[News] Lambert: Why Calgary Flames window could slam shut

[GranteedEV]

Can't believe I am going to play devil's advocate here, but:

Originally Posted by Ryan Lambert

They might try to make Troy Brouwer “a thing” on the top line again, but that was a disaster last time out.

Actually, Ryan, there was one place on the entire team Brouwer wasn't a disaster, and that was with Gaudreau carrying him...... Brouwer dragged down Monahan with other wingers (Ferland, Bennett, or Versteeg) but when it was Gaudreau, see below:

Originally Posted by bigrangy

One thing I don't understand about the deployments this year was why Gaudreau-Monahan-Brouwer never became a thing.

In 119 5v5 minutes as a line though, they had 55% CF% and 58% xGF% and they were even +1 in goal differential.

Now, excuse me if I go vomit a little in my mouth for re-iterating anyone's praise for Troy Brouwer. Only Lambert could get me to do that.

Ryan Lambert,

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

I haven't read a lot of Lambert articles, so I was coming in with a pretty open mind, but the guy lost me when he called Micheal Ferland "charitable" regarding depth. Like, who the hell is this guy?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If taken solely on its own, then yes, the goalie situation would be worrisome. However, we need to remember that the defense in front of these goalies will be improved collectively to the point where it should give the goalies a significant boost. The fact he doesn't even touch on this is pretty terrible.

The points regarding Monohan moving the needle as far as possession metrics and Bennett needing to step up offensively are very fair assessments to make. These two items will be the difference between the Flames just making the playoffs and potentially being a powerhouse imho.

I would argue that Smith's elite puck moving abilities will lead to less time in zone, and probably a few more goals, especially on the PP.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Rubbish article by a trash writer. His points aren't really worth addressing IMO. What a hack

[bubbsy]

if i understand his premise, it is that:
1) Flames have some high skill forwards but haven't added enough around them to help drive possession/offense. Note: Author questions how skilled given that HALF the forwards from last year's roster are >50% CF (isn't half a reasonably ok number btw) & isn't convinced Monahan does anything possession wise (... other than be a ~30g/~60pt player every year mind you)

2) Goaltending was below average last year, but even then the team scraped into the playoffs, yet, with average goaltending they would have only 6 more points..... I don't quite understand this point he's trying to make either. First he claims the goalies are below average and they haven't done much to improve this, but at the same time, he marginalizes the overall impact better goaltending would make.

3) Calls out 8 players as the flames core, and mentions that "basically all those guys....are in their mid to late 20s". Interestingly enough, only 3 of the players mentioned fall into that categorization. Gio is over, yet Gaudreau, Tkatchuk, hamilton, monahan aren't even at their mid-20s yet (by year of birth). So, actually half of the core he calls out, has yet to even HIT their mid-20s as yet. A complete failure to consider any concept of organic growth of the youth, as he blasts a 21 year old bennett for failing to hit 30 points, not to mention considering it "charitable" to consider ferland to provide offensive production before lumping lazar in as well. it's like the author is void of any concept of youth/prospect progression.

4) flames offseason was flawed in solidifying defence by getting a middling dman rather than augmenting the forwards..... ummm, k.

It was a truly stupidly written article. How do writer's like these still have jobs?? Like such poorly thought out arguments, that are articulated in an even worse fashion.

I would have respected the article more if it kept the same exact thesis that the "flames window could be slammed shut" but formulated flat out smarter and more reasonable arguments to back it up:

1) Goaltending has been an issue, the solutions in place are questionable at best.

2) The forwards, is built upon an ok group, around gaudreau, monahan, and 3M line. However, will fall short if the young guys don't progress and deliver (bennet, ferland, lazar), leaving the team underskilled compared to other upper echelon Western Conference teams.

That's a perfectly justifiable position to take on why the flames may not materialize to a cup contender. However, the author's analytic thinking and/or writing ability leaves a pretty dumb article.

Hope he comes here and tries to justify such a poor piece of work

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If the Flames get two things out of this goaltending duo

1) They don't allow a consistent stream of weak goals that sap the teams confidence in them.

2) They give us league average goaltending.

This team is fighting for the top of the division.

And the quest for league average goaltending continues.

Where did this idea that you can win with average goaltending come from? The Red Wings? The 2010 Stanley Cup finals? (Niemmi vs Leighton/Boucher)

Those are exceptions to the rule. The rule being that goaltending is VERY important and average goaltending won't take you very far.

Mike Smith is an average goalie. Just like Brian Elliot. But what the Flames need to reach the next level is an exceptional goalie.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

2) The forwards, is built upon an ok group, around gaudreau, monahan, and 3M line. However, will fall short if the young guys don't progress and deliver (bennet, ferland, lazar), leaving the team underskilled compared to other upper echelon Western Conference teams.

That's a perfectly justifiable position to take on why the flames may not materialize to a cup contender. However, the author's analytic thinking and/or writing ability leaves a pretty dumb article.

You could make the same argument about any young core though...if they fail to progress and the team fails to add pieces around them, then the team won't be that good. Well...duh.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

He does not mention Jankowski, but fair enough, Jankowski hasn't done anything yet.

