Calgary Flames 20/21 Roster and Lines

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

Agreed Gaudreau has to shoulder blame BUT he needs to make no apologies about the way he played.  He got the chances.  He just didn't finish.

 

One adjustment he has to make is stop going 5-hole on breakaways because I think goalies around the league has caught on to him.  He needs to practice shooting for the corners of the net which he rarely does.  Change it up.  He will be fine.  But yes, it's mainly his fault for putting up poor numbers.  He needs to finish on his chances.

He gets to the net similar to McDavid, but is too simplistic.

He has one move to McDavid's 10.

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

There is some truth to this, his shooting % did drop a lot, but at the same time so did his ability to generate chances. Mind you they were aligned with his career norms just a step down from last year. I don't think it's as easy as just "finish". 

 

but the main concern IMO is the playoffs where his numbers plummet drastically and he was non existent in the playoffs. he does need to take most of the blame for that and I do believe he needs to change the way he plays. 

 

Ya true he was useless in the playoffs.  

 

I'm talking about the regular season though.  Gaudreau has high probability to bounce back to point per game.  Hard to hit 99-points again but 82 is reasonable for the amount of odd man rushes he gets.

[The_People1]

5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

He gets to the net similar to McDavid, but is too simplistic.

He has one move to McDavid's 10.

 

Agreed.  Gaudreau gets his fair share of chances but the lack of finish hurt him last season.   I would worry if he wasn't even getting chances like in the playoffs.  But regular season should fine.

[cross16]

12 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya true he was useless in the playoffs.  

 

I'm talking about the regular season though.  Gaudreau has high probability to bounce back to point per game.  Hard to hit 99-points again but 82 is reasonable for the amount of odd man rushes he gets.

 

That part I don't disagree with. The primary reason for the drop in his numbers was that top struggled so much for the first third or so of the season. They were actually really good in the 2nd half and had the not gone through the stoppage I don't think we would be complaining about Gaudreau's numbers as much, they would have finished ok. 

 

But even though I agree the playoffs is where it needs to happen and without big changes to his game I'm not sure it can happen. Gaudreau being great in the regular season doesn't really help the Flames IMO. 

[cross16]

Interesting to hear on the radio yesterday Treliving be very forthright that part of their rationale to bring in Simon and Levrio is depth on the RS that would allow them to move Lindholm to center if they want to. Sounds like it's an active discussion that they are preparing for. 

 

My first thought, is it's a GM's job to provide flexibility to the roster so even though I have my own thoughts at Lindholm at center I like the approach. While it wasn't the primary reason they lost to Dallas, the lack of depth showed up when Tkachuk got hurt, and their lack of flexibility really hurt them by having to rely on so few guys for important tasks (ie the PK/late in game situations where Ward overused Backlund/Lindholm). 

 

But also have to wonder what this means for Monahan and Bennett. Coming out of the playoffs they seemed really committed to giving Bennett a real shot at center so i am hoping those plans haven't changed but at the same time they are now better prepared for the contingency plan of him not working. 

 

Monahan is probably the more interesting one who does seem to come up in trade rumors more often than Gaudreau. I'm not sure there is anything pending or close but reading between the lines it sounds like they may be more prepared to move Monahan than Gaudreau. 

[ABC923]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

Interesting to hear on the radio yesterday Treliving be very forthright that part of their rationale to bring in Simon and Levrio is depth on the RS that would allow them to move Lindholm to center if they want to. Sounds like it's an active discussion that they are preparing for. 

 

My first thought, is it's a GM's job to provide flexibility to the roster so even though I have my own thoughts at Lindholm at center I like the approach. While it wasn't the primary reason they lost to Dallas, the lack of depth showed up when Tkachuk got hurt, and their lack of flexibility really hurt them by having to rely on so few guys for important tasks (ie the PK/late in game situations where Ward overused Backlund/Lindholm). 

 

But also have to wonder what this means for Monahan and Bennett. Coming out of the playoffs they seemed really committed to giving Bennett a real shot at center so i am hoping those plans haven't changed but at the same time they are now better prepared for the contingency plan of him not working. 

