Calgary Flames Expectations

[conundrumed]

7 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yups.  The point of point shots is not to directly score but to create scoring chances as a result of rebounds, deflections, and the ensuing scramble.  The harder the shot from the point, the harder for goalies to prevent a rebound.

An accurate shot is more important than a hard shot from the point. Gotta get it through. A hard shot creates chaos when it misses. See: Giordano.

Even watching the Flames practice on an open net, they miss a lot. Gotta stop the "perfect shot" mentality.

[travel_dude]

17 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

An accurate shot is more important than a hard shot from the point. Gotta get it through. A hard shot creates chaos when it misses. See: Giordano.

Even watching the Flames practice on an open net, they miss a lot. Gotta stop the "perfect shot" mentality.

 

Dougie never had a rocket, but managed to create PP goals.

Burns wires it pretty hard, but he hits the net or stick.

You are right about Gio.

Can Stone even hit the net or does it hit the glass 5 feet over the net?   

[conundrumed]

48 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Dougie never had a rocket, but managed to create PP goals.

Burns wires it pretty hard, but he hits the net or stick.

You are right about Gio.

Can Stone even hit the net or does it hit the glass 5 feet over the net?   

I'd trade velocity for accuracy all day everyday.

It'll be fun watching Hanafin develop.

Hanafin-Andersson.

[stubblejumper1]

8 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I'd trade velocity for accuracy all day everyday.

It'll be fun watching Hanafin develop.

Hanafin-Andersson.

 

I agree.  Dion Phaneuf was a perfect example of someone who couldn't hit a barn with his 100 mph clapper. 

[cross16]

 

21 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yes it's low percentage but the percentage increases the harder the shot.  Thus the harder the point shot, the more respect it commands.

 

It's difficult to stretch the PK box if they don't challenge our point shots.  They just stay tight knowing you have no abilities to score from the outside.

 

What are higher percentage plays on the PP? 

 

Sure but aren't we talking about what maybe 5-6 guys in the league like that? Pretty rare skill set so while sure I agree it would command respect the idea thst it's "needed" in order to get s good pp I can't agree. Most of the top PPs last year I don't see a big point shot but obviously you'd switch up your set up if you had s big point shot. In a 1-3-1 I want the shots to come from the 3 spots. Funnel pucks to the net and use movement in order to get the goalie moving so when the shot comes he isn't square but missed opportunities still can keep possession of the puck. 

[rickross]

10 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I'd trade velocity for accuracy all day everyday.

It'll be fun watching Hanafin develop.

Hanafin-Andersson.

In today’s game I’d take the accuracy...the way teams clog lanes and block shots has really taken away from the Al Macinnis point man. Besides Flames don’t really have any great crease clearers or shot deflectors/screeners. Tkachuk is really the only one whose proven he can make a living in front of the net like that. I’d take picking any corner I want over trying to shoot threw ppl in todays game. Hanifin has the right tools, he’s a better skater than I gave him credit for and could prove a nice option to QB a PP unit if we ever get one....

[Cowtownguy]

1 hour ago, stubblejumper1 said:

 

I agree.  Dion Phaneuf was a perfect example of someone who couldn't hit a barn with his 100 mph clapper. 

[redfire11]

On our 7 PP attempts against Van. Heavy shots from the point in the first couple would have sent a couple canuks to the dressing room. The next 5 our defense would have had an open lane. Why do you think Wideman was effective. 

[rickross]

Can’t believe it but it already feels like the home opener is a “must win”, a convincing win would go a long ways. Annoyingly, I’m not surprised if the Nucks come and play a solid spoiler game and steal another one from us. Not always the worst case,sometimes embarrassing starts early in the season get the players more dialed in moving forward. 

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

One thing I noticed watching alot of jets games last year is opposing PK units treated the PP way differently when Buff was on the ice. They gave him lots of room and time to make a proper pass, and if he did shoot it may not always on net but it was close (deflectable) and hardly ever more than 2 - 2.5 feet off the ice. I know Gio doesnt have the velocity but he does have the passing. Sacrifice a few PP having him cannon a few into the shot blockers, eventually he'll get the space to either set up better chances or get a LOW hard shot off.