I'd like to see what peoples' objections are to the actual points he makes in the article. Basically he sees the problems as,

1. forward quality past Johnny / Mony and the 3M line;
2. the potential for the goaltending to be mediocre again; and
3. overall goal scoring.

Those are also what I would say the team's challenges are, to be answered this season and going forward for the next two to three years. I would also agree with him that you can only count on a couple more truly strong years from Gio; anything more is possible but optimistic, so it makes sense to take a shot while he's still under 35. I don't think this piece is that far off, overall.

There are always criticisms to be made in regard to the make up of any team, and I agree to some degree to the points that you have made. But Lambert takes this to the extreme. Even the title "window slamming shut" is ridiculous hyperbole, when the make up of the team is not static.
As to your points:
1. Forward quality: Looking "past" 5/6 of the top two lines is silly. The Flames have an excellent foundation. Writing off Bennett is equally ridiculous. Ignoring Jankowski, Foo and Lazar leaves the impression there is an absolute black hole in the bottom 6. There are questions, but it isn't unreasonable to assume that the bottom 6 will be better than last year and will be better in future years.
2. Goaltending is the biggest question mark. I doubt anyone would argue that point. Lambert makes a couple of logic errors in a) assuming average goaltending would be a step down from past years. I would argue it would be a huge upgrade, and 2) ignoring the possibility that Parsons/Gillies/Rittich might replace the current duo in the next few years, thereby opening (not closing) the window even further.
3.Overall goal scoring doesn't seem to be that big an issue for the Flames. Sure you want more goals, but if that is one of their biggest problems, then they should be well situated.

[JFK]

Maybe I shouldn't be but I'm always surprised at the advanced stat/possession guys refuse or fail to see development. Monahan's possession metrics have been improving bit by bit every season since he entered the league. He never had two-way players like Backlund or Frolik on his wing to boost those numbers either, he started out with Curtis Glencross and David Jones for the first bit of his career.

Development happens, and you can see that in the underlying numbers too.

[TheScorpion]

Lambert is hysterically awful. It's like he only writes to say "hey everybody, come here, this will make you mad!"

He's the Fox News of hockey journalism.

I don't even feel bad about saying this when he's putting out dickish tweets like this.

https://twitter.com/twolinepass/stat...56790403620864

[Spinach]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don't mind a negative or contrarian article, that at least helps highlight what the trouble spots could be.

Even ardent Flames fans have to acknowledge there is no track record of success and all our hopes are based on potential. And I think you'll have a hard time finding an unbiased observer who ardently believes the Flames have solved their goalie woes.

There is no trophy awarded for expectations or predictions. But Treliving and company certainly have given fans reason to be excited about the upcoming year. That is enough for me at the moment.

I welcome critical articles when they're warranted; rah-rah hype is for Oiler and leaf writers. Age distortions aside, there are some valid points here about the forwards.
Of course, if this Lambert guy truly suggested Monahan should be sent down, his credibility reaches -23.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by blankall

Monahan and Gaudreau, who are 22 and 24 (in 3 days anyways), are our main core pieces up front right now. Yet the writer has classified them as being " in their mid- to late-20s." So....he's basically classified our core in ultra wide range of ages and used the tail end of that range to state that our core is aging.

Giordano and Backlund are the only members of the core that are even close to the declining phase of their careers.

Backlund has basically just entered his prime, and should be able to sustain a high level for 4-5 years yet.

Brodie is just behind Backlund, but you're talking 5-6 seasons of high level play from him. Not even close.

I think Lambert believes Monahan, Tkachuk, Hamilton, Gaudreau and Bennett are a lot older than they are. And if he can't figure out that the large majority of Calgary's impact players is under 25 then I don't know how credible the rest of his opinion piece can really be considered to be.

[Yrebmi]

To be fair Frolik is 29

[codynw]

This guy is obnoxious and I hate to be agreeing with him, but I think there's a pretty good chance he's right about the goaltending. Not exactly a tandem that inspires a ton of confidence.

[Spinach]

Originally Posted by sa226

Its easy for a troll/contrarian to just write off the unknown. Its also difficult to debate the point. Regarding Sam Bennett, people on CP are starting to do it and this guy does it too.

When did Sam Bennett go from potentially the best forward on the team to a 30 point dissappointment? He's taking a longer route than Monahan and Gaudreau, but the way people are writing him off already is way too premature.

Which "people" are writing him off? As long as Treliving and Gulutzan aren't included there, and there's no reason to think they are, Bennett should get a chance to show his worth this season and next.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

if i understand his premise, it is that:
1) Flames have some high skill forwards but haven't added enough around them to help drive possession/offense. Note: Author questions how skilled given that HALF the forwards from last year's roster are >50% CF (isn't half a reasonably ok number btw) & isn't convinced Monahan does anything possession wise (... other than be a ~30g/~60pt player every year mind you)

So first, yes, half your forwards being in the black is "reasonably ok", but you have to remember that this article is being written from the perspective of the Flames being a cup contender, or being a team that could be a cup contender if a few things were different. Second, he praised Monahan, noting that his only weakness as a #1C is his ability to drive possession in that role - other #1Cs around the league, the very best ones, have that club in their bag as well. Which is true.

