5 Things to Be Contenders

[kehatch]

Here is my 5 things that need to happen for the Flames to be Stanley Cup threats next season (along with the likelihood of it happening). 

 

NUMBER ONE: Average Goal-Tending

 

I would like to be original for this one, but I can't be.  This was our Achilles heal a season ago and it was exposed in the playoffs.  The Flames don't need Carey Price, but they need respectable tending to win 7 games series against the leagues best.  To be fair to Elliott and Johnson our team save percentage was 21st overall with a terrible team start.  The problem was consistency, or a lack of.

 

Will they get it: Yes (80%)

 

Smith put up better numbers then either of the Flames goalies on a much worse team.  He was also the best goalie on his team by a fair margin by the numbers.  Most importantly, he is consistent. He didn't suffer the game by game / month by month swings that Ellliott and Johnson did.  Add in an improved D core, experience with the coaches system, and no contract hold ups of our top players and we should see an easier environment for our goalies.  

[kehatch]

NUMBER TWO: Brouwer Rebound

 

This is a cap league.  We are a cap team with a lack of depth on the RW.  We can't have our most expensive 4.5-million dollar RW on the fourth line.  We don't need Brouwer 2.0.  I don't expect him to drive a line, be a possession monster, or take 80% of his draws in the defensive zone.  What I need is the Brouwer of the past who plays physical, puts up 20G/20A, and gives you some decent special teams play.  

 

Will they get it: Probably Not (40%)

 

Brouwer was apparently injured for a lot of last season so maybe we see a rebound.  The issue is where does he play?  He and Bennett were a terrible combo.  He wasn't great on the top line and that is Ferland's job to lose.  He doesn't fit well with Backlund on a ultra defensive line, plus he would end up moving Frolik to LW which doesn't help your RW depth.  He is going to have to earn a spot in the top nine during camp and in the early season or he is going to be stuck on the fourth line. 

[kehatch]

NUMBER THREE: Here Comes 19-year Old Sam Bennett

 

In 2014/15 we were introduced to 19-year old Sam Bennett in the playoffs.  This kid played with skill but made an impact every shift with his energy level and physical play.  Unfortunately we have only seen flashes of that since then.  Last season in particular was supposed to be a break out season for him, but he actually took a step back by most metrics.  We need an effective third line and Bennett is the guy down the middle of that line.  We need him to have an impact this season.    

 

Will they get it: Probably (65%)

 

Bennett actually looked good by many of the advanced metrics last season.  The Flames were unable to get him consistent wingers that were worth a damn.  He was also adapting to the centre position.  Will it change this season?  Possibly.  They haven't added anything to the forward ranks, at least not yet, so they are going to have to hope for growth from within to get him some wingers.  But if they do that, and he gets some confidence early, then chances are he finally breaks out this season.  

[kehatch]

NUMBER Four: The D Performs as well as it Looks on Paper

 

On paper the Flames are right there with Nashville and Anaheim with the top D in the NHL.  They are going to have to be.  Last season there was a steep drop off from the top pairing of Giordano-Hamilton.  With (we hope) average goal-tending and limited changes to the forward roster we are relying on the D to improve us from average to contender.    

 

Will they get it: Absolutely (90%)

 

We saw this movie once before when Sutter acquired Bouwmeester to give us one of the top D in the league.  Spoiler alert.  It didn't end well. Also, Brodie, Hamonic, and Stone are all coming off of very disappointing seasons and all need to rebound to reach our potential.  So why am I so optimistic?  Because the pieces just fit so well.  We know Giordano-Hamilton are awesome.  We also know Brodie is historically awesome when not shackled with a liability as a partner. In fact, just the addition of Stone turned our top 4 around last season.  Hamonic is the picture perfect partner to Brodie and he was hurt last season. And Stone gives us top 4 depth if we do suffer an injury.  

[kehatch]

NUMBER Five: Who is Da Man

 

We need one unexpected player to step up and wow us next season.  Maybe Ferland shows us that his last handful of games wasn't a fluke and he can be a top 6 producer.  Is Foo the college UFA this year to make a big impact.  Does Jankowski prove Feaster and company right.  Perhaps one of our many D prospects makes a big impact.  It could be that Gilles or Parsons is our Murray or Vasilevskiy and pushes out a veteran goalie. Maybe we get a feel good story from Poirier, or someone totally unexpected like Klimchuk.  We are going to need a surprise to take us to the cup.     

