Darryl Sutter new head coach

[travel_dude]

19 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Yeah, you're right about the goaltending stats, and I do recall thinking that at the time. The statistical anomaly that I can't explain comes from the other end. I can't figure out why during that stretch, Vladar was able to tie a team record for games in a row with points, but had very similar stats to Markstrom, who was struggling mightily. Why could they generate so much more offense when it was 80, but not duplicate that when it was 25?

 

This whole season feels like a broken string of Christmas lights. You know what I mean? The whole string goes out of one of the bulbs is burnt out, and that's an easy fix. You go through them one by one, and find the problem. The Flames are a string of Christmas lights with two bulbs burnt out.

 

Love.

 

Them's the old series lights.  They make sets that a burned out one only loses that light.

 

What I found about Markstrom's losses was that he would let one in at the worst time.

We are down one or two early and struggle to score.

On the other hand, Vladar saved enough to allow us to get the lead.

Sure, he let one in later, then another, but sometimes just enough saves to get the win.

In Vladar early losses he was bad.  No doubt to that.

 

The bottom line is that neither goalie was good this season.

One had a long string of winning or getting the game to OT.

One had their longest stretch of points at 4 games and longest set of wins at 3.

 

[Heartbreaker]

20 minutes ago, zima said:

I have been saying since the beginning of the season that we should have given Wolf a shot but since it is me it is dumb but dumb or not I would have loved to see how he faired in the bigs I would bet we would be in the playoffs for sure. We out shot almost every team by 10 or more shots and we were shooting at a 40 shot per most games how can you lose so many games with that out put and don't put it on D that's not fair. 

 

Dude... don't beat yourself up. A lot of people feel that way.

 

Personally, I disagree, but it's not because it's dumb. I think that Wolf is in the right place currently. The Wranglers have a real opportunity to win the Calder Cup, and I think that it's better for him to play with them, and maybe win a big tournament. The Flames environment is pretty toxic right now, and a few bad games could be the difference between playoffs or no playoffs. I would be concerned about the potential psychological implications of throwing a young prospect into that situation. Sometimes it pays off, but usually it just breaks goalies.

 

That said, disagreeing with me, or anyone else, doesn't make you dumb, or your opinion wrong. You are a contributor to this board, and I am comfortable speaking for everybody, we're happy you're here. This is a pretty good community for a public forum.

 

Love. Seriously.

 

[cross16]

59 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Yeah, you're right about the goaltending stats, and I do recall thinking that at the time. The statistical anomaly that I can't explain comes from the other end. I can't figure out why during that stretch, Vladar was able to tie a team record for games in a row with points, but had very similar stats to Markstrom, who was struggling mightily. Why could they generate so much more offense when it was 80, but not duplicate that when it was 25?

 

This whole season feels like a broken string of Christmas lights. You know what I mean? The whole string goes out of one of the bulbs is burnt out, and that's an easy fix. You go through them one by one, and find the problem. The Flames are a string of Christmas lights with two bulbs burnt out.

 

Love.

 

100%

 

I'm to the point where I'm not going to bother and try and explain or find reasons for what happened this season. There are so many anomalies and just straight up weird situations happening before our eyes. Trying to find a singular cause or someone to blame seems pointless to me. 

 

Total black swan event IMO. 

[cross16]

37 minutes ago, zima said:

I have been saying since the beginning of the season that we should have given Wolf a shot but since it is me it is dumb but dumb or not I would have loved to see how he faired in the bigs I would bet we would be in the playoffs for sure. We out shot almost every team by 10 or more shots and we were shooting at a 40 shot per most games how can you lose so many games with that out put and don't put it on D that's not fair. 

 

 

Not in the slightest. I totally get where you are coming from.Can debate whether or not he would have been successful, was it the right place for him, would they have made the playoffs etc. I'm not sure but I think fair points to be had on both sides. 