 

Monahan is probably the more interesting one who does seem to come up in trade rumors more often than Gaudreau. I'm not sure there is anything pending or close but reading between the lines it sounds like they may be more prepared to move Monahan than Gaudreau. 

I sometimes wonder if Backlund is a luxury we can’t afford for much longer. Given his age, he’s probably going to start declining soon and carries a big cap hit.

 

Alternatively, maybe the plan is putting Bennett on the wing. We could run Lindholm/Monahan/Backlund down the middle and try to create three scoring lines that way.

[cross16]

17 minutes ago, ABC923 said:

I sometimes wonder if Backlund is a luxury we can’t afford for much longer. Given his age, he’s probably going to start declining soon and carries a big cap hit.

 

Alternatively, maybe the plan is putting Bennett on the wing. We could run Lindholm/Monahan/Backlund down the middle and try to create three scoring lines that way.

 

I know that thought is popular for some, but for me is so wrong. If you want to include all factors I think Backlund is the best center they have so that is hardly a luxury IMO, it's a necessity. 

 

Bennett on the wing could be the plan but it's very disappointing if that is the case. He's more comfortable at center, he looked great there and IMO fits a bit need of a speedy center who can rush the puck. It would be very disappointing to see those positive gains immediately offset by a move back to wing. They should trade him if that is the plan. 

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

That part I don't disagree with. The primary reason for the drop in his numbers was that top struggled so much for the first third or so of the season. They were actually really good in the 2nd half and had the not gone through the stoppage I don't think we would be complaining about Gaudreau's numbers as much, they would have finished ok. 

 

But even though I agree the playoffs is where it needs to happen and without big changes to his game I'm not sure it can happen. Gaudreau being great in the regular season doesn't really help the Flames IMO. 

 

That's fine in my opinion.

 

Sometimes you need one group of players to get you to the playoffs and then once you are in the playoffs, you need a second group to take you to the promised land.  Without Gaudreau scoring in the regular season, we don't even make the playoffs.

 

Why does Gaudreau succeed in the regular season but not the playoffs?  In my opinion, due to a tight schedule, opponents prepare for general opponents and they are not ready to handle Gaudreau.  Gaudreau is a unique talent and teams don't generally prepare for a Gaudreau on every team.  Once in the playoffs though, teams can fine tune their game to shut Gaudreau and that's when we need the second group.

 

But without Gaudreau we don't even make the playoffs.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

Interesting to hear on the radio yesterday Treliving be very forthright that part of their rationale to bring in Simon and Levrio is depth on the RS that would allow them to move Lindholm to center if they want to. Sounds like it's an active discussion that they are preparing for. 

 

My first thought, is it's a GM's job to provide flexibility to the roster so even though I have my own thoughts at Lindholm at center I like the approach. While it wasn't the primary reason they lost to Dallas, the lack of depth showed up when Tkachuk got hurt, and their lack of flexibility really hurt them by having to rely on so few guys for important tasks (ie the PK/late in game situations where Ward overused Backlund/Lindholm). 

 

But also have to wonder what this means for Monahan and Bennett. Coming out of the playoffs they seemed really committed to giving Bennett a real shot at center so i am hoping those plans haven't changed but at the same time they are now better prepared for the contingency plan of him not working. 

 

Monahan is probably the more interesting one who does seem to come up in trade rumors more often than Gaudreau. I'm not sure there is anything pending or close but reading between the lines it sounds like they may be more prepared to move Monahan than Gaudreau. 

 

Do u have link to the interview?

[The_People1]

34 minutes ago, ABC923 said:

I sometimes wonder if Backlund is a luxury we can’t afford for much longer. Given his age, he’s probably going to start declining soon and carries a big cap hit.

 

Alternatively, maybe the plan is putting Bennett on the wing. We could run Lindholm/Monahan/Backlund down the middle and try to create three scoring lines that way.

 

It depends what we are trying to do this season.  If we are committed to going for it, then Backlund is a luxury we have to keep.  

