Maybe Half The Problem is Huska?

[travel_dude]

15 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Confirmed the Flames are the most average team in the NHL 😂

 

Exactly middle of the road.  At a 4 way stop sign.

[conundrumed]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Confirmed the Flames are the most average team in the NHL 😂

From made up stats?

Minny(-16) and Van(+30) are right on top of each other, for example. Pointless and useless. Geeks building algorithms from a million data points that have huge variables. It's doesn't reflect reality.

[travel_dude]

Huska stated that the Flames PP is too slow.  I guess he's been watching for most of this season.

Would be nice to actually address this and not just notice it.

 

I have my beliefs about the slower reacting people on it; Ras, Lindholm.

Almost no movement from them in their positioning.  

But I digress.  Huberdeau looks slow because he has zero options moving into the open.

[medatswhoP]

On 11/20/2023 at 3:04 PM, travel_dude said:

Huska stated that the Flames PP is too slow.  I guess he's been watching for most of this season.

Would be nice to actually address this and not just notice it.

 

I have my beliefs about the slower reacting people on it; Ras, Lindholm.

Almost no movement from them in their positioning.  

But I digress.  Huberdeau looks slow because he has zero options moving into the open.

Huska too is to slow, he needs to have abit more fire and emotion, his constant smiling after and before every game in interviews makes me want to gag.

PP is slow but so is moving our puck out of our blue line.  In general our team has a ton of talent but we cant string 60 minutes together.

Both Huska and Backlund need to push this team harder and keep the vets (Kadri, Lindholm, Tanev, etc.) onboard in backing them up to teach the younger crowd how its done.

Ras included...

[travel_dude]

43 minutes ago, medatswhoP said:

Huska too is to slow, he needs to have abit more fire and emotion, his constant smiling after and before every game in interviews makes me want to gag.

PP is slow but so is moving our puck out of our blue line.  In general our team has a ton of talent but we cant string 60 minutes together.

Both Huska and Backlund need to push this team harder and keep the vets (Kadri, Lindholm, Tanev, etc.) onboard in backing them up to teach the younger crowd how its done.

Ras included...

 

If we lose the initial draw, we have less than a 50/50 chance of getting back in after 30 seconds.  

We do good controlling the puck once we get set up.

But we don't really do anything with it.

[robrob74]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

If we lose the initial draw, we have less than a 50/50 chance of getting back in after 30 seconds.  

We do good controlling the puck once we get set up.

But we don't really do anything with it.

 

I am with Medats, I don't care for a possession game if all you're doing is possessing the puck and playing keep away. It just means you have the puck longer, but if you're not actually doing anything with it, or pushing pace, pace is what gets it done in the NHL, movement. Sure, we move it, but that was only on the perimeter up until seemingly recently. Success seems to have come once the young guys started pushing play to the middle of the ice. I don't like a possession game in the sense that the Flames have played the past 10 years or so.

[travel_dude]

Just now, robrob74 said:

 

I am with Medats, I don't care for a possession game if all you're doing is possessing the puck and playing keep away. It just means you have the puck longer, but if you're not actually doing anything with it, or pushing pace, pace is what gets it done in the NHL, movement. Sure, we move it, but that was only on the perimeter up until seemingly recently. Success seems to have come once the young guys started pushing play to the middle of the ice. I don't like a possession game in the sense that the Flames have played the past 10 years or so.

 

I never said I agreed with possession alone.  That works when you have a multi goal lead and you want to defensively chew up the clock.

You always want another goal, but odd man rushes the other way should be avoided.

 

We use about half the players on a PP.  We have go-to moves and everyone knows them.  I was surprised the SEA even fell for them.  

[robrob74]

19 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I never said I agreed with possession alone.  That works when you have a multi goal lead and you want to defensively chew up the clock.

You always want another goal, but odd man rushes the other way should be avoided.

 

We use about half the players on a PP.  We have go-to moves and everyone knows them.  I was surprised the SEA even fell for them.  

 

Ya, it's all just conversation. We all want more for the team. More is where the definitions lie. We all have our versions of more. I want fast, exciting hockey. 

[medatswhoP]

Huska is half the problem is the thread this title dictates therefore my thoughts.

When Conroy hired Huska he mentioned he wanted a good "communicator", a leader that can "Inspire" the group, play sound hockey which included a "defensive hockey structure.  I feel none of the three have these boxes checked off.  Huska won Memorial Cups with Kamloops as a player in the 90s (big deal) as a player that meant he was coached right but that doesn't give him coaching expertise.