 

But at the end of the day he's a top prospect, what he is doing in the AHL is incredible, and he's a great story. In the midst of what is going to go on record as probably the most disappointing/disengaging season for this franchise in over a decade I completely get the idea of wanting to see some hope. Good or bad I think Wolf would have provided that just like Pelletier did. 

[tmac70]

11 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

100%

 

I'm to the point where I'm not going to bother and try and explain or find reasons for what happened this season. There are so many anomalies and just straight up weird situations happening before our eyes. Trying to find a singular cause or someone to blame seems pointless to me. 

 

Total black swan event IMO. 

Percicisly. What could go wrong did go wrong this season.

[DirtyDeeds]

Rumours are GM and coach don't see thing eye to eye.(Eric Francis).

 

Lets be clear does anyone think that with the departure of  2 top core pieces who have been together for years should not have made a difference? Yes Hubie and Kadri are good but they have no years of playing together  {yet} to fall back on.

 

The makeup of this team falls on GM.

The system of this team falls on Coach.

The execution of the system falls on the players.

 

The coach is not only one who is to blame here.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Rumours are GM and oach don't see thing eye to eye.(Eric Francis).

 

Lets be clear does anyone think that with the departure of  2 top core pieces who have been together for years should not have made a difference? Yes Hubie and Kadri are good but they have no yeqars of playing together  {yet} to fall back on.

 

The makeup of this team falls on GM.

The system of this team falls on Coach.

The execution of the system falls on the players.

 

The coach is not only one who is to blame here.

 

I agree with the above.

I think you have to look at all for improvements.

Can the coach adjust.

Can the players improve.

Can the GM (and owners) agree on the right steps to move forward.

 

I only suggest firing the coach because that is the obvious thing.

The team didn't achieve results.

Questionable whether we have the right coach for this group or the wrong group for the right coach.

Last year was an outlier, so I don't see past results as the bar.

 

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Rumours are GM and oach don't see thing eye to eye.(Eric Francis).

 

Lets be clear does anyone think that with the departure of  2 top core pieces who have been together for years should not have made a difference? Yes Hubie and Kadri are good but they have no yeqars of playing together  {yet} to fall back on.

 

The makeup of this team falls on GM.

The system of this team falls on Coach.

The execution of the system falls on the players.

 

The coach is not only one who is to blame here.

 

Completely agree.

 

To be clear, I am agreeing with you, and not Eric Francis lol

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Rumours are GM and oach don't see thing eye to eye.(Eric Francis).

 

Lets be clear does anyone think that with the departure of  2 top core pieces who have been together for years should not have made a difference? Yes Hubie and Kadri are good but they have no yeqars of playing together  {yet} to fall back on.

 

The makeup of this team falls on GM.

The system of this team falls on Coach.

The execution of the system falls on the players.

 

The coach is not only one who is to blame here.

 

Agreed.  If i had it my way, then all three are gone.  The GM, the coach, and the players.  Total rebuild.

[conundrumed]

47 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Agreed.  If i had it my way, then all three are gone.  The GM, the coach, and the players.  Total rebuild.

You must be a masochist. Do you really want a 7 to 10 year plan? The Panarin's and Eichel's aren't going to be racing to Calgary to help. It'll take forever. Most draft picks are 3 years minimum, so 3 good heavy drafting years is still a 6-9 year trickle. With no guarantees. Not sure that I love your plan, maybe sleep on it.lol

For me, it's just important to exercise exit strategies on Backlund, Tanev, Coleman, Hanifin and likely others. We can't be a retirement home nor lose players for little or nothing or overpay them. That already got us here.

There are definitely zero irreplaceable players on our roster, a large contingency of fans it seems need to watch other team's players and see equivalents.

We're simply not very good, without naming names. We all want them to be. But it isn't the reality.

Then also, you can't just throw your hands in the air and say get rid of everything. It's not all bad, I doubt it's as bad as it seems.