 

If we are honest though, ya he's aging out of his prime and we should take a step back to develop Bennett or Dube at Center.  Even play Lindholm at Center for a full season win or lose.  Just take the growing pains.  We would come out of it in 2022 much better... But alas, we going to go for it.

[cross16]

39 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Do u have link to the interview?

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/big-show/brad-treliving-talks-flames-offseason-moves-free-agency/

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

Interesting to hear on the radio yesterday Treliving be very forthright that part of their rationale to bring in Simon and Levrio is depth on the RS that would allow them to move Lindholm to center if they want to. Sounds like it's an active discussion that they are preparing for. 

 

My first thought, is it's a GM's job to provide flexibility to the roster so even though I have my own thoughts at Lindholm at center I like the approach. While it wasn't the primary reason they lost to Dallas, the lack of depth showed up when Tkachuk got hurt, and their lack of flexibility really hurt them by having to rely on so few guys for important tasks (ie the PK/late in game situations where Ward overused Backlund/Lindholm). 

 

But also have to wonder what this means for Monahan and Bennett. Coming out of the playoffs they seemed really committed to giving Bennett a real shot at center so i am hoping those plans haven't changed but at the same time they are now better prepared for the contingency plan of him not working. 

 

Monahan is probably the more interesting one who does seem to come up in trade rumors more often than Gaudreau. I'm not sure there is anything pending or close but reading between the lines it sounds like they may be more prepared to move Monahan than Gaudreau. 

 

If I had to guess, I think it's entirely possible that they are looking at the 3C spot.

Bennett was effective in the playoffs at everything except faceoffs.

Perhaps they are thinking of possibly being able to mix up the lines a bit.

I would break it down as such:

 

Option 1 (little change except bumping down Lucic)

Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm

Mangiapane-Backlund-Tkachuk

Dube-Bennett-Leivo

 

Option 2 (using Lindholm as alternate C on Bennett's line)

Gaudreau-Monahan-Mangiapane (Mangiapane is a workhorse)

Tkachuk-Backlund-Leivo (use players on their strong side)

Dube-Bennett-Lindholm (Can move Dube to RW and Bennett to LW with Lindholm as C) 

 

I tend to think that you want Bennett to have what Monahan has had for two years; a strong RHS C to take draws.

Depending on the 3rd line deployment (draws only or permanent Lindholm at C) you can decide if you want to stick with Bennett at C. 

 

I guess it's possible that they are already planning for Ryan being gone.

Having Lindholm available means you have 4 NHL vets at C if you trade or lose Ryan.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/big-show/brad-treliving-talks-flames-offseason-moves-free-agency/

 

Thanks it was an interesting listen.

 

In regards to Lindholm, like you said it sounded like BT wanted to provide the flexibility for him to play Center but it didn't sound like anything was certain.  He mentioned Leivo as someone who would have the skills to play a top 9 role but considering Lindholm is literally #1 RW, it feels far fetched to suggest BT thinks Leivo could play #1 RW if need be.

 

But I mean, maybe Tkachuk bumps up to #1 RW or something like that of course and after some musical chairs, Leivo is 2nd line RW and Lindholm is playing Center.

 

And so what I gather is, the previous group wasn't comfortable moving from LW to RW.  Otherwise, we would've had the answer from within.  One or two of Jankowski, Gaudreau, Mangiapane, etc would have all played RW permanently already.  Plus, Tkachuk may want to go back to LW too, thus they want flexible players.

 

That said, at no point did it sound like Monahan would fall victim to Lindholm playing Center.  It sounded more like they want there to be a contingency plan in case of injuries and such where Lindholm can play Center on a whim.

 

But ya, I understand the appetite to trade Monahan.  I think his trade value is just as high as Gaudreau because he's a Center.  

[FlameFan4Life]

4 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Thanks it was an interesting listen.

 

In regards to Lindholm, like you said it sounded like BT wanted to provide the flexibility for him to play Center but it didn't sound like anything was certain.  He mentioned Leivo as someone who would have the skills to play a top 9 role but considering Lindholm is literally #1 RW, it feels far fetched to suggest BT thinks Leivo could play #1 RW if need be.