Huska does not have this team structured in a way to hold a lead, play the right players on PP or PK, I think Conroy made a mistake and knows it.

The team is liable with its play no doubt but you have to be inspired and have the respect with your coach which I think is sinking. Huska has no emotion, no bite, and no "take charge" where this team is going.

My thoughts anyway, not everyone will agree but thats ok.

[cross16]

I wasn't a fan of the Huska hire either for the reasons we are seeing. I think Huska is smart as heck and a good honest communicator but he seems to lack passion, desire and that ability to hold a team accountable.  Has always struck me as a guy who was going to have a hard time getting a team going and so far that is what we are seeing. 

 

Don't like to blame and certainly don't think Huska is to blame for much here as even experience coaches would struggle with this roster. i think the only thing I'm disappointed in so far with Huska is they talked a big game about creativity, passion, fun etc but have done the opposite. The flames are boring, stale and don't do anything exciting in terms of their schemes. Everything they do is about as vanilla as it gets, and that's tough to watch. 

[travel_dude]

24 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I wasn't a fan of the Huska hire either for the reasons we are seeing. I think Huska is smart as heck and a good honest communicator but he seems to lack passion, desire and that ability to hold a team accountable.  Has always struck me as a guy who was going to have a hard time getting a team going and so far that is what we are seeing. 

 

Don't like to blame and certainly don't think Huska is to blame for much here as even experience coaches would struggle with this roster. i think the only thing I'm disappointed in so far with Huska is they talked a big game about creativity, passion, fun etc but have done the opposite. The flames are boring, stale and don't do anything exciting in terms of their schemes. Everything they do is about as vanilla as it gets, and that's tough to watch. 

 

About the only time it gets exciting is in the last 10 minutes of a game, usually because they are trailing.  It's like we are playing safe but not executing safe.  Like there is a delay in the brain telling them the safe play.  

[conundrumed]

aaaannnnd....Craig Berube's been fired. Perchance to dream. He'll land on his feet without question.

Our D strategy drives me nuts. Collapsing way too early or playing way too deep, name your poison. Vegas came out in the 2nd just looking to create chaos at our crease. A very good plan when a team just wants to defend from the hashmarks down. Earlier I thought Oesterle was struggling with gap control, but it's actually the entire team falling way too low constantly. Then we struggle to get pucks out because the closest guy to the blueline starts from 12' away from it.

We have an 8' x 8' box that starts at the top of the crease. Of course teams will move in tighter to shrink it even more...my 2 (s)cents.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

aaaannnnd....Craig Berube's been fired. Perchance to dream. He'll land on his feet without question.

Our D strategy drives me nuts. Collapsing way too early or playing way too deep, name your poison. Vegas came out in the 2nd just looking to create chaos at our crease. A very good plan when a team just wants to defend from the hashmarks down. Earlier I thought Oesterle was struggling with gap control, but it's actually the entire team falling way too low constantly. Then we struggle to get pucks out because the closest guy to the blueline starts from 12' away from it.

We have an 8' x 8' box that starts at the top of the crease. Of course teams will move in tighter to shrink it even more...my 2 (s)cents.

 

I don't really understand zone defense.  Perhaps Cross can shed some light.  It works if you play it right and the players get it.  I've also noticed that we will give the forward space to walk in off the boards.  The defender actually turns away to give up that gap.  Last year we struggled to score, this year we struggle to stop goals.

[robrob74]

45 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't really understand zone defense.  Perhaps Cross can shed some light.  It works if you play it right and the players get it.  I've also noticed that we will give the forward space to walk in off the boards.  The defender actually turns away to give up that gap.  Last year we struggled to score, this year we struggle to stop goals.

we played it a lot in our beer league. We got a section of the ice and defended the play in our own section. Keeps from everyone running around the ice. It is when players leave their own defensive section that chaos ensues. It leaves a huge part of the ice not being defended.
 

I felt man to man is good for sports like basketball. I could see how it could work for hockey the center checks center and wingers get their adjacent D and the D against their wingers.

 

basically our zone in beer league was the two wingers got the upper half portion of the defensive blue line and down to the hash marks, not really a full square, the center defended the slot and the D their side of the slot into their side of the corners in the D zone. Basically all players shift from one side of the zone they play to the other as the puck moves around in the whole defensive zone trying to stay between the puck and the other player in the zone a player covers .  
 