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

You must be a masochist. Do you really want a 7 to 10 year plan? The Panarin's and Eichel's aren't going to be racing to Calgary to help. It'll take forever. Most draft picks are 3 years minimum, so 3 good heavy drafting years is still a 6-9 year trickle. With no guarantees. Not sure that I love your plan, maybe sleep on it.lol

For me, it's just important to exercise exit strategies on Backlund, Tanev, Coleman, Hanifin and likely others. We can't be a retirement home nor lose players for little or nothing or overpay them. That already got us here.

There are definitely zero irreplaceable players on our roster, a large contingency of fans it seems need to watch other team's players and see equivalents.

We're simply not very good, without naming names. We all want them to be. But it isn't the reality.

Then also, you can't just throw your hands in the air and say get rid of everything. It's not all bad, I doubt it's as bad as it seems.

 

The bolded is so true.  We get burned every time.  Sign Iggy, trade him near the end to the only team he wants to go to.  Might as well have signed him to a one year deal as trade for nothing at that point.  Gio.  Signed and kept for a couple years too long because he was a team guy and a good player.  We lose him for nothing.  Worse than that.  The guy we protect we have to trade.  And they turn around and get a top pick for him.  

 

All that is beside the point.  It happened.  Just shows how the team operates.

I would suggest that we do need to move Coleman, but that's a bad contract to try to move.

As they used to say in the USA, 4 more years.  Yikes.  He's a completer piece not the guy you build with.

Backlund, Tanev and Hanifin are symptomatic of this team.

You think some days they are playing great, then you realize that the other days they just don't help.

If they have value, we should move on.

Just the change alone would help us get away from that identity we sort have.  Whatever it is.

 

If we do that, we have to switch coaches.  Too hard to remake the team anything but a shell of this or last year.

[The_People1]

29 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

You must be a masochist. Do you really want a 7 to 10 year plan? The Panarin's and Eichel's aren't going to be racing to Calgary to help. It'll take forever. Most draft picks are 3 years minimum, so 3 good heavy drafting years is still a 6-9 year trickle. With no guarantees. Not sure that I love your plan, maybe sleep on it.lol

For me, it's just important to exercise exit strategies on Backlund, Tanev, Coleman, Hanifin and likely others. We can't be a retirement home nor lose players for little or nothing or overpay them. That already got us here.

There are definitely zero irreplaceable players on our roster, a large contingency of fans it seems need to watch other team's players and see equivalents.

We're simply not very good, without naming names. We all want them to be. But it isn't the reality.

Then also, you can't just throw your hands in the air and say get rid of everything. It's not all bad, I doubt it's as bad as it seems.

 

Whatever it takes.  Shouldn't take 7 to 10 years but 5 for sure.  And it depends on how we sell off Backlund, Tanev, Hanifin, etc.  If done right, then it will speed things up.

[tmac70]

So the big question for me is if you remove the coach do you keep the same roster? The turmoil that has been created is nowhere near being cleared up. Despite the BS of players and coaches, there is going to be a residue that lingers in that dressing room, depending on how deep the rott goes this could be a 3-5 year anyway. Maybe this is a blessing after all, lmao

[zima]

6 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Dude... don't beat yourself up. A lot of people feel that way.

 

Personally, I disagree, but it's not because it's dumb. I think that Wolf is in the right place currently. The Wranglers have a real opportunity to win the Calder Cup, and I think that it's better for him to play with them, and maybe win a big tournament. The Flames environment is pretty toxic right now, and a few bad games could be the difference between playoffs or no playoffs. I would be concerned about the potential psychological implications of throwing a young prospect into that situation. Sometimes it pays off, but usually it just breaks goalies.

 

That said, disagreeing with me, or anyone else, doesn't make you dumb, or your opinion wrong. You are a contributor to this board, and I am comfortable speaking for everybody, we're happy you're here. This is a pretty good community for a public forum.

 

Love. Seriously.

