WHO ARE THE CALGARY FLAMES???

[LouCifer]

To answer the forum question now: We're about to find out!

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, pikey7883 said:

I previously posted in this thread that the team was lost and if the coach was removed they may feel unshackled and have a run away game sort of speak. I wonder if the players knew before last night that Ward was done and they actually played an uptempo game that suits their skill set? Of course I’m just surmising, lol. 

 

I suspect the players knew there was friction.  It looked a bit like they were off the chain, but I would not say they played different than what I would expect coming off a bad loss. They showed a killer instinct in the 1st and 3rd.  That has been lacking, almost like we played to get ahead and stopped with a 2-3 goal lead. 

[rickross]

4 hours ago, lou44291 said:

To answer the forum question now: We're about to find out!

Indeed we are about to find out what/who this team is! The Sutter hiring is intriguing, I’m not 💯 convinced he’s the saviour but he should at least help stabilize this team. I just wouldn’t expect any exciting , high scoring , high flying Flames team. Think we’re heading more for those 1-0, 2-1 type scores. Lots of defensive on display and not much gambling on offence 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, rickross said:

Indeed we are about to find out what/who this team is! The Sutter hiring is intriguing, I’m not 💯 convinced he’s the saviour but he should at least help stabilize this team. I just wouldn’t expect any exciting , high scoring , high flying Flames team. Think we’re heading more for those 1-0, 2-1 type scores. Lots of defensive on display and not much gambling on offence 

 

I am thinking more of a defensive team that transitions better.

Part of the problem has been getting to transition.

When we did it fresh, we did it very well.

Gaudreau used to get multiple breakaways in a game.

Last year, couldn't convert.

This year he was a lot more deadly, but those chances dried up.

[dieselmarble]

Still soft ice cream eaters who can't score.

[rickross]

8 minutes ago, dieselmarble said:

Still soft ice cream eaters who can't score.

Don’t think they played soft by any means last night against the Coilers. It was a very tight game so there weren’t a ton of golden opportunities, only reason we lost is because of Mcdavid. This game was pretty night and day compared to this team earlier in the week. We will be a tough out to play from now on. 

[travel_dude]

13 minutes ago, rickross said:

Don’t think they played soft by any means last night against the Coilers. It was a very tight game so there weren’t a ton of golden opportunities, only reason we lost is because of Mcdavid. This game was pretty night and day compared to this team earlier in the week. We will be a tough out to play from now on. 

 

It's safe to say it was due to McD's impact on thre goals, but we lost it due to poor coverage on 3 goals.

1st - Nessy got turned the wrong way, allowinf McD's pass out.  Lindholm did nothing to block Pooly coming in.  Valimaki puck watching opposite side of crease.

2nd - Backlund let Yam go and Lucic was behind him.

3rd - double coverage and McD still gets a shot off.  Yam was wide open but out of the play.

 

It was a wll played 1st period where they didn't score other than one goal.  The PP set up was superb, but they abandoned it to return to usual set up.

I didn't like the way they sat back in the 2nd and allowed the Oilers to gain momentum.  Very little spark.  Huska spoke of missed details, and that is so true of this team.   I'm not a fan of the defensive deployment right now.  Gio-Ras is not a 1st pairing.  They each could be part of one, but not together.  We settle on Hanifin-Tanev, but both are 1st pair capable.  Split em up and build 3 pairs.

[dieselmarble]

2 hours ago, rickross said:

Don’t think they played soft by any means last night against the Coilers. It was a very tight game so there weren’t a ton of golden opportunities, only reason we lost is because of Mcdavid. This game was pretty night and day compared to this team earlier in the week. We will be a tough out to play from now on. 

 

I thought they had lots of nice chances. I believe it was like 20 shots on net in the first period and some decent chances.  Oh and the way the team played earlier in the week yes I agree but I  don't even want to think about that train wreck.

[robrob74]

50 minutes ago, dieselmarble said:

 

I thought they had lots of nice chances. I believe it was like 20 shots on net in the first period and some decent chances.  Oh and the way the team played earlier in the week yes I agree but I  don't even want to think about that train wreck.

 

I thinknthey did a good job of generating shots but they didn’t do a good job of getting Smith to move from side to side. The Flames may get shots but only make the opposing goalie have to make straight forward saves.

[dieselmarble]

11 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I thinknthey did a good job of generating shots but they didn’t do a good job of getting Smith to move from side to side. The Flames may get shots but only make the opposing goalie have to make straight forward saves.

 

 

I agree, I say it all the time, when have you ever seen a flames player planted in front of the net? Rarely.  You very seldom see a couple of them in there, even on the power play, rarely a flame in front of the net causing havoc,, easy saves for the opposition goalie.

[rickross]

It’s a small sample size but already we are looking like a team that can effectively backcheck/forecheck. We can finally sustain pressure in the other teams end and we create the turnovers as opposed to us constantly giving the puck up. We have better positioning all over the ice, the players now have support to actually play a team game. We seem to be able enforce our style of play to dictate the game now, as we aren’t constantly chasing the game by giving up early goals. There’s clearly more effort and purpose to this team now. It’s early but my gawd what a difference! 