2) Goaltending was below average last year, but even then the team scraped into the playoffs, yet, with average goaltending they would have only 6 more points..... I don't quite understand this point he's trying to make either. First he claims the goalies are below average and they haven't done much to improve this, but at the same time, he marginalizes the overall impact better goaltending would make.

6 points is a lot of points in a tight playoff race. It puts them up in 3rd in the Pacific, playing the Oilers rather than the Ducks. It's the difference between a sweep and a winnable series, particularly given the matchup.

3) Calls out 8 players as the flames core, and mentions that "basically all those guys....are in their mid to late 20s". Interestingly enough, only 3 of the players mentioned fall into that categorization.

Yup, true, I'd say the window is open wider than he suggests, though it'd be nice to start trying to get through it while Gio is still in his early 30's. The point is, there's no real reason they can't contend now if they fix a couple of things.

4) flames offseason was flawed in solidifying defence by getting a middling dman rather than augmenting the forwards..... ummm, k.

He didn't say that. He said that adding Hamonic is a good thing because he may well excel in a middle pairing role, but that it doesn't address the areas where the Flames were weakest, because they already had a strong blue line. That's, again, true.

I mean, I'm stuck defending Ryan Lambert here. That's how knee-jerk the reactions are when negative stuff is written about this team, even in the context of "the core here is so good that this team is borderline elite on paper".

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

There are always criticisms to be made in regard to the make up of any team, and I agree to some degree to the points that you have made. But Lambert takes this to the extreme. Even the title "window slamming shut" is ridiculous hyperbole, when the make up of the team is not static.

Yeah, I never put much stock in the title as it's usually hyperbolic for strict clickbaity reasons.

1. Forward quality: Looking "past" 5/6 of the top two lines is silly. The Flames have an excellent foundation. Writing off Bennett is equally ridiculous. Ignoring Jankowski, Foo and Lazar leaves the impression there is an absolute black hole in the bottom 6. There are questions, but it isn't unreasonable to assume that the bottom 6 will be better than last year and will be better in future years.

Again, I don't know that he wrote off Bennett. He called him a disappointment, which I think is fair, though that doesn't have to remain the case. As has been mentioned, Bennett's 21, there's no reason to think he doesn't break out this year. If he does, that goes a long way to solving the problem, but it remains a problem unless he does.

As for ignoring Jankowski, Foo and Lazar, this is just magic beans talk. None of those guys have done anything at the NHL level yet. Again, if they do (which no one is saying is impossible) it solves the forward depth problem immediately. Until they do, it's a problem.

2. Goaltending is the biggest question mark. I doubt anyone would argue that point. Lambert makes a couple of logic errors in a) assuming average goaltending would be a step down from past years. I would argue it would be a huge upgrade, and 2) ignoring the possibility that Parsons/Gillies/Rittich might replace the current duo in the next few years, thereby opening (not closing) the window even further.

Again, I think you're misreading him. I think he's saying that average goaltending would be an improvement, on the order of 6 or so points. He's also talking specifically about the next two to three years, while Smith is signed for starter's money. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that none of the three you mentioned are taking over the NHL starting job before the end of next season. It's not a complete impossibility, but I'd certainly consider it unlikely. Maybe Smith provides .915 to .920 tending and Lack is a capable backup once he's allowed to play the way he's comfortable playing. Again, until that happens, it's still an area of major uncertainty, especially after last year.

3.Overall goal scoring doesn't seem to be that big an issue for the Flames. Sure you want more goals, but if that is one of their biggest problems, then they should be well situated.

It was a problem last year, though it's basically the same issue as #1 over again. If you solve the forward depth thing, you solve this. It's just worth highlighting given the quality of transitional play that should be expected with the blue line the Flames have.

I guess I'll stop there because I don't want to be the guy defending the article everyone hates viscerally, but even if you think he was over the top, I just think the central criticisms have, at least, a ring of truth about them.

[Gaudfather]

Dimitri Filipovic does this hockey podcast - this week if you listen from about 29:30 to 34:30 they talk about how the seven Canadian teams will fare this year. They believe the surprise team is the Flames - that Smith will be a better goaltender than he is getting credit for, and that there are not many weaknesses in the forward group, and the d-core is solid ( they expect better results from Brodie this year as well).

Link is here https://hockeypdocast.com/2017/08/10...ilbag-episode/

Certainly less fatalistic than Lambert!

[Five-hole]

Outside of the top 6, the Flames will struggle to score.

.... Yeah.

Just like every other team.

[activeStick]

The majority of the article and his points are poorly thought out. The one thing he has right is the goaltending being a question mark.

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

....

6 points is a lot of points in a tight playoff race. It puts them up in 3rd in the Pacific, playing the Oilers rather than the Ducks. It's the difference between a sweep and a winnable series, particularly given the matchup.

.....

Again, I think you're misreading him. I think he's saying that average goaltending would be an improvement, on the order of 6 or so points.

.....

He actually only said 3 points going by Ms Teeks op

So the team recognized goaltending as a major flaw; it probably cost them 10 or 11 goals over the course of the season, which is the equivalent of about three points