 

Thanks don't get me wrong I would not want Wolf up here now he will bring this new home a very good chance of a culder cup and wouldn't want to kill that chance and perhaps we will; get a good top 12-15 pick . Here's hoping

[conundrumed]

38 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The bolded is so true.  We get burned every time.  Sign Iggy, trade him near the end to the only team he wants to go to.  Might as well have signed him to a one year deal as trade for nothing at that point.  Gio.  Signed and kept for a couple years too long because he was a team guy and a good player.  We lose him for nothing.  Worse than that.  The guy we protect we have to trade.  And they turn around and get a top pick for him.  

 

All that is beside the point.  It happened.  Just shows how the team operates.

I would suggest that we do need to move Coleman, but that's a bad contract to try to move.

As they used to say in the USA, 4 more years.  Yikes.  He's a completer piece not the guy you build with.

Backlund, Tanev and Hanifin are symptomatic of this team.

You think some days they are playing great, then you realize that the other days they just don't help.

If they have value, we should move on.

Just the change alone would help us get away from that identity we sort have.  Whatever it is.

 

If we do that, we have to switch coaches.  Too hard to remake the team anything but a shell of this or last year.

The guys that I mentioned are pretty fair contracts right now, but we've gotta stop taking it the to the finish line. We have to turn over roster the right way sometimes with hockey trades.

We really never do. Spend picks and sign FA's should be about 4th and 5th on the list for a small market team. It's not a sustainable plan. But that's been the plan.

Definitely need a, "step back and re-assess".

[The_People1]

31 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

So the big question for me is if you remove the coach do you keep the same roster? The turmoil that has been created is nowhere near being cleared up. Despite the BS of players and coaches, there is going to be a residue that lingers in that dressing room, depending on how deep the rott goes this could be a 3-5 year anyway. Maybe this is a blessing after all, lmao

 

I'm thinking 90% chance BT is gone in one month.  It's been radio silence on an extension and the roster is a mess.

 

And so I would think the replacement will find Sutter the players he needs/wants.  Coach isn't going anywhere.

[conundrumed]

12 minutes ago, zima said:

Thanks don't get me wrong I would not want Wolf up here now he will bring this new home a very good chance of a culder cup and wouldn't want to kill that chance and perhaps we will; get a good top 12-15 pick . Here's hoping

Yeah you're definitely being silly. If you're dumb, we all are. Wolf has all of us in heavy wonder. I'm with you, personally.

Could sense the team was bizarre all year. Changes wouldn't have hurt. We've been noticeably out of it for a long time waiting for square pegs to fit round holes.

[The_People1]

13 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

The guys that I mentioned are pretty fair contracts right now, but we've gotta stop taking it the to the finish line. We have to turn over roster the right way sometimes with hockey trades.

We really never do. Spend picks and sign FA's should be about 4th and 5th on the list for a small market team. It's not a sustainable plan. But that's been the plan.

Definitely need a, "step back and re-assess".

 

Despite being a small market, the owners and management sure don't operate like it.  There is arrogance and an approach to the players like it's a privilege to play in Calgary.  We have been humbled by Tkachuk (and Gaudreau to a lesser extent).  When players have choices, then they are not choosing Calgary as a first option.

 

Yes, some are going to point at Kadri as an example that the Flames can land big name UFAs... but that's not a great example.  Kadri wanted to return to COL and waited months for them to clear cap space.  Only when it became obvious time had ran out and options were limited, Kadri circled back to the Flames offer and took the money.  No way Kadri took a discount to be here... and in fact he wouldn't waive a NTC to come here when he was in Toronto.

 

Huberdeau as well.  $10.5-mil x 8-years is more than fair when he signed his extension... arguably $1-mil too much.  BUT CAN'T TRADE HIM OR ELSE NO UFA WILL EVER SIGN WITH US AGAIN... nah, Huberdeau didn't do us any favours at all.  If he took a hometown discount and we used his value contract to trade for something else, then yes.  That's a jerk move.  Nobody would take a hometown discount with us ever again.  BUT this is not the case.  IF we trade Huberdeau, then as long as we overpay UFAs by $1-mil in the future, then they would still come here.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

You must be a masochist. Do you really want a 7 to 10 year plan? The Panarin's and Eichel's aren't going to be racing to Calgary to help. It'll take forever. Most draft picks are 3 years minimum, so 3 good heavy drafting years is still a 6-9 year trickle. With no guarantees. Not sure that I love your plan, maybe sleep on it.lol

For me, it's just important to exercise exit strategies on Backlund, Tanev, Coleman, Hanifin and likely others. We can't be a retirement home nor lose players for little or nothing or overpay them. That already got us here.