[MP5029]

I’d say the team is trending into a up tempo, blue collar hard working team which is exactly what they need to be.

[LouCifer]

To answer the forum question now: Fun to watch again! 😁

[rickross]

2 hours ago, lou44291 said:

To answer the forum question now: Fun to watch again! 😁

Under Ward I was just expecting the team to lose the game. Not fun at all. Since Sutter it’s definitely been more entertaining to watch and not just because they’ve been winning but the actual style of play has been entertaining. It’s funny considering Sutter hockey is supposedly dull as nails to watch...

[Heartbreaker]

37 minutes ago, rickross said:

Under Ward I was just expecting the team to lose the game. Not fun at all. Since Sutter it’s definitely been more entertaining to watch and not just because they’ve been winning but the actual style of play has been entertaining. It’s funny considering Sutter hockey is supposedly dull as nails to watch...

 

It's true.

 

Sutter Hockey is boring. I would have told you that 15 years ago. The fact that it's a welcome change from what we saw earlier in the year doesn't change what it is.

 

That said, it's nice to see the team do well, and I am hopeful that in the 15 years since he was last the coach, he's learned a few new tricks. He has definitely had some success, so, here's hoping!

Love.

[cross16]

See for me, Sutter hockey isn't boring. Obviously I'm biased but I like to see pace, transition and pressure based hockey which is the hallmarks of Sutter. Sure he wants his teams sitting back a little more than I would ideally like but that not traditionally until late in games. 

 

Sucks for the other team to get smothered and that's why I get the "boring" label but isn't that the point? Play well enough  that the other team can't do anything. At least Sutter's teams generate a high number of chances. 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

See for me, Sutter hockey isn't boring. Obviously I'm biased but I like to see pace, transition and pressure based hockey which is the hallmarks of Sutter. Sure he wants his teams sitting back a little more than I would ideally like but that not traditionally until late in games. 

 

Sucks for the other team to get smothered and that's why I get the "boring" label but isn't that the point? Play well enough  that the other team can't do anything. At least Sutter's teams generate a high number of chances. 

 

Some of this is just due to the fact he has no time to change the team play.  Not saying it's flawed at all, just pointing out that some things he could do he won't be able to do in the season.  He can influence it.  He can make minor adjustments.  He can get them playing better within it.

 

With the last BOA game, I felt it was more ebb and flow than starting to sit back.  If we have learned anything from the Dallas series, it's that a 3-1 lead means nothing unless it's the third period.  You can lock it down a bit after one or two periods, but you still have to generate offense.  At least the Flames need to.  They are not the Kings of a bygone era.   The first period was low event, but we played a decent forecheck.  The second we capitalized on chances, but also lacked some details.

[dieselmarble]

Middle of the pack team, playing like a middle of the pack team. Can't wait for Sutter to evaluate the team and make changes come closer to the end of the time of hope. 

[rickross]

11 hours ago, dieselmarble said:

Middle of the pack team, playing like a middle of the pack team. Can't wait for Sutter to evaluate the team and make changes come closer to the end of the time of hope. 

Pretty much. We are still a very average team, in time perhaps Sutter can get the team playing at a much higher level but don’t think we see it this year. 

[dieselmarble]

On 3/20/2021 at 9:45 PM, rickross said:

Pretty much. We are still a very average team, in time perhaps Sutter can get the team playing at a much higher level but don’t think we see it this year. 

 

I think they are doing as well as they can with what they have, its just the reality of it. They are not all of a sudden start beating teams on a regular basis and going to the top of the standings. The team needs change in terms of players coming in and players going out. There is no steady offensive threat, hard time scoring and thats been for at least 2 years. All top teams have  a number one guy and if you ask people who is the number one on these teams you will hear the name everytime. The Flames do not have a number 1 guy, they have @ 3 guys that can score once every 5 games. This is fine if the team wants to stay in the middle of the league as they have for years.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

3 hours ago, dieselmarble said:

 

I think they are doing as well as they can with what they have, its just the reality of it. They are not all of a sudden start beating teams on a regular basis and going to the top of the standings. The team needs change in terms of players coming in and players going out. There is no steady offensive threat, hard time scoring and thats been for at least 2 years. All top teams have  a number one guy and if you ask people who is the number one on these teams you will hear the name everytime. The Flames do not have a number 1 guy, they have @ 3 guys that can score once every 5 games. This is fine if the team wants to stay in the middle of the league as they have for years.

I'm kinda thinking that whatever happens this season happens, it will be more of a feeling out period to see who can adapt to the Sutter system. The rest of the season is more than enough time to see who brings it every night, whos willing to do that little extra, and whos going to be trade fodder.  We've already seen changes for some players good and bad and in all honesty I wouldnt care if the team misses the playoffs this year if that means some actual beneficial changes happen in the off season.