Be good to look at the ice clipboard and draw it out...

[Heartbreaker]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

we played it a lot in our beer league. We got a section of the ice and defended the play in our own section. Keeps from everyone running around the ice. It is when players leave their own defensive section that chaos ensues. It leaves a huge part of the ice not being defended.
 

I felt man to man is good for sports like basketball. I could see how it could work for hockey the center checks center and wingers get their adjacent D and the D against their wingers.

 

basically our zone in beer league was the two wingers got the upper half portion of the defensive blue line and down to the hash marks, not really a full square, the center defended the slot and the D their side of the slot into their side of the corners in the D zone. Basically all players shift from one side of the zone they play to the other as the puck moves around in the whole defensive zone trying to stay between the puck and the other player in the zone a player covers .  
 

Be good to look at the ice clipboard and draw it out...

 

One thing that I have noticed about hockey in the past few years is that in the defensive zone, there is still some relevance here, but when you're on offence, I hear a lot less about the role of specific forwards. It's pretty fluid, and they're F1, F2, and F3. These guys are all professionals, and they certainly know better than I do, but I think that's where it could be confusing. If you're tracking F2, for example, and you're used to playing Zone defence, you might lose your cover. Alternatively, if you're playing man-to-man, you could leave gaps.

It's just an evolution of the game that makes it faster, and gives forwards an opportunity to be creative, and evade coverage. I think it's pretty cool!

 

Love.

[cross16]

On 12/13/2023 at 11:41 AM, Heartbreaker said:

 

One thing that I have noticed about hockey in the past few years is that in the defensive zone, there is still some relevance here, but when you're on offence, I hear a lot less about the role of specific forwards. It's pretty fluid, and they're F1, F2, and F3. These guys are all professionals, and they certainly know better than I do, but I think that's where it could be confusing. If you're tracking F2, for example, and you're used to playing Zone defence, you might lose your cover. Alternatively, if you're playing man-to-man, you could leave gaps.

It's just an evolution of the game that makes it faster, and gives forwards an opportunity to be creative, and evade coverage. I think it's pretty cool!

 

Love.

 

I agree and I seem to recall that was the rationale for making the switch to zone for Huska. He commented about how the skill level is up, the o zone size is up, and with how quick the puck moves playing man to man just left to many gaps and players falling off their check. It was what we saw a lot of last year. He seemed to believe that a zone system would aim to limit the middle of the ice and cut down on some of the high danger chances the Flames gave up last year. 

 

Concept of zone d is pretty straightforward. Draw the d zone up into 4 zones. D take their respective zones (on their sides), Forwards take the high zones (on their sides) and the center backs them up and covers up the gaps in the zones (ie back fill the D if they case to the corners - cover the center high point). Normally, teams can vary how much pressure they want to apply and what area of the ice they want to prioritize (ie cover points, cover slot/collapse) but the principle is stay in your zone and attack the puck when it comes in. 

 

I agree with conundrumed that the Flames play too passive of a zone and it hurts them on the breakout. I think the Flames are almost always having to breakout the full 200, or at best like 175, feet because they don't pressure high to create those turnovers. They also seem to struggle with communication. They seem to be a step behind where the puck is going, and it makes it easier for team to move the puck around on them. First one I question Huska on, but now the second one. 

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree and I seem to recall that was the rationale for making the switch to zone for Huska. He commented about how the skill level is up, the o zone size is up, and with how quick the puck moves playing man to man just left to many gaps and players falling off their check. It was what we saw a lot of last year. He seemed to believe that a zone system would aim to limit the middle of the ice and cut down on some of the high danger chances the Flames gave up last year. 

 

Concept of zone d is pretty straightforward. Draw the d zone up into 4 zones. D take their respective zones (on their sides), Forwards take the high zones (on their sides) and the center backs them up and covers up the gaps in the zones (ie back fill the D if they case to the corners - cover the center high point). Normally, teams can vary how much pressure they want to apply and what area of the ice they want to prioritize (ie cover points, cover slot/collapse) but the principle is stay in your zone and attack the puck when it comes in. 

 

I agree with conundrumed that the Flames play too passive of a zone and it hurts them on the breakout. I think the Flames are almost always having to breakout the full 200, or at best like 175, feet because they don't pressure high to create those turnovers. They also seem to struggle with communication. They seem to be a step behind where the puck is going, and it makes it easier for team to move the puck around on them. First one I question Huska on, but now the second one. 