There are definitely zero irreplaceable players on our roster, a large contingency of fans it seems need to watch other team's players and see equivalents.

We're simply not very good, without naming names. We all want them to be. But it isn't the reality.

Then also, you can't just throw your hands in the air and say get rid of everything. It's not all bad, I doubt it's as bad as it seems.

some teams do it faster... as always we don't have players other teams are willing to pay first rounders for. But I envision an LA style. While we don't have Kopitar or Doughty, we have some decent guys where if we trade off other for as much as possible and then build with what we have and draft we might be ok again in 3-4 years. 
 

we keep:

 

Andersson

Huberdeau

Lindholm if he'd stay

Markstrom (insulate wolf as a backup for 2 years)

Maybe Weegar

 

try get what you can for the others.

 

add in the young players to build around. Lose out a few years and gain some good picks. 

[jjgallow]

8 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

some teams do it faster... as always we don't have players other teams are willing to pay first rounders for. But I envision an LA style. While we don't have Kopitar or Doughty, we have some decent guys where if we trade off other for as much as possible and then build with what we have and draft we might be ok again in 3-4 years. 
 

we keep:

 

Andersson

Huberdeau

Lindholm if he'd stay

Markstrom (insulate wolf as a backup for 2 years)

Maybe Weegar

 

try get what you can for the others.

 

add in the young players to build around. Lose out a few years and gain some good picks. 

 

I like it, let me take a stab at this....see this kind of thing is fun and helps prevent major depression lol

 

 

Andersson      -YES.   And, I agree, he should be at the top of the list.  If we have anyone untouchable, it's him.
                             -I don't personally feel he's untouchable, though.   just the closest to it.  5 first rounders?  do it.

Huberdeau       -Meh.   Depends on what other teams offer.   We're likely keeping him due to his contract now.

Lindholm if he'd stay   -I also see this is a guy I'd prefer to keep unless the offer forces him out.

Markstrom (insulate wolf as a backup for 2 years)    - Don't agree here.  But we may have to.   Vladar would serve this role better.

Maybe Weegar   - Meh

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

The guys that I mentioned are pretty fair contracts right now, but we've gotta stop taking it the to the finish line. We have to turn over roster the right way sometimes with hockey trades.

We really never do. Spend picks and sign FA's should be about 4th and 5th on the list for a small market team. It's not a sustainable plan. But that's been the plan.

Definitely need a, "step back and re-assess".

 

Fair but really is that all we want?

We signed Tanev to what seemed high, but he's a warrior.

Essentially the same as a Brodie deal, but we needed Tanev too.

Should have traded Gio and re-signed Brodie.

Coleman is a team first guy, but he is again a completer piece.

Good value if you already have the stars.

Nothing worng with Backlund either.

 

I also do not really like our version of asset management.

Keeping Backlund until he retires is what you do for your top players that excel until they are late 30's.

Didn't do it with Iggy or Newy or Big Al.

Gio was $6M+ when we let him go and he's playing for peanuts.

We don't have any franchise players really.

Lindholm is probably the closest we have.

Young enough to re-sign.

Hanifin, though young, isn't improving or really driving the D.

Worth what he is paid, but not interested in $7M.

 

Yes, hockey trades is what I'm thinking.  We rarely turnover the roster.

Players are available and we seem stuck on what we have.

The comments from Sutter suggest that he hates any change.

Fit the culture or force them to fit.

Is the culture so great that one size fits all?

Toffoli and Lucic and Lewis love it because it fits the way they want to play.