[robrob74]

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

I'm kinda thinking that whatever happens this season happens, it will be more of a feeling out period to see who can adapt to the Sutter system. The rest of the season is more than enough time to see who brings it every night, whos willing to do that little extra, and whos going to be trade fodder.  We've already seen changes for some players good and bad and in all honesty I wouldnt care if the team misses the playoffs this year if that means some actual beneficial changes happen in the off season.

 

ya, I see what you mean. I kind of wish we traded off or made some changes this last offseason. i wonder if the players are going to be worth a lot less than they were. It’s a problem this organization has had in the past, trying one last stab at what isn’t working and getting less than in the long run when it was clear it wasn’t working, and i would say, even in the year they were 1st in the West.
 

 

[sak22]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

ya, I see what you mean. I kind of wish we traded off or made some changes this last offseason. i wonder if the players are going to be worth a lot less than they were. It’s a problem this organization has had in the past, trying one last stab at what isn’t working and getting less than in the long run when it was clear it wasn’t working, and i would say, even in the year they were 1st in the West.
 

 

I think change for the sake of change is one thing that has put us in this spot.  I don't think we would be winning any Johnny or Mony trade after their last season and flat cap.  Imagine if we got one decent piece in the Iggy and Bo trades.  I don't believe there were no attempts made, to change things up, but can't be a charity here.

[robrob74]

17 minutes ago, sak22 said:

I think change for the sake of change is one thing that has put us in this spot.  I don't think we would be winning any Johnny or Mony trade after their last season and flat cap.  Imagine if we got one decent piece in the Iggy and Bo trades.  I don't believe there were no attempts made, to change things up, but can't be a charity here.

 

but that’s the thing, I don’t think it’s a change for the sake of change. I have felt for awhile that if you shut Johnny down, you stop the Flames. So is it the rest of the lineup or is it Johnny? I guess I see where you’re coming from but either Johnny needs more suitable line mates or a change of scenery. Can we get those players here before his contract is up before “he could walk?” I know we shouldn’t speculate on that, but I just think he’s going to want to be closer to home. So I just wonder, when is the time to get the best return for him? And I think it was this past offseason. 
 

I am not changing for the sake of change, I want to change the culture of the team. Maybe it’s a good time for a quick retool. Do we trust drafting and scouting enough to possibly do a two or three year one, or does it need another blow-up?

 

I like how you’re reasonable about things. Timing is everything and from things you’ve said, things Cross and TD among others have said as well, this team’s timing has been a touch off and the trade off of other players might not be as big of a deal as they appear to be. But we have to admit that adding players like Forbort and Gus and others at deadlines may appear to help us in the short, but spending assets on them ends up more pricey. Those picks are low percentages but possibly NHLers in the long run. 
 

who would you think we traded or dealt in the change for the sake of change scenario?

 

in those other deals, it was a bad year to draft so i think the Flames picked a wrong time to deal Iggy and JBo. Maybe Baertschi was the wrong choice in his draft too. 
 

in the Hamilton trade, would we prefer Barzal or Lindholm and Hanifin, considered that those two were the trade off of trading away Hamilton? 
 

A part of me wonders if there is a true vision of what the team wants to be with the mix of players we have.

[cross16]

26 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

in those other deals, it was a bad year to draft so i think the Flames picked a wrong time to deal Iggy and JBo. Maybe Baertschi was the wrong choice in his draft too. 
 

 

Well interestingly enough 2013 was supposed to be a very strong draft year. The buzz going into that draft was it was the strongest and deepest in a decade and while it lacks a certain amount of start power outside the top 7-8, it is a deeper draft than most. Certainly a better draft than 2012 and at the very least on part with the likes of 2010/2011.

 

This is why acquiring picks is not what it's always cracked up to be. The draft is not an exactly science so if you are trying to load up in "good" draft years that doesn't necessarily mean you will be right year's down the road. On top of that if it is a good draft year other teams know that too so it's harder to acquire game changing level picks that you would want to really turn around a franchise.  Teams don't give up lottery picks so trying to target a certain draft is not exactly a viable strategy either. You can get a little lucky with it (Toronto giving up 2 first for Kessell, Ottawa 1st for Duchence, SJ 1st for Karlsson) and get a team that thinks they are contending to give you their first, but more often that not when you are acquiring picks they are late picks that are very unlikely to meaningfully change the team. It's part of what makes dealing high end players so challenging. 

 

26 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

in the Hamilton trade, would we prefer Barzal or Lindholm and Hanifin, considered that those two were the trade off of trading away Hamilton? 
 

 

This is a bone of contention for me, but it is just simply not this easy of an argument. At the time that trade was made there was no way of knowing Barzal would fall like he did and to this day it still makes no sense why he did. If the Flames waited until he was actually available and then made the trade then totally I would be find with this critique but that wasn't the decision making process. This is a total hindsight is 20/20 argument.