 

Man to man D is too taxing for an 82-game schedule. There is a lot more chasing, criss crossing, and confusion.  Zone D is defense standardized and can deploy generally among the whole team while throwing lines into the blender 6 times a period.  You got your zone.  Don't need to communicate with a different linemate every shift.

 

Not ideal but come playoffs things can change.  You've got matchups to deal with and that's when you can get creative.

[robrob74]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree and I seem to recall that was the rationale for making the switch to zone for Huska. He commented about how the skill level is up, the o zone size is up, and with how quick the puck moves playing man to man just left to many gaps and players falling off their check. It was what we saw a lot of last year. He seemed to believe that a zone system would aim to limit the middle of the ice and cut down on some of the high danger chances the Flames gave up last year. 

 

Concept of zone d is pretty straightforward. Draw the d zone up into 4 zones. D take their respective zones (on their sides), Forwards take the high zones (on their sides) and the center backs them up and covers up the gaps in the zones (ie back fill the D if they case to the corners - cover the center high point). Normally, teams can vary how much pressure they want to apply and what area of the ice they want to prioritize (ie cover points, cover slot/collapse) but the principle is stay in your zone and attack the puck when it comes in. 

 

I agree with conundrumed that the Flames play too passive of a zone and it hurts them on the breakout. I think the Flames are almost always having to breakout the full 200, or at best like 175, feet because they don't pressure high to create those turnovers. They also seem to struggle with communication. They seem to be a step behind where the puck is going, and it makes it easier for team to move the puck around on them. First one I question Huska on, but now the second one. 

You know, I've been wondering about communication for awhile.  And I think D starts on offence. If we have the puck and once a D pinches in, there needs to be communication about how and who covers, and then how and who covers on the way back when a puck gets turned over. 

[Thebrewcrew]

The start of the season was embarrassing. The team was terrible.

 

Theyve been playing hard since Nov 1.  Much more enjoyable to watch. 
 

It’s the best of both worlds in a sense. They’re not getting rolled-over every night, but there’s no question what they have to do at the TDL.

 

6th overall pick would be the Flames right now, off pts %. Ottawa has 6 less played than Calgary.

[jjgallow]

 

What ever happened to Tim Hunter?

 

I always pegged him for a great coach.   But he kept getting...like..you know...fired.

 

Anyone know why?

[medatswhoP]

On 1/24/2024 at 9:05 PM, Bob Fry said:

The Loss to St. Louis 3 straight goals and after listening to our Coach, I was shocked that he showed no emotions after three losses. As a fan I was upset and got more upset listening to this coach calmly say nothing and showed no emotions. The players took the responseability in the after game interviews. I am getting the impression this coach was hired as he was affordable with having to pay of Sutters two years of contract. Craig Conroy is boxed in with four players having huge contracts for multi years. Another year of no progress in seeing our team improve. Still a fan but losing patience.

 

 

My exact thoughts like 20 games ago already. I feel this team has potential (albeit) need some changes to the roster but Huska does not have this team where they should be.  His lack of emotions public and yes I'm assuming in the dressing room, lack of pushing accountability where needed be, my overall consensus is Conroy made a mistake hiring him shows.  Staying patient we will figure it out, not this season but hope come October we look like a completely different team.

[travel_dude]

8 hours ago, medatswhoP said:

My exact thoughts like 20 games ago already. I feel this team has potential (albeit) need some changes to the roster but Huska does not have this team where they should be.  His lack of emotions public and yes I'm assuming in the dressing room, lack of pushing accountability where needed be, my overall consensus is Conroy made a mistake hiring him shows.  Staying patient we will figure it out, not this season but hope come October we look like a completely different team.

 

I don't know if his manner in public matters to me.  I would prefer if he yells at the ref, but it's not the end of the world.  Many rookie coaches have not earned respect from the refs, so pissing on them doesn't get you anywhere.  

 

Saying that, I am concerned about his ability to get anything out of this team.  Maybe all it is is that we are not very good.  I think we may have been decieved by years of Monahan, Johnny, Lindy, Gio, Brodie, Tkachuk etc.  They made the team seem better.  We get that will the goalie playing well and we were a playoff team.  But we can't seem to stay up for the full game.  Lapses, mistakes that look the same every time, slow PP movement, dumb passes, you name it.  It's on the coach, but not 100%.  The players are mixed up or slacking off at times.  Unwilling to take a hit (bail out) or block a chot (sell out).  Guys looking for a new deal, sure I get that a bit.  Not giving anyone a good view of future value though.  Selling out to stay healthy.  