 

Will they get it: I think so (75%)

 

There is opportunity on the big club and players ready to make an impact.  I like how the Flames have handled their kids lately and I am confident the GM will make room if someone steps up.  When you look at the RW spot on the top line, the vacancy on the third line, the questions around our goalies, and the spot open on D you have to think someone is going to have the means to take advantage of the opportunity.      

[travel_dude]

Comments to your top 5:

 

1) Agreed that Smith/Lack should at least provide average goaltending, so that alone is something that could save our bacon early on.  The two early tests will be EDM and ANA.  

 

2) Brouwer's biggest problem last year wasn't scoring, it was moving the puck in the right direction, so to speak.  I just don't see a fit in the top 9 as a RW.  Maybe playing him with Stajan-Janko will create the right circumstances for his play to return.

 

3) Bennett needs at least one impact winger.  Maybe it's Ferland or Tkachuk.  Maybe both.  Maybe Foo is just the right mix of speed and skill to provide him the right opportunities.

 

4) Every reason to get excited with the D we have for the coming season.  Kulak may be ready to take on a full time role as the number 6 guy.  He fare well with Engelland, so there is reason for hope.  But in reality, that is just the 3rd pair, so it just has to be stable.  Brodie with anyone other than Wideman or Grossmann or Engelland is cause for celebration.

 

5) The "da man" guy has to be a RW.  That was the biggest area of concern last season, and could make the biggest difference.  Chaisson, Brouwer, Hathaway, then Lazar....  Not exactly names that scream scoring leader.  We need a guy to step up on RW this year.  Either the 1st or 3rd line.    

[jjgallow]

11 hours ago, kehatch said:

NUMBER ONE: Average Goal-Tending

 

I'm already depressed.

 

If this is a plan to Win the highest award in hockey, why is the target, at the most important position in the game, to be average???

 

How often does an average goaltender win the cup....Once every...10 years?

 

Quote

 The Flames don't need Carey Price

 

He wouldn't hurt, either.

[AlbertaBoy12]

30 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I'm already depressed.

 

If this is a plan to Win the highest award in hockey, why is the target, at the most important position in the game, to be average???

 

How often does an average goaltender win the cup....Once every...10 years?

 

 

He wouldn't hurt, either.

While the penguins have had murray  as a very good goaltender some would say elite level, you dont need an elite goalie to take you to the cup. While the past couple years its been some very elite goalies in the stanley cup finals. Above average goalies such as bishop, crawford have made the trip as well. I think the point being you need top 10 goaltending to get you to the cup final, which honestly smith has a very good chance to provide with our defense. Smith had very good save percentages in the high danger category among other things, and that should translate well behind our D corp. 

[travel_dude]

44 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I'm already depressed.

 

If this is a plan to Win the highest award in hockey, why is the target, at the most important position in the game, to be average???

 

How often does an average goaltender win the cup....Once every...10 years?

 

 

He wouldn't hurt, either.

 

That is the minimum, wouldn't you agree?  

[MAC331]

Just now, AlbertaBoy12 said:

While the penguins have had murray  as a very good goaltender some would say elite level, you dont need an elite goalie to take you to the cup. While the past couple years its been some very elite goalies in the stanley cup finals. Above average goalies such as bishop, crawford have made the trip as well. I think the point being you need top 10 goaltending to get you to the cup final, which honestly smith has a very good chance to provide with our defense. Smith had very good save percentages in the high danger category among other things, and that should translate well behind our D corp. 

I think the team as a whole needs to continue its improvement from last season. I agree with BT when he says the biggest improvement must come from our core maturing. Yes you can break it down as kehatch has we are simply mentioning where our weaknesses as a team have been. Goaltending in the NHL is marginally very close with a few exceptional well paid goalies. You need good to better than just good throughout the season to reach the playoffs then you need your goalie to be the hot one to win.

Brouwer will be what he will be whether he is top line or bottom line. His effort almost appeared as a confused player a lot and should he carry out his responsibilities like we know he is capable he will help us win.

I believe the formation of the right wingers with Bennett will be the single most important aspect for this season's team to showed marked improvement. Those wingers IMO at least to start out the season are Tkachuk LW and Lazar RW.

I honestly think if BT and GG are serious with their challenging for a Cup this season they shouldn't bother with advancing Kulak, Bartkowski or Wotherspoon and get someone like Brayden McNabb to make up an experienced defensive group. Keep Bartkowski as your 7th.

