develops on the right direction.  

 

Definitely, we are missing a RW and he was surely supposed to have been that missing piece.

[Khrox]

Yeah, we're at the point where last year should have likely been his first full year in the NHL. I'm glad he approached Tre about getting the help. As much as you can say "The coach should have caught this and done something" sometimes the person doesn't want to be helped. Or doesn't see themselves as needing help until hitting a new low. That very well may have been the case. Either way, I'm glad he's pulling himself together, hopefully he has a hell of a year and pushes for a spot around midseason. If he regains his junior form (of speed and aggressiveness with a scoring touch) he could be a huge asset for our top 9 (I'd say top 6, but really, the Bennett line might be able to benefit from that play as well).

[cross16]

I think its unfair to blame the coach. Normally these problems only show up when the player leaves the rink and even if they do show up at the rink the player has to want the help and it sounds like Porier wasn't having it at first. I don't think its realistic for a coach to know everything about everything in terms of his team and players and that is why in most cases I find stuff like that is unknown until the person comes forward with it.

 

either way I give him alot of credit and i'll be back cheering for him. I'm glad there was a valid reason to all of the concerns that were raised the last couple seasons because before that his development was looking great. 

 

 

[travel_dude]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

I think its unfair to blame the coach. Normally these problems only show up when the player leaves the rink and even if they do show up at the rink the player has to want the help and it sounds like Porier wasn't having it at first. I don't think its realistic for a coach to know everything about everything in terms of his team and players and that is why in most cases I find stuff like that is unknown until the person comes forward with it.

 

either way I give him alot of credit and i'll be back cheering for him. I'm glad there was a valid reason to all of the concerns that were raised the last couple seasons because before that his development was looking great. 

 

 

 

If he can get back the parts of his game that disappeared, that would be great.  He was a reach when he was drafted, but had a good rookie AHL season.