[News] Flames Management Want to Create a "Black & Blue" Team

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Nope. Just glad to hear that the guys in charge agree.



Compared to Feaster, for example, who made the team substantially smaller, as well as hiring a coach who all but eliminated hitting.

I just don't know if I agree with the black and blue hockey thing anymore, and Burke and now Treliving are harping on that theme. This whole thing that you have to be a big team that hits a lot to make the playoffs is mostly fabricated IMO in this day and age.

Teams with less hits than the Flames this year: Hawks, Wild, Stars, Sharks, Wings, Lightning. Six of the eight teams with less hits than the Flames made the playoffs this year, and five of them in the West. Last season, nine teams had less hits than the Flames and seven of them made the playoffs.

I know it's pretty superficial analysis as I lie here on my phone, but I don't see the correlation and frankly I'd be interested in hearing mgmt's rationale beyond Burke ranting about not being able to teach size and Treliving nodding his head. You don't have to be big to not take any ####.

[Itse]

This nonsense is pretty much the exact opposite of what I want to hear. As someone already said, it's style over substance. You build around the core you have and pick strategies that fit the strengths of that core. Trying to pick a strategy and force the team into it will never amount to much.

Our core is Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Brodie, Giordano, Hamilton. Trying to build a physical team around that core is a fools errand.

[FireItUp]

[Strange Brew]

You want a bigger team so you fire the coach? Was Hartley supposed to stretch them or something?

I think firing Hartley was the right decision but I don't see how the team he was given could have played the style Burke is preaching. Sometimes when I hear talk like this I question whether there is really a plan in place. The 2 big off season acquisitions were Frolik and Hamilton, neither of whom really play this style. Is Stockton playing this way? Seems like a bit of hot air to me.

[GoJetsGo]

It's astounding how dense some people here can be. Acting as though because we haven't become a bigger, grittier team inside two seasons, it's a failed plan. Or that we somehow are going to jettison the entire current roster to replace it with goons.

It was pretty clear to me Burke was talking about continuing to mould and tweak the team moving forward by adding size and grit where possible.

Since the rebuild isn't nearly complete, and there are several holes to fill... that seems completely reasonable that we can round out the roster. Especially with a player of that ilk possibly being available at our first pick this season.

[CroFlames]

If this means we play a Capitals style of hockey, I would be pretty darn pleased as a fan.

[Caged Great]

Once guys like Hunter Smith, Garnet Hathaway, Auston Carroll, and Tim Harrison work their way into the lineup to compliment Bouma/Ferland, then the Flames will be a tough team with Maximus Truculentus.

Just have to be patient.

[FusionX]

Are you sure you didn't mean a white and gold team Burke?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Trade for a 6'5" Colborne.
Sign Engelland - a black and blue player that can actually play.
Traded for Bollig.
Brought up Ferland and kept him up.
Drafted Hunter Smith.
Signed Keegan Kanzig a bit early to some people.
Signed 6'3" Derek Grant
Traded for 6'5" Hamilton
Traded 5'10" Russell and got back 6'3" more physical Jokipakka
Signed 6'2" Nakladal who is decently physical for a puck mover
Signed Garnet Hathaway
Traded for Ladislav Smid

I guess people see what they want to see.

edit:
Also
Signed 6'3" Van Brabant
Traded for 6'3" Drew Shore
Traded for 6'3" Keven Pollack
Signed Colton Orr to the farm
Signed Blair Riley to the farm

The Flames got substantially bigger once Burke arrived, and it has continued under Treliving.

I honestly should have stopped reading after a 6'5 Colborne.

A 6'5 Colborne has never played black and blue hockey and none of the players you listed are impact players.

Hamilton is but he's softer than Colborne.

[Table 5]

While we definitely need to get bigger and meaner, with the parts we have, this team is much better off trying to emulate Chicago than Anaheim or LA.

Or perhaps we don't try to emulate anyone, and just try to build our own identity with what he have. I think with the d core we have, it would be foolish to try to diminish their great transition game.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by heep223

This is the thing I hate about Burke. "You need both skill and size in your lineup." Thanks tips.

And for some reason people treat it as some sort of epiphany when they hear him say that.

No, the thing you hate about Burke is that you hate Burke, so you cherry pick what he's saying and say "well duh!"

Burke also went into detail about the problem with the systems Hartley put in place, how he preferred possession over dump and chase, how you didn't have to be great on both the PP/PK that they had to average out. Do you hate that too?

And you don't know what an epiphany is.

Originally Posted by heep223

Teams with less hits than the Flames this year: Hawks, Wild, Stars, Sharks, Wings, Lightning. Six of the eight teams with less hits than the Flames made the playoffs this year, and five of them in the West. Last season, nine teams had less hits than the Flames and seven of them made the playoffs.

I know it's pretty superficial analysis as I lie here on my phone, but I don't see the correlation and frankly I'd be interested in hearing mgmt's rationale beyond Burke ranting about not being able to teach size and Treliving nodding his head. You don't have to be big to not take any ####.

Where did Burke mention hitting? Playing physical and aggressive is significantly different than just racking up hits. I think it's pretty obvious Burke would rather have a 5'9 guy who plays like he's 6'6 than the opposite. If you read the quotes and thought "Burke only likes BIG!" then you should have read all the words around the word "big."

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Table 5

While we definitely need to get bigger and meaner, with the parts we have, this team is much better off trying to emulate Chicago than Anaheim or LA.

Or perhaps we don't try to emulate anyone, and just try to build our own identity with what he have. I think with the d core we have, it would be foolish to try to diminish their great transition game.

Agree, especially the bold part. I hope the next coach won't limit our D from jumping into play.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Matty81

I think that kind of blueprint is outdated anyway. Puck possession matters but size and physicality are just nice to have. If a player can protect the puck and do good things with it, it doesn't matter if he's 5'6" or 6'6" with fighting disappearing.