 

As for the entry. I must be totally missing something. What is the benefit of bumping back to the back end if the other 4 skaters are static on the blue line? If he shoots it in the PP is starting from a dead stop on the blue line. If he carries it across it's basically a 1 on 4 until everyone else is up to speed.If he want to pass to anyone they all have coverage. I seriously thought  the new coaching would have done away with this, not do longer bump backs.

[conundrumed]

10 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

One thing I noticed watching alot of jets games last year is opposing PK units treated the PP way differently when Buff was on the ice. They gave him lots of room and time to make a proper pass, and if he did shoot it may not always on net but it was close (deflectable) and hardly ever more than 2 - 2.5 feet off the ice. I know Gio doesnt have the velocity but he does have the passing. Sacrifice a few PP having him cannon a few into the shot blockers, eventually he'll get the space to either set up better chances or get a LOW hard shot off.

 

As for the entry. I must be totally missing something. What is the benefit of bumping back to the back end if the other 4 skaters are static on the blue line? If he shoots it in the PP is starting from a dead stop on the blue line. If he carries it across it's basically a 1 on 4 until everyone else is up to speed.If he want to pass to anyone they all have coverage. I seriously thought  the new coaching would have done away with this, not do longer bump backs.

the bump back is all the rage now with most teams. My only issue with the bump back is when it becomes the only trick in the bag. The other team should be guessing, not KNOWING what will happen when they see JG or Brodie back there.

[cross16]

56 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

the bump back is all the rage now with most teams. My only issue with the bump back is when it becomes the only trick in the bag. The other team should be guessing, not KNOWING what will happen when they see JG or Brodie back there.

 

Agreed. However I would add this is the type of thing that usually isn't prepared for game 1 of the season. Film session should fix this. 

 

The point of the bump back is to attack the neutral zone with speed. It allows 2 players to keep skating through the neutral zone and the "bump back" is trying to get the Pkers to freeze so you can attack a stationary object with speed. Problem I saw in the highlights in Vancouver is they would freeze and then simply stack 3 guys on whatever side Johnny picked. Someither had to try and find a seam through 3 guys, so even though they were stationary it's a challenging play. I think in that case you need to play dump and chase and try and utilize your one on one on the far side. I don't really understand why fans complain about the bump back because it works. The problem with the Flames pp has rarely been gaining the zone it's executing when in the zone. The Flames pp last year was successful with getting pucks in they just failed in converting. Blaming thst on the bump pass is poor logic and I've never understood it. 

 

Not a difficult adjustment to make and one I'm confident Ward/Peters will see. They seem to be about adjustments and Cameron was not. 

[travel_dude]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Agreed. However I would add this is the type of thing that usually isn't prepared for game 1 of the season. Film session should fix this. 

 

The point of the bump back is to attack the neutral zone with speed. It allows 2 players to keep skating through the neutral zone and the "bump back" is trying to get the Pkers to freeze so you can attack a stationary object with speed. Problem I saw in the highlights in Vancouver is they would freeze and then simply stack 3 guys on whatever side Johnny picked. Someither had to try and find a seam through 3 guys, so even though they were stationary it's a challenging play. I think in that case you need to play dump and chase and try and utilize your one on one on the far side. I don't really understand why fans complain about the bump back because it works. The problem with the Flames pp has rarely been gaining the zone it's executing when in the zone. The Flames pp last year was successful with getting pucks in they just failed in converting. Blaming thst on the bump pass is poor logic and I've never understood it. 

 

Not a difficult adjustment to make and one I'm confident Ward/Peters will see. They seem to be about adjustments and Cameron was not. 

 

To add to this, the Flames system seems to include skating backwards looking at the trailer.  The trailer is below the faceoff circle waiting to generate some speed.  Nobody is fooled.  4 guys line up on the blueline.  Plenty of time to figure out where the puck carrier is going.  It can work, but execution needs to be correct.  As well, there are other ways to skin a cat.  

[conundrumed]

I agree and have nothing against the bump back, but you do it early at the redline where your other guys are still skating. Not 3 strides from their blueline that puts everyone at a standstill. A 20' bump is fine, but it looked like we doubled that in game 1. It's too readable doing a long bump back so the other team has too much time to react to it.

