First of all, I really like the team Sutter and company have put together. This is probably the most talented team Calgary has had since 1990 and the subsequent sell-off years that followed. It's refreshing to see a team that doesn't have to try and gut out a 2-1 win every night. OTH, I'm not sure that giving up 6 or 7 goals is what they had in mind when they assembled this crew. To watch Calgary play, you never know what you will get - the team that can dominate the likes of Edmonton, Vancouver and Atlanta; or the one that appears completely disinterested against Detroit, Columbus and Colorado.
Question: Is this just a chemistry thing that needs to be worked out? Is this a team trying to find its identity (evidently a secret identity)?
OR
Is Playfair having a hard time reaching this team? With Sutter, you got a pretty consistent effort every night. Playfair? Is the inconsistency a sign of a lack of character in the players, or a lack of preparation by the coaching staff?
Playfair's in a tough spot. This team has gone from a bunch of lunch pail guys working hard on the ice, kicking ass and taking names. They won on sheer effort alone, out-working the opponent and making life miserable for anyone that got in their way. In 2003-04 the Flames were fortunate to find themselves in a perfect storm of circumstances where things played out just right (notwithstanding they came up just short).
They tried to play that game last year and couldn't get it done.
This year, Sutter clearly made a conscious decision to change things up a bit. Though many of the faces may be the same, there seems to be a great deal more emphasis placed on offense this year. The team's identity and style is in a state of flux. Are they a high-powered offensive dynamo? Are they a rough and tough team of grinders and muckers? Are they something else?
Having said that, Playfair himself needs a kick in the ass, because he's another week of this crap from being canned if you ask me.
Is this a rookie head coach thing? Is he having a hard time following in the footsteps? Is this even fair - are our expectations too high? If you look at say Montreal, they have a rookie head coach and have seen their play tail off. Is it a matter of the players not listening to the "rookie". What made Darryl so effective? Why can some guys peel paint off the wall and the players respond and another guy is just seen as "losing it". Similarly, Darryl could call a guy out in the media and get good results. Playfair benches Amonte and....
Playfair's in a tough spot. This team has gone from a bunch of lunch pail guys working hard on the ice, kicking ass and taking names. They won on sheer effort alone, out-working the opponent and making life miserable for anyone that got in their way. In 2003-04 the Flames were fortunate to find themselves in a perfect storm of circumstances where things played out just right (notwithstanding they came up just short).
They tried to play that game last year and couldn't get it done.
This year, Sutter clearly made a conscious decision to change things up a bit. Though many of the faces may be the same, there seems to be a great deal more emphasis placed on offense this year. The team's identity and style is in a state of flux. Are they a high-powered offensive dynamo? Are they a rough and tough team of grinders and muckers? Are they something else?
I will tell you what they are. They are a team that has shown no work ethic at all on many, many nights this season. They are a team that clearly isnt responding to their coach anymore...as no matter how sh** poor they play he cant seem to do a darn thing about it. Say what you want about Sutter but when the Flames had a lazy crap period or game....you would see a noticbale difference right away. I dont know if it is a lack of respect for Playfair, the fact they have tuned him out, or that maybe he just isnt a very good head coach...but for some reason he is not getting his job done...plain and simple.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
The team's identity and style is in a state of flux. Are they a high-powered offensive dynamo? Are they a rough and tough team of grinders and muckers? Are they something else?
So what happens between Atlanta and Colorado? Why the apparent difference in effort? Do these players need the same guy who signs their cheques behind the bench also?
On the broadcast the other night, the point was made that Vancouver, Edmonton and Minnesota are all going through a stretch where they are on the road more than at home while Calgary is at home more than on the road. This seems like a golden opportunity to take command of the season and the division. In that light, why the indifferent effort?
Chemistry? It's hard to get when the coach seems to be changing up the lines all the time. Keep the same frickin' lines together!! Also, why the hell was Amonte on the ice in the last minute when we are down by one??? He might be good to have on when we are up by one but when trailing please put on one of the scoring forwards...
Chemistry? It's hard to get when the coach seems to be changing up the lines all the time. Keep the same frickin' lines together!! Also, why the hell was Amonte on the ice in the last minute when we are down by one??? He might be good to have on when we are up by one but when trailing please put on one of the scoring forwards...
When Daryl was behind the bench, he changed the lines about as often as he frowned.
__________________
Special thanks to Dion for making my new sig.
Can't get enough of my annoying ramblings? Watch me do it in 140 characters or less. Follow me @tmart1040 https://twitter.com/#!/Tmart1040
Is this a rookie head coach thing? Is he having a hard time following in the footsteps? Is this even fair - are our expectations too high? If you look at say Montreal, they have a rookie head coach and have seen their play tail off. Is it a matter of the players not listening to the "rookie". What made Darryl so effective? Why can some guys peel paint off the wall and the players respond and another guy is just seen as "losing it". Similarly, Darryl could call a guy out in the media and get good results. Playfair benches Amonte and....
A lot of folks forget that under Darryl Sutter the team wasn't the model of consistency either. Most teams go through up and down, though the more concerning matter would be the team inability to bring forth a strong effort on a consistent basis. But regradless, the team went through its funks under Sutter too.