5'6 players can rarely protect the puck vs 6'4 210+ lb defence men. Small players get physically dominated by large players. And that has zero to do with fighting. Gaudreau survives by being arguably one of the most elusive players in the league. But a bigger, strong team is going to be harder to check, harder to shut down, harder to push out of the game, etc. And a bigger, stronger team is going to find it easier to check the opposition, shove them down, physically dominate them.

Size does matter in the NHL. Size matters along the boards. Size matters in front of the net. These things did not disappear when fighting mostly left the game. Watch what Shea Weber does to small forwards. Watch how Lucic cannot be easily physically contained. Size does matter.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think Feaster planned to make the team small. He went for the BPAs who just happened to be smaller skilled guys and then Hartley played the cards he was dealt.

Every GM would love to have big skilled bruisers, but they are rare and aren't easy to acquire.

Feaster failed to recognize the importance of size. Pretty monumental failure IMO.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

Our core is Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Brodie, Giordano, Hamilton. Trying to build a physical team around that core is a fools errand.

And some would say trying to build a physical team around that core is the only way we'll compete for a cup in the Pacific. I happen to think those people are right.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

The Flames got substantially bigger once Burke arrived, and it has continued under Treliving.

C'mon. Are you also going to count losing Hanowski and Breen? Would you buy it if someone said the flames were way more black and blue with big jay boumeester patrolling the blue line?

Burke arrived with the black and blue speech. 3 years later he's making the same one and the flames are no closer to being able to trade body blows with the likes of the kings and blues. If that's where he wants to go the team had better shift gears.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Itse

This nonsense is pretty much the exact opposite of what I want to hear. As someone already said, it's style over substance. You build around the core you have and pick strategies that fit the strengths of that core. Trying to pick a strategy and force the team into it will never amount to much.

Our core is Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Brodie, Giordano, Hamilton. Trying to build a physical team around that core is a fools errand.

No its not. It's exactly what you want to do. Flames have a great core of skilled players. Now it will take some time to surround those guys with some size and "substance". There not going to be changing how the core plays their game.

[OzSome]

Originally Posted by Table 5

While we definitely need to get bigger and meaner, with the parts we have, this team is much better off trying to emulate Chicago than Anaheim or LA.

Or perhaps we don't try to emulate anyone, and just try to build our own identity with what he have. I think with the d core we have, it would be foolish to try to diminish their great transition game.

Yep the big bad LA Kings and the big bad Anaheim Ducks lost the first round in the playoff. We need some skilled players in order to compete. How many players the Flames have that are considered Top 6 forwards right now? I count 3 (Monahan, Gaudreau and Bennett). Bennett's offense was inconsistent but you can't really blame him for it. It is his first full season and he was playing with mostly bottom 6 forwards. I think he had success playing with Backlund though. Flames just need to get him a player who can play and help him in his line. Backlund I think is a borderline top 6 but I think he is more reliable as a 3rd line center. Frolik is the same way, he is more reliable playing in the 3rd line than a 1st or 2nd line. Ferland, Colborne, Jooris, Bollig, Bouma and others are considered a bottom 6 forwards.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

And some would say trying to build a physical team around that core is the only way we'll compete for a cup in the Pacific. I happen to think those people are right.

Peculiar you think those "people are right" when the non-physical Chicago Blackhawks (2015 vs Ducks, 2014 vs Blues, 2013 vs Kings), San Jose Sharks (2016 vs Kings), Calgary Flames/Edmonton Oilers/Vancouver Canucks (2015 vs Kings), Nashville Predators (2016 vs Ducks), 2015 Wild (2015 vs Blues), have managed to eliminate the three true "Black and Blue" teams in the Western Conference playoffs for 3 of the last 4 seasons. And the 2014 Sharks and 2014 Blackhawks were a Vlasic injury and an overtime bounce, respectively, from knocking out the 2014 Kings.

The tunnel vision has to end. There's more than one way to compete for a cup in the Pacific. Heck, I would take the 2011 Canucks against any team in this year's Pacific race, they came up against a ridiculously elite goalie in the Final that year, and lost a series where they were better.

Oh, and those Black and Blue Winnipeg Jets from last year? The Flames managed to win more playoff games against the Ducks (1 vs 0), and they were just as inept as the Flames this year too (24th vs 23rd).

Originally Posted by Ryan Kesler

No human can withstand that many hits

...Said a player on a team that lost their series.

The Flames being too small, too soft, all that is just an excuse for the Flames not being good enough, period, for a variety of reasons including skill, depth, goaltending, systems, and experience. The best puck possession team I've ever witnessed was built around Pavel Datsyuk, not Ryan Getzlaf or Dustin Brown.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by OzSome

Yep the big bad LA Kings and the big bad Anaheim Ducks lost the first round in the playoff. We need some skilled players in order to compete. How many players the Flames have that are considered Top 6 forwards right now? I count 3 (Monahan, Gaudreau and Bennett). Bennett's offense was inconsistent but you can't really blame him for it. It is his first full season and he was playing with mostly bottom 6 forwards. I think he had success playing with Backlund though. Flames just need to get him a player who can play and help him in his line. Backlund I think is a borderline top 6 but I think he is more reliable as a 3rd line center. Frolik is the same way, he is more reliable playing in the 3rd line than a 1st or 2nd line. Ferland, Colborne, Jooris, Bollig, Bouma and others are considered a bottom 6 forwards.

Frolik is a perfect example of a 2nd line winger. Plays a strong 2 way game with 50 point offence. Not scared of the body, has some size. I'm not sure what you are looking for in a 2nd line winger, but he has it.