 

[robrob74]

4 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I like it, let me take a stab at this....see this kind of thing is fun and helps prevent major depression lol

 

 

Andersson      -YES.   And, I agree, he should be at the top of the list.  If we have anyone untouchable, it's him.
                             -I don't personally feel he's untouchable, though.   just the closest to it.  5 first rounders?  do it.

Huberdeau       -Meh.   Depends on what other teams offer.   We're likely keeping him due to his contract now.

Lindholm if he'd stay   -I also see this is a guy I'd prefer to keep unless the offer forces him out.

Markstrom (insulate wolf as a backup for 2 years)    - Don't agree here.  But we may have to.   Vladar would serve this role better.

Maybe Weegar   - Meh

what I meant was keep Markstrom as a starter and insulate Wolf or younger goalies against a tough time in retooling. I'm two years he can start

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Fair but really is that all we want?

We signed Tanev to what seemed high, but he's a warrior.

Essentially the same as a Brodie deal, but we needed Tanev too.

Should have traded Gio and re-signed Brodie.

Coleman is a team first guy, but he is again a completer piece.

Good value if you already have the stars.

Nothing worng with Backlund either.

 

I also do not really like our version of asset management.

Keeping Backlund until he retires is what you do for your top players that excel until they are late 30's.

Didn't do it with Iggy or Newy or Big Al.

Gio was $6M+ when we let him go and he's playing for peanuts.

We don't have any franchise players really.

Lindholm is probably the closest we have.

Young enough to re-sign.

Hanifin, though young, isn't improving or really driving the D.

Worth what he is paid, but not interested in $7M.

 

Yes, hockey trades is what I'm thinking.  We rarely turnover the roster.

Players are available and we seem stuck on what we have.

The comments from Sutter suggest that he hates any change.

Fit the culture or force them to fit.

Is the culture so great that one size fits all?

Toffoli and Lucic and Lewis love it because it fits the way they want to play.

 

 

Ya man.  It's actually pretty hard to find a more expensive 3rd line in the NHL.

 

Mangiapane - Backlund - Coleman = $16-mil

 

Look at TB's bottom 6.  Or even COL.   The best teams have elected to challenge a $1-mil player to give them $4-mil worth of production while they spend the big bucks on their elite superstars.  The Flames are paying $4-mil and getting $3-mil production.

[redfire11]

Compare the flames to the Kracken.

Player by player including the goalies. 

There is not to many if no annalists that would say man for man the Kracken is a better team. 

The difference between the two teams is obvious. 

COACHING

[travel_dude]

59 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya man.  It's actually pretty hard to find a more expensive 3rd line in the NHL.

 

Mangiapane - Backlund - Coleman = $16-mil

 

Look at TB's bottom 6.  Or even COL.   The best teams have elected to challenge a $1-mil player to give them $4-mil worth of production while they spend the big bucks on their elite superstars.  The Flames are paying $4-mil and getting $3-mil production.

 

I wasn't going there.  We reward based on a season or success with a cup.

I had no issue with Coleman when we were closer to being a contender.

To make matters worse, we are playing $1M players where they aren't suited.

Duehr with hands-of-stone Lewis and Tap-in Lucic.

Pelletier (when he was allowed) with top line or forcing Huberdeau to the weak side.

Ruzicka, when he manages to have compromizing pics of Sutter, plays with the 4th line.

Now the 3rd line is Hiberdeau-Backlund-Coleman.

For what?  Learn the defensive side like a good little boy?

 

Ruzicka - played like a top liner for a stretch of games, playing with the top line.

Duehr played one shift with Kadi.

 

I mean we don't even need to sign/trade for superstars to replace guys like Backlund or Coleman or Mangiapane or Lewis or Lucic or Hanifin or or or....Make trades/sign players that are getting 4th line minutes but are too good for it.  No more coach picks.  Young guys with speed that can play with guys with speed.  Nick Ritchie is a slightly better version of his brother, but isn't or shouldn't be a middle 6 player.  Certianly not for that money.