But this team is more talented on paper, and expectations are higher.
I still think the answer to the problems rests within the players themselves.
Location: I ain't playing nose tackle in a 3-4 defence
Exp:
Well the team has undergone a pretty significant transformation from a group of pluggers who tried to win 2-1 games to a skilled bunch who can win a game 5-4. When the Flames come out and play this is a good team that can beat anyone. But there are nights where the effort really isn't there and they can look bad.
The thing people probably don't consider when they look at last nights game is that past Flames teams would have lost that game 6-1. But this team scored a few goals that past teams wouldn't have and actually were in the game and appeared to have it despite how poorly they were playing. Every so often you'll get an egg from the team and last night was one of those. Contrary to popular belief it hasn't been a common occurance on home ice lately. Last year after the deadline people in Edmonton were flipping their lid because their team wasn't playing well and was losing big games at inoppurtune times. But eventually that team did get things together. I'll let this team have a few more games to work some things out. Afterall how often does Kiprusoff play 2 stinkers in 3 games?
__________________ "I don't think it's me personally, I really don't,"
Raiders QB JaMarcus Russell
I still think the answer to the problems rests within the players themselves.
I think its both - players and coaches.
For all this talk, they are a team. The Calgary Flames - which includes Iginla, Primeau, Preston, Playfair and everybody inbetween. Trying to pigeon hole (I know that's not what you are literally saying Jiri) it "mostly" onto one group (i.e. the players or the coaches) is silly. Its a team game, and all parties in my mind deserve an equal share of the blame.
I am not fond of complaining about coaching--it'd too easy, like complaining about officiating--but I do have questions about Playfairs job.
I have always thought that a coaches job was to ensure the team was prepared, both from a strategic standpoint, and a motivation standpoint. There have been so many situations where the team does not seem ready to play, that at some point you have to go from questioning the 23 individuals, and try to find the common thread as to why the whole group is so far behind.
Ultimately, the measure of a coach is if he can get the team to play to, or above, it's potential. This team isn't even close.
I will tell you what they are. They are a team that has shown no work ethic at all on many, many nights this season. They are a team that clearly isnt responding to their coach anymore...as no matter how sh** poor they play he cant seem to do a darn thing about it. Say what you want about Sutter but when the Flames had a lazy crap period or game....you would see a noticbale difference right away. I dont know if it is a lack of respect for Playfair, the fact they have tuned him out, or that maybe he just isnt a very good head coach...but for some reason he is not getting his job done...plain and simple.
Where are the leaders of this team in all of this? They cannot be exempt from shouldering blame for lacklustre efforts. It is Playfair's job to get them ready by presenting them with a game plan to follow. Its up to guys like Iginla, Warrener, Yelle, Regehr to lead the team and light fires under butts just as much as it is Playfair's duty.
__________________
I don't talk in green words, why should I use green text?
you can't coach focus, you can't coach mental errors. You put a system in place and the players are too follow it.
They're trying ... I didn't see a team that wasn't trying last night and I think people push the effort button almost as easily as they push the coach button.
It's a feel, and a trust in each other, and they don't have that right now. Chemistry is a tough nut to crack, but if you crack it you win, you don't you don't.
In 2004 the team had a group of guys that believed, and because of that they became more than the sum of their parts.
The 2005 chapter had good defensive chemistry but nothing up front. That type of chemistry loss looks like a team without talent that still works their ass off and because of that they get a pass from fans.
The 2006 Flames have good chemistry up front, but not in their own zone. Defence pairings haven't reached that point where they KNOW their partner has it and because of that they try to cover and compensate which leaves their man more open than he should be. Likewise with the forwards creaping back too far to help, leaving the points open.
You need to get on that same page to win, they're not there, and it's not coaching.
A lot of folks forget that under Darryl Sutter the team wasn't the model of consistency either. Most teams go through up and down, though the more concerning matter would be the team inability to bring forth a strong effort on a consistent basis. But regradless, the team went through its funks under Sutter too.
To the same degree??? If I recall 2004, they had a big losing streak at the start of the year but were actually one of the best teams in the league after the all star break. It was down the stretch where they developed the reputation fo being a tough team to play.
Here we are today about to head down the stretch and we are now playing the worst and best hockey of the year. Makes me think the Flames could go all the way to the fourth round or could be out in 4 games.
I am not fond of complaining about coaching--it'd too easy, like complaining about officiating--but I do have questions about Playfairs job.
I have always thought that a coaches job was to ensure the team was prepared, both from a strategic standpoint, and a motivation standpoint. There have been so many situations where the team does not seem ready to play, that at some point you have to go from questioning the 23 individuals, and try to find the common thread as to why the whole group is so far behind.
Ultimately, the measure of a coach is if he can get the team to play to, or above, it's potential. This team isn't even close.
Ding, ding, ding!
I am surprised more people do not have this viewpoint.....it is pretty standard reasoning in my eyes.
All of the players continually are having the same problems, problems they didnt have(or at least no nearly to this exent) last season under another coach. Is it not then common sense to, as Ryan said, find the common link that would create such a difference in play on a mass level?
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
Jekyll/Hyde/Playfair