 

I think Connie was given a bill of goods he had little control over.

Bean and Maloney said what he was going to get.

He wasn't given full rein to strip it down.

The play of some and health of others dictated that.

 

For the talent we have right now, we are playing maybe a bit lower than I expected.

I figured when we got back to normal in December that we would stay at that relative pace for the season.

Really it was just a blip.  Before and after are closer to the real team it seems.

 

The coach has to make radical changes to the PP.

That's on him right now.  The usage and systems aren't logical.

It may be nothing close to the way it was constructed, but can't tell.

We never see anything different.

Started out hot and fell from there.

The N zone and D zone is due to some players not being great there.

Adjust that based on who you have on the team.

You don't have to be great to be good.

Point out how gaps can't be bigger than X.

Sit the fool who doesn't listen.

Oesterle sat, and he wasn't the only one that boobed up.

He was just the worst one.

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't know if his manner in public matters to me.  I would prefer if he yells at the ref, but it's not the end of the world.  Many rookie coaches have not earned respect from the refs, so pissing on them doesn't get you anywhere.  

 

Saying that, I am concerned about his ability to get anything out of this team.  Maybe all it is is that we are not very good.  I think we may have been decieved by years of Monahan, Johnny, Lindy, Gio, Brodie, Tkachuk etc.  They made the team seem better.  We get that will the goalie playing well and we were a playoff team.  But we can't seem to stay up for the full game.  Lapses, mistakes that look the same every time, slow PP movement, dumb passes, you name it.  It's on the coach, but not 100%.  The players are mixed up or slacking off at times.  Unwilling to take a hit (bail out) or block a chot (sell out).  Guys looking for a new deal, sure I get that a bit.  Not giving anyone a good view of future value though.  Selling out to stay healthy.  

 

I think Connie was given a bill of goods he had little control over.

Bean and Maloney said what he was going to get.

He wasn't given full rein to strip it down.

The play of some and health of others dictated that.

 

For the talent we have right now, we are playing maybe a bit lower than I expected.

I figured when we got back to normal in December that we would stay at that relative pace for the season.

Really it was just a blip.  Before and after are closer to the real team it seems.

 

The coach has to make radical changes to the PP.

That's on him right now.  The usage and systems aren't logical.

It may be nothing close to the way it was constructed, but can't tell.

We never see anything different.

Started out hot and fell from there.

The N zone and D zone is due to some players not being great there.

Adjust that based on who you have on the team.

You don't have to be great to be good.

Point out how gaps can't be bigger than X.

Sit the fool who doesn't listen.

Oesterle sat, and he wasn't the only one that boobed up.

He was just the worst one.

for me, the years you talk about were all up and down. For me the inconsistency meant we weren't a good team then. If we were a perennial team we'd have been good, but it was why I was calling to blow it up back then. They had good players, but it doesn't always mean a good team. 
 

Monahan was a 50 point guy without Johnny. The same is said for Lindholm now. Tkachuk should have been away from Backlund earlier and we lacked a true #1 C. I don't think we were ever really contenders. #1C & #1D away from being that. If Lindholm is that with Johnny and Tkachuk, then we needed a #2C and a #1D. I also felt we missed a good second line winger too. 
 

Good team? No. it's why we are here now. Johnny hid a lot of problems and the exchange for Tkachuk has one good outcome, Weegar. 
 

 

[jjgallow]

On 1/24/2024 at 9:05 PM, Bob Fry said:

The Loss to St. Louis 3 straight goals and after listening to our Coach, I was shocked that he showed no emotions after three losses. As a fan I was upset and got more upset listening to this coach calmly say nothing and showed no emotions. The players took the responseability in the after game interviews. I am getting the impression this coach was hired as he was affordable with having to pay of Sutters two years of contract. Craig Conroy is boxed in with four players having huge contracts for multi years. Another year of no progress in seeing our team improve. Still a fan but losing patience.

 

 

 

The problem is that we have a number of players locked in long term contracts who act like 2 year olds through their agents if the coach shows emotions ( like the last one who got fired ).

 

Now is a time to reload on pick and prospects.   Basically.

[The_People1]

Personally I like a coach to not let the highs get too high and the lows get too low.  Stay cool and calm.  Analyze objectively.  And above all, be fair.

 

And that doesn't mean low intensity.  Just rather, controlled emotions.  Post-game interviews are certainly not the time to get emotional.