Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
It's not even about hurting Sven - because you're right, it's not a science. Even if you look at it simply as meritocracy/playing who deserves to play angle, it makes no sense to me.
Jackman and McGrattan have done absolutely nothing to earn their playtime. If you disagree with that, well...fine I guess, we see things differently.
I don't even think Sven has been great or even good at times - but he's done more to help the team, and can do more to help the team than Jackman and McGrattan can/have.
|
I should be clear, I'm actually in agreement with a lot of what you say, especially the part I bolded above.
I don't think Jackman or McGrattan has done anything. Heck, I agree that even Glencross hasn't done more than Sven this year. I also feel the Flames are a better team with Sven in the line up playing the way he is now.
I guess where we don't agree is on whether that matters. I don't want Sven just to have to outperform Jackman to get his ice time, or even Glencross. I want Sven to be playing at the level the experts (i.e. the coaches and management) feel he's capable of, and that's the only measuring stick that should be used to evaluate him in a re-build year IMO.
I think what has happened is Feaster's use of the word meritocracy is actually getting Hartley in trouble right now. One because he was so passionate about it when he was using it at the times he was that he over pushed it, and two because Flames fans are taking it far too literally now. I think what Feaster was trying to say back then was, if we have scrub vet on a one-way deal that truely gets out performed by a rookie on a 2 way, the team was commited to finding a way to make room for him, and us being in cap hell in previous years wasn't goint to be a reason not to play the player in the right spot.
I don't think he meant that in the re-build years, the Flames would make line up decisions soley based on who the top 12 forwards were each night.
Let's take Sven for example, and let's forget about the 4th line, Sven's not a 4th line player and he can skate circles around those guys, no question. So lets only look at our Top 9 forwards because that is where Sven belongs at the very least:
I actually agree, with everything we've seen this year, Sven is still one of our best 9 forwards. No question. But I don't agree that it