Lastly refer to 3, I think the biggest " who da Man" has to be the break out of two men Tkachuk and Bennett. I'm not expecting Foo or Jankowski to add much if anything to the success of this season's team.

[jjgallow]

27 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

That is the minimum, wouldn't you agree?  

 

Minimum to be a contender?  I actually wouldn't agree, no.   If a  contender is defined as a team with a viable chance at winning the cup, then, not really.   Could such a team potentially win the cup with an average goaltender?  Yes, but the government could also potentially decide to do away with taxes.

 

Also, I feel like a "contender" conversation is about targets, not minimums.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

 you dont need an elite goalie to take you to the cup.

 

ok....

 

Quote

 I think the point being you need top 10 goaltending to get you to the cup final, 

 

wait a minute...

 

Making the assumption that reaching the cup final is a requirement of winning the cup, IMHO, you need to choose between the two of those statements (I would choose the latter, for all practical purposes and 80/20 rules).

[travel_dude]

21 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Minimum to be a contender?  I actually wouldn't agree, no.   If a  contender is defined as a team with a viable chance at winning the cup, then, not really.   Could such a team potentially win the cup with an average goaltender?  Yes, but the government could also potentially decide to do away with taxes.

 

Also, I feel like a "contender" conversation is about targets, not minimums.

You can't win it on goaltending alone.  PITTS didn't do it.  The Hawks didn't.  At time Murray and MAF were average.  At times they were lights out.  But PITTS is a study in having just okay defense.  Maybe average is the wrong term to use.  Perhaps "stable" is better.  Even without that, we were still one of the better teams in the West last year.  Add that in to the other 4 things and we would be a contender.  

[cross16]

I have to agree with JJ here. Average goaltending will not win the Flames a cup, they will need above avg goaltending. I agree they don't necessarily need elite level goaltending but they'll need very good goaltenidng at a minimum IMO. Sure, avg goaltending will get them into the playoffs but that should no longer be the goal and they'll need more to contend for the division etc.

 

I agree with 3 of the 5. Goaltending (although I think they need more than that), Bennett has to emerge, and the D has to perform as good as it looks on paper. The other 2 I would quantify more specifically)

 

Special teams needs to remain in the top 10 combined. Cannot afford much drop off especially on the PP which leads to point 2.

Flames need to get into the top 12 or so in 5 on 5 offence. This would build off of what you said Kehatch in terms of "Who da man" but I think they need more than 1 forward to really step up. As i harp on consistently, the Flames were terrible last year with their 5 on 5 offence and you just cannot contend when you can't consistently create scoring chances and score 5 on 5. They need to take a massive jump here in order to be considered a contender IMO. 

[AlbertaBoy12]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

ok....

 

 

wait a minute...

 

Making the assumption that reaching the cup final is a requirement of winning the cup, IMHO, you need to choose between the two of those statements (I would choose the latter, for all practical purposes and 80/20 rules).

Youre like a reporter taking snippets from my whole statement and then arguing a point with that. A top 10 goaltender doesnt mean they are elite, ie brian elliott, ben bishop, like the list goes on. Above average would be anywhere over .920, which tbh is pretty high and even some big name goalies didnt make that mark. 

 

To further argue my point robin lehner had a .920, james reimer .920, john gibson  .924, darling had a .924, and all these guys played over 30 games, some of them well over 30 games. If we go back a season brian elliott led the league in save percentage and thomas greiss was third, both playing over 40 games. 

 

Which brings me back to my point that top 10 goaltending should get us into a cup final, but doesnt necessarily guarantee they are a elite goalie. If anything the better a team is defensively, a above average goaltender will look even better. Which is why I said smith is an above average goalie. 

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

Special teams needs to remain in the top 10 combined. Cannot afford much drop off especially on the PP which leads to point 2.

Flames need to get into the top 12 or so in 5 on 5 offence. This would build off of what you said Kehatch in terms of "Who da man" but I think they need more than 1 forward to really step up. As i harp on consistently, the Flames were terrible last year with their 5 on 5 offence and you just cannot contend when you can't consistently create scoring chances and score 5 on 5. They need to take a massive jump here in order to be considered a contender IMO. 

I would agree with you. Our two biggest weakness' were 5 v 5 offence and goaltending being consistent. I think with the improvements on defence a healthy mike smith should look really good, and our goaltending should be much improved. 