 

But I mean, maybe Tkachuk bumps up to #1 RW or something like that of course and after some musical chairs, Leivo is 2nd line RW and Lindholm is playing Center.

 

And so what I gather is, the previous group wasn't comfortable moving from LW to RW.  Otherwise, we would've had the answer from within.  One or two of Jankowski, Gaudreau, Mangiapane, etc would have all played RW permanently already.  Plus, Tkachuk may want to go back to LW too, thus they want flexible players.

 

That said, at no point did it sound like Monahan would fall victim to Lindholm playing Center.  It sounded more like they want there to be a contingency plan in case of injuries and such where Lindholm can play Center on a whim.

 

But ya, I understand the appetite to trade Monahan.  I think his trade value is just as high as Gaudreau because he's a Center.  

After hearing Tre admit to the high possibility of Lindholm moving to top line center next year I am expecting a larger caliber player on the way out. My suspicions are Mony or Backlund. I am not exactly on board with this but I expect it. 

If Lindholm is moving to center that pushes Mony to the second line and having Backlund play third line minutes is a huge overpay on that line. I do not want to lose Backlund, I think he is our best shut down center option but I can not see us trading a younger Mony at all.

Ryan has way less value being older, smaller and Backlund can easily improve alot of teams.

Now what would I expect Tre to be adding in return? Not much actually. The value I would expect to be getting back would be disappointing to say the least. It would most likely be a depth RD and picks or most likely picks by themselves. 

Why do I say picks alone? Because I actually think he is all in on another player. I would like to guess Tyler Johnson. Reason I say this is because if you take a loss on Backlund you would be adding in the Johnson trade. If we took the route of not fleecing TB completely and just take his whole contract, all 5 mil, we could get a couple solid picks. Say a 2nd and a third round pick.

 

Come trade deadline We would have 2 2nds, and 3 3rds, plus whatever we get for Backlund to sweeten any Ryan trade to make room for deadline additions like Hall, if the plan is to actually replace Johnny sooner than later. Or a solid vet with size for the playoffs like a Foligno if CBJ are on the outside looking in. I know Ryan is just 3 mil but with the right prospect and picks Buffalo or any other team can retain salary if and when they don't make the playoffs.

 

The line up would look close to this at this start of the season.

Tkachuk  - Lindholm - Johnson

Gaudreau - Mony - Leivo

Mange - Bennett - Dube

Nordstom - Ryan - Simon

 

Yes I know Lucic is missing, NO he is eating popcorn as the extra forward.

 

I posted this in the suggested trades but thought it related well to this topic, and your post.

[FlameFan4Life]

I wanted to add to a few comments. I keep reading peoples opinions on a few players and where they should be slotted next year.

 

On Backlund - he is not good on the wing, also he is seen as a very capable center. He is not to old yet but after next season his cap hit starts to look pretty steep. 

On Lindholm - yes he is our best right wing option. This doesn't mean that he wouldn't be our best center option if given the chance.

On Tkachuk - He is very closely tied to STL, and may be as likely to leave as Johnny to PHI. If we really want him to extend long term start working on that now. Give him top line minutes on his strong side and put an 'A' on his chest.

On Bennett - people will hate this but if he is going to make the full time permanent move to center he is best suited to replace the minute that Backlund plays as a shut down center but on the 3rd line. He will get less than what he would if we were to play him higher in the line up and replaces part of what both Ryan and Backlund bring but still allows us the option of Gawdin or Dube on the 4th line.

 

As for the left wing - If we are honest, truly honest the older from best to worst is, Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Mange, and Lucic. I add Lucic only because I don't expect them to sit him and at this point training camp hasn't pushed him down YET!!

 

As for right wing - It goes...hahaha Leivo, then who know....Buddy Robinson. (right shots) So even after Ryan is gone we will still have Dube and Bennett as center options right, why not put Gawdin on the right wing and start transitioning him to that position this year? He is said to be ready for NHL minutes and playing the wing is said to be easier. He is not small, or slow, and he is a right shot.

 

In addition we as a team seem to always take chances on the RW position. Mainly on a player who is to old and it never works out. If we can clear the cap space isn't Tyler Johnson the right age, speed and handed player to add? He is free and comes with a pick or more. His contract for his type of player is actually fair. IMO.  So why not?

 

I know alot of people in here will disagree but think of things as if you are trying to put players where they fit, and what they have actually proven not what you or we hope they can be. It is not time to take risks on trying players here or there. I feel it is time to come to terms that Bennett is not a top six player full time. He is a gritty bottom six guy that could maybe fill in top 6 in worst cases but he has proven he can play in the bottom six and is so good at it, why move him and have to replace him and then have to  give him a big raise if it works? Keeping him in the bottom 6 gives us stability and more cap control long term.

 

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, FlameFan4Life said:

On Lindholm - yes he is our best right wing option. This doesn't mean that he wouldn't be our best center option if given the chance.

 

I understand the appeal to try Lindholm at Center because acquiring a top line RHS C is virtually impossible.  Shot hand matters for Centers because of strong side faceoffs in both zones.

 

Other things to consider,

 

PRO,

- has the offensive awareness/vision

- good play making skills

- good passing

- excellent skater

 

CON,

- his best offensive weapon is his shot and playing Center means he's going to shoot less

- he can't be trusted in the defensive zone.  He's played too much RW over his career and perhaps, it's bad habits to not look behind him.  He's let guys find space behind him and get wide open back door.  He's been caught chasing to the back of the net and abandoning his man in the slot.  He's easily pulled out of position watching the puck instead of sticking to his man.  Can these things be taught and corrected?  Maybe... but we going to lose games trying to find out.

- moving him to Center leaves a big hole on RW

[FlameFan4Life]

19 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I understand the appeal to try Lindholm at Center because acquiring a top line RHS C is virtually impossible.  Shot hand matters for Centers because of strong side faceoffs in both zones.

 

Other things to consider,

 

PRO,

- has the offensive awareness/vision

- good play making skills

- good passing

- excellent skater

 

CON,

- his best offensive weapon is his shot and playing Center means he's going to shoot less

- he can't be trusted in the defensive zone.  He's played too much RW over his career and perhaps, it's bad habits to not look behind him.  He's let guys find space behind him and get wide open back door.  He's been caught chasing to the back of the net and abandoning his man in the slot.  He's easily pulled out of position watching the puck instead of sticking to his man.  Can these things be taught and corrected?  Maybe... but we going to lose games trying to find out.

- moving him to Center leaves a big hole on RW

I totally disagree on the not being trusted in the d-zone.. You do realize he is a penalty killer right? And I watched every game that he has played as a Flame. He does drive hard to the net and yes that can allow players to get the jump on a return rush. This does not matter. He tries harder than most on this team to get back and plays the roles asked of him any given shift. If he is asked or required to play a certain way I believe he plays that way.

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, FlameFan4Life said:

I totally disagree on the not being trusted in the d-zone.. You do realize he is a penalty killer right? And I watched every game that he has played as a Flame. He does drive hard to the net and yes that can allow players to get the jump on a return rush. This does not matter. He tries harder than most on this team to get back and plays the roles asked of him any given shift. If he is asked or required to play a certain way I believe he plays that way.

 

Sorry I should've said he can't be trusted in the D-zone as a Center.  Obviously he's good defensively as a winger.

 

PK as a forward is more similar to defending 5-on-5 as a Winger.  You watch the point man and box out with others. Get sticks in the lanes.  At most collapse to the front of the net to help in close.  Defending 5-on-5 as a Center you defend all the way behind the net and switch with Dmen a lot.  It's all this switching and looking behind him in the slot where he gets himself lost.

 

I don't want to make Lindholm sound like a total liability defensively as a Center but you're definitely giving up D for that RHS C who can make plays offensively.  Agreed he back checks hard plus he's got good speed which let's him go on the offense and back quickly.  He's got the pedigree so I see how maybe it just takes some growing pains and he'll eventually learn the details.

 

I don't think offensively, anything needs to change much with the way he plays.

[robrob74]

11 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Sorry I should've said he can't be trusted in the D-zone as a Center.  Obviously he's good defensively as a winger.

 

PK as a forward is more similar to defending 5-on-5 as a Winger.  You watch the point man and box out with others. Get sticks in the lanes.  At most collapse to the front of the net to help in close.  Defending 5-on-5 as a Center you defend all the way behind the net and switch with Dmen a lot.  It's all this switching and looking behind him in the slot where he gets himself lost.

 

I don't want to make Lindholm sound like a total liability defensively as a Center but you're definitely giving up D for that RHS C who can make plays offensively.  Agreed he back checks hard plus he's got good speed which let's him go on the offense and back quickly.  He's got the pedigree so I see how maybe it just takes some growing pains and he'll eventually learn the details.

 

I don't think offensively, anything needs to change much with the way he plays.

 

but Monahan isn’t that much better defensively either and Lindholm has only had a bunch of games as a C and not a full season. I don’t think they went away from it because he wasn’t cutting it, they went away from it because Backlund wasn’t and the Monahan line looked like Satoshi Nakamoto with Backs on it. 
 

I think that it’s easy to point fingers when people are looking to point them. I do it all of the time. 
 

he needs the whole season at C to be able to do the things you’re saying C’s do in the D zone. You build up that rapport with your D group by having more reps. I think it’s a lack of the experience in the situation with our D more than his ability to defend as a C.

[travel_dude]

I don't mind moving players around to have different looks, but the net results has to be better or harder to play against.

Swapping Mangiapane or Tkachuk for Lindholm makes sense to me.

Tkachuk makes the top line tougher to handle.

Mangiapane makes the top line a lot shiftier.

Lindholm on the 2nd line gives them a decent shooter that can take strong side draws.

 

One thing that might be interesting is to ues Leivo in the top 6.

Whether it's Lindholm or Mangiapane moving to Bennett's line really doesn't matter.

Dube-Bennett-Lindhom/Mangiapane.

You're doing that to even out the top 9 minutes.

 

Anyway, my preference is to set up alternative looks, not necessarily change for good.

We had no answer to Dallas or Colorado.

Because we had no other look.

Once Tkachuk was out, we were cooked.

PP neutered a bit.

2nd line stripped.

Top line unable to generate much 5v5.

 

As it stands, the top 6 as is is good enough to get us to the playoffs.

But, they also need to be adjustable when they aren't clicking.

Having players practiced with top 6 pairs would set us up for that.

 

The D needs to be reactive too.

It can't just default to Gio-Tanev or Hanifin-Andersson playing most minutes.

Or whatever the main pairs are.

Maybe Gio-Nesterov is the new thing.

Valimaki becomes top LD.

Whatever, as long as we don't just say Gio is Captain so he plays the most and is on PP1.

[robrob74]

I think the lack of a true #1 C is problematic. I think Tkachuk tends to become average once his antics become obsolete in the playoffs. Plus, like the rest of the Flames he ends up getting neutralized when play gets tougher. Hard to know if he would be since he was injured this playoffs. I still think the mix is just a bit off. And that might be the fact he plays with Backlund as a shutdown line. 
 

maybe you do go a line if 

 

Tkachuk, Bennett, Lindholm/Dube to get Tkachuk away from being on the shutdown line. 

Gaudreau, Monahan, Mangiapane 

Nordstrom, Backlund, Lindholm

Lucic, Ryan, Simon/Rinaldo 

 

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I think the lack of a true #1 C is problematic. I think Tkachuk tends to become average once his antics become obsolete in the playoffs. Plus, like the rest of the Flames he ends up getting neutralized when play gets tougher. Hard to know if he would be since he was injured this playoffs. I still think the mix is just a bit off. And that might be the fact he plays with Backlund as a shutdown line. 
 

maybe you do go a line if 

 

Tkachuk, Bennett, Lindholm/Dube to get Tkachuk away from being on the shutdown line. 

Gaudreau, Monahan, Mangiapane 

Nordstrom, Backlund, Lindholm

Lucic, Ryan, Simon/Rinaldo 

 

 

Other than scoring less than McDavid and other top line C's, the top line generally scored the most of any lines.

So, we make up for lack of a so-called #1C by having 4 C's that can drive play.

5 if you count Lindholm as one of those.

 

I have no real problem with regular season stats.

Bit of a letdown last year, but it starrted with the D having bad seasons.

Went from there.

Even so, we made the playoffs with a reset after BP got outed.

Really Backlund was misused (for at least a month) until January.

This season should return to closer to 18/19 stats.

 

So what did we do to change?

Added Leivo, Simon, Nordstrom and Nesterov.

Valimaki full time and no Hamonic to drag down anyone.

At worst, we added grit and lost a few guys that didn't add a lot.

Leivo or Simon ahould be capable of middle 6.

 

 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Other than scoring less than McDavid and other top line C's, the top line generally scored the most of any lines.

So, we make up for lack of a so-called #1C by having 4 C's that can drive play.

5 if you count Lindholm as one of those.

 

I have no real problem with regular season stats.

Bit of a letdown last year, but it starrted with the D having bad seasons.

Went from there.

Even so, we made the playoffs with a reset after BP got outed.

Really Backlund was misused (for at least a month) until January.

This season should return to closer to 18/19 stats.

 

So what did we do to change?

Added Leivo, Simon, Nordstrom and Nesterov.

Valimaki full time and no Hamonic to drag down anyone.

At worst, we added grit and lost a few guys that didn't add a lot.

Leivo or Simon ahould be capable of middle 6.

 

 

 

For me it’s how the first line looked from February 2019 to August 2020. The thing is, they’re good enough to get points when they’re not playing well or making a huge difference. Teams need guys to get points, but I just think they weren’t making a huge difference the way they had in the past. They did look good in a handful of games. 
 

Did they do well enough to keep them together? And if they don’t work with anyone else then what do the a Flames have in them? For me it’s just not working (since last February 2019). 
 

and maybe it’s just a Johnny thing. He looked super disinterested in doing anything until they put Buddy on his line to wake him up. Even after he looked half interested. 
 

i guess you keep them together and ask how do you keep Johnny interested? What drives him? Maybe it is Leivo who might have a bit more muscle, or Bennett who can stick up for him. Maybe less hack Johnny and Monny if there’s someone who will retaliate for them. Maybe Johnny gets the calls if he’s on a different team?

[The_People1]

8 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

but Monahan isn’t that much better defensively either and Lindholm has only had a bunch of games as a C and not a full season. I don’t think they went away from it because he wasn’t cutting it, they went away from it because Backlund wasn’t and the Monahan line looked like Satoshi Nakamoto with Backs on it. 
 

I think that it’s easy to point fingers when people are looking to point them. I do it all of the time. 
 

he needs the whole season at C to be able to do the things you’re saying C’s do in the D zone. You build up that rapport with your D group by having more reps. I think it’s a lack of the experience in the situation with our D more than his ability to defend as a C.

 

Monahan improved a ton defensively last season so it's not close anymore.  We went through the growing pains with Monahan and now he's a better two way player (albeit, I'd rather he focus on offense).

 

Which, I believe Lindholm can get there too because the skills are there.  He just needs seasoning. We just have to lose with him at Center for awhile and/or shelter his Center starts... But again, take our best RW to use Lindholm as our 3rd best Center until one day in the future he's our 1st like Center.

 

So ya I think we agree.  I would do it if we were rebuilding.  But if we going all in this season, then there's no time to fool around.

[The_People1]

4 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Gaudreau, Monahan, Mangiapane 

Nordstrom, Backlund, Lindholm

Lucic, Ryan, Simon/Rinaldo 

 

 

I think Gaudreau and Mangiapane are LW through and through.  Both tried the RW and didn't like it.  Never went back to it.  Tkachuk was a true team guy and made the move to RW so Mangiapane can stay LW.