The idea imo is to get them on their heels. 40' bump backs has the opposite effect. Tighten it up is all I ask, and don't rely on JG 100% of the time. It's part of what makes him a turnover machine. If he's up high, teams won't be awaiting the bump like they do now. Switch it up.

[travel_dude]

40 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I agree and have nothing against the bump back, but you do it early at the redline where your other guys are still skating. Not 3 strides from their blueline that puts everyone at a standstill. A 20' bump is fine, but it looked like we doubled that in game 1. It's too readable doing a long bump back so the other team has too much time to react to it.

The idea imo is to get them on their heels. 40' bump backs has the opposite effect. Tighten it up is all I ask, and don't rely on JG 100% of the time. It's part of what makes him a turnover machine. If he's up high, teams won't be awaiting the bump like they do now. Switch it up.

 

Brodie and him were good at zone entries last year.  I prefer when there is a forward moving at speed when either of them enter.  JH tends to curl back and pass sideways when they aren;t entering with speed.  Results in a turnover too often.  The other thing about that is he's supposed to be the QB when they are set up.  How's he supposed to do that if he has to control the entry as well.

[conundrumed]

6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Brodie and him were good at zone entries last year.  I prefer when there is a forward moving at speed when either of them enter.  JH tends to curl back and pass sideways when they aren;t entering with speed.  Results in a turnover too often.  The other thing about that is he's supposed to be the QB when they are set up.  How's he supposed to do that if he has to control the entry as well.

So if I'm a defending coach I'm telling my PKers to give him the blue line and look for the lateral pick off.

If my dumb Hash Rate can see that, I'm sure our opponents break it down even more.

At least fake the play once in a while to have them guessing. Johnny'll catch up, with or without the puck.

That's my biggest complaint. We telegraph the bump back 5 seconds before it happens.

[electrical_ace]

Prout on the ice when we’re down 5 on 3??? Not installing a lot of confidence in the coaching decision

[Cowtownguy]

1 hour ago, electrical_ace said:

Prout on the ice when we’re down 5 on 3??? Not installing a lot of confidence in the coaching decision

It seems like an odd decision. Peters needs to try out players to give them a chance. If he does this again, then he should be faulted IMO.

[travel_dude]

17 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

It seems like an odd decision. Peters needs to try out players to give them a chance. If he does this again, then he should be faulted IMO.

 

Gio and Stone in the box.

Better choices could have been made.

Like playing Andersson.

Give it time.

 

[cross16]

Gio, Stone in the box, Hanifin on the ice and Valamaki had just finished a shift. Choice was Prout, double shift Valamaki or Brodie(who doesn't really kill penalties). 

 

it was not a bad decision it was really the only decision. When you have 3 of your top PKers in the box or injured, this happens. 

 

 

[electrical_ace]

19 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Gio, Stone in the box, Hanifin on the ice and Valamaki had just finished a shift. Choice was Prout, double shift Valamaki or Brodie(who doesn't really kill penalties). 

 

it was not a bad decision it was really the only decision. When you have 3 of your top PKers in the box or injured, this happens. 

 

 

You don’t put a goon on for a 5 on 3 against. Especially when it’s his first game. So this should not happen. Period

[cross16]

Just now, electrical_ace said:

You don’t put a goon on for a 5 on 3 against. Especially when it’s his first game. So this should not happen. Period

 

if you think Prout is only a goon then that is also incorrect

[electrical_ace]

Just now, cross16 said:

 

if you think Prout is only a goon then that is also incorrect

You think Prout is the best decision considering we could have also used one of our defensive fwds in his place?

[cross16]

12 minutes ago, electrical_ace said:

You think Prout is the best decision considering we could have also used one of our defensive fwds in his place?

 

Playing a forward out of position in defence is a better idea? No, I wouldn't agree with that. 

 

Based on the bench last night yes I think Prout was the "best" decision Peters had. Doesnt made it a great decision but circumstance dictated it. Seems to me people want to be more upset about Prout being on the roster in the first place instead of him being used on the PK. 

[electrical_ace]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Playing a forward out of position in defence is a better idea? No, I wouldn't agree with that. 

 

Based on the bench last night yes I think Prout was the "best" decision Peters had. Doesnt made it a great decision but circumstance dictated it. Seems to me people want to be more upset about Prout being on the roster in the first place instead of him being used on the PK. 

Difference of opinion I guess