 

To improve 5 on 5 ferland needs to be a threat consistenly on that right side as was to finish up the season last year, and getting bennetts line going should be a huge help. With the improved defence again, the puck should be getting up to the forwards easily, and if ferland/bennetts line improve, our 5 on 5 offence should jump up. 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

You can't win it on goaltending alone.

 

Easy...no need to argue with a point made by nobody.

 

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

Perhaps "stable" is better.  

 

Stable is better, but top 10 is a lot more accurate and definable.   If goaltending is consistently sub-par, that's stable.

 

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

Even without that, we were still one of the better teams in the West last year.

 

You must be referring to the regular season.....   Even so, I would only agree in certain months.  And I could do that with almost any team except the bottom 5.

 

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

 

 

Stable is better, but top 10 is a lot more accurate and definable.   If goaltending is consistently sub-par, that's stable.

 

 

 

How do you define what is a top 10 goalie as it's a fairly fluid designation with some dropping in for a quick "hello" & others stepping out in a given year? 

Not that long ago Thomas went from nobody to top 10 & didn't take long to return to being a nobody.

 

[kehatch]

We can split hairs on the definition of what is average goal tending or what is needed to win a cup.  But there are two realities.  

 

One, Arizona was 16 overall in even strength save percentage despite being a terrible team.  The Flames were 21.  Mike Smith was also very consistent month to month.  The Flames had very inconsistent goal tending.  Between the goalie change, established coaching system, and improved D the Flames should reasonably be able to get top 10 tending.  

 

Two, most Stanley Cup winners have had relatively average goal tending by that metric (5 on 5 Sv%). In the last five teams to win the cup only LA and Boston consistently had strong goal-tending.  People will point to Pittsburgh as an example of great goal-tending.  But they were merely average by that metric in BOTH the regular season and the playoffs.  Heck, when Chicago won it in 2010 they were 29th in the league by that metric and just average in the playoffs.  

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said:

How do you define what is a top 10 goalie as it's a fairly fluid designation with some dropping in for a quick "hello" & others stepping out in a given year? 

Not that long ago Thomas went from nobody to top 10 & didn't take long to return to being a nobody.

 

You're absolutely right, top 10 IS Very hard to define.   All I'm saying, is it's a lot easier and useful than the term "stable".   Which, I suppose, is still better than "average" (which almost predicts failure).

 

My short answer is:  If in doubt...  they may not be top 10.  So to be on the safe side, go top 5.  There's a target worth aiming for.

[Flyerfan52]

12 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

You're absolutely right, top 10 IS Very hard to define.   All I'm saying, is it's a lot easier and useful than the term "stable".   Which, I suppose, is still better than "average" (which almost predicts failure).

 

My short answer is:  If in doubt...  they may not be top 10.  So to be on the safe side, go top 5.  There's a target worth aiming for.

So who are the top 5? Would they be attainable?

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, kehatch said:

 Between the goalie change, established coaching system, and improved D the Flames should reasonably be able to get top 10 tending.  

 

Agreed that it's hard to define some of these terms.   But honestly, I think it's harder still to say that the Flames improved their goaltending.   I would argue they downgraded it.   The improvements at D were, imho, minimal after a somewhat lucky injury-free season.   I'm not counting on an overall improvement at D either next year.    

 

I think most would agree with you on D (I'd be in the minority).  But to say we upgraded our goaltending, I feel you would be in the minority there.  Not that any of our opinions matter once the puck drops, just saying.

 

1 hour ago, kehatch said:

Two, most Stanley Cup winners have had relatively average goal tending by that metric (5 on 5 Sv%). In the last five teams to win the cup only LA and Boston consistently had strong goal-tending.  People will point to Pittsburgh as an example of great goal-tending.  But they were merely average by that metric in BOTH the regular season and the playoffs.  Heck, when Chicago won it in 2010 they were 29th in the league by that metric and just average in the playoffs.  

 

My issues with these analogies are that they are looking at the regular season.   And even then, you gotta go back 7 years to find an example of average goaltending that won anything.    And then another 10 years or so to find another cup win with an average goalie.

 

Since most of the league has "average" goalies, and they only win a cup once every 10 years....I'm not personally loving those odds as Plan A.

[jjgallow]

1 minute ago, Flyerfan52 said:

So who are the top 5? Would they be attainable?

 

They would be, but we'd have to either give up massive talent, or massive future.  IMHO, neither is worth it.

I dunno who the top 5 are.   But maybe:  Matt Murray, Carey Price, Martin Jones, Bobrovsky, John Gibson.

 

Like it, hate it....they're probably all wrong, but most are probably in the top 10.  And some could potentially get you where you need to go.

 

Attainable without massive sacrifice, IMHO, means we need to ask Who WILL be top 5.   Parsons helps.  Gillies helps (maybe).   Wouldn't have minded another one or two, preferably more notable ones that are NHL ready.   

 

Like or hate the strategy, or the ranking, my point is that average isn't gonna get us nowhere unless out of pure luck and nothing else.

[AlbertaBoy12]

13 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

They would be, but we'd have to either give up massive talent, or massive future.  IMHO, neither is worth it.

I dunno who the top 5 are.   But maybe:  Matt Murray, Carey Price, Martin Jones, Bobrovsky, John Gibson.

As others have pointed out the pens werent great 5 on 5 with save percentage so while I agree matt murray is good I dont know if I would go top 5 with him. In terms of jones and gibson are they top 5? I dont know about that, gibson can be inconsistent but I would rate him in the top 10, but I think he benefits from the team playing in front of him. Martin Jones in a tricky one he went from having a very good season to a below average one, and im not sure if he is benefiting from the team in front of him or not. 

 

I think its very hard to judge whos benefiting from the team in front of them or whos a very good goalie unless you have a really good eye for tenders. The good thing is as kehatch pointed out smith was 15th in even strength save percentage behind arizona, our team is shaping up to be way better then arizona so he should only look better if he can stay healthy. 

[Flyerfan52]

6 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

They would be, but we'd have to either give up massive talent, or massive future.  IMHO, neither is worth it.

I dunno who the top 5 are.   But maybe:  Matt Murray, Carey Price, Martin Jones, Bobrovsky, John Gibson.

 

Like it, hate it....they're probably all wrong, but most are probably in the top 10.  And some could potentially get you where you need to go.

 

Attainable without massive sacrifice, IMHO, means we need to ask Who WILL be top 5.   Parsons helps.  Gillies helps (maybe).   Wouldn't have minded another one or two, preferably more notable ones that are NHL ready.   

 

Like or hate the strategy, or the ranking, my point is that average isn't gonna get us nowhere unless out of pure luck and nothing else.

In other words not attainable without defeating the purpose.

As of last season I see Price, King Heinrich, Holtby, Rinni & Bobrovsky as the top 5 but to land any of them the cost would outweigh the benifit.

I saw signing Mason as UFA & trading for Grubauer to tandem as a cost effective solution but that bird has flown.

 

We have Smith/Lack so hopefully we get the Smith that looked so good a few years ago & that Lack's new Trevor Kidd inspired pads bring him more luck than Kidd had.

[kehatch]

39 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Agreed that it's hard to define some of these terms.   But honestly, I think it's harder still to say that the Flames improved their goaltending.   I would argue they downgraded it.   The improvements at D were, imho, minimal after a somewhat lucky injury-free season.   I'm not counting on an overall improvement at D either next year.    

 

I think most would agree with you on D (I'd be in the minority).  But to say we upgraded our goaltending, I feel you would be in the minority there.  Not that any of our opinions matter once the puck drops, just saying.

 

 

My issues with these analogies are that they are looking at the regular season.   And even then, you gotta go back 7 years to find an example of average goaltending that won anything.    And then another 10 years or so to find another cup win with an average goalie.

 

Since most of the league has "average" goalies, and they only win a cup once every 10 years....I'm not personally loving those odds as Plan A.

 

You don't see Hamonic + Stone as an upgrade over Wideman + Engelland? Tough crowd.  

 

As for the rest, Smith was better statistically then Elliott/Johnson on a much worse team.  He was also more consistent.  Also, you don't have to go back very far to find average playoff goal-tending winning the cup.  5 on 5 Pittsburgh and Chicago were both very average.  Overall, Murray was fantastic this season in the playoffs.  But a season ago his stats were identical to Elliott.  Which weren't anywhere near as good as Smith's were the last time he was in the playoffs (who has a 0.945% save percentage in the playoffs).

 

I am not trying to make a case that Smith is great.  I am certainly not making a case that he is better then Murray.  But you are off base in your theory that you need an elite goalie to win a cup.  In fact, for the vast majority of goalies they look great on great teams and poor on poor teams.  As we saw when Tim Thomas won Boston a Cup, Halak almost took Montreal to the cup (over Carey Price), Elliott was lights out in the playoffs for St Louis, Dubnyk transformed in Minnesota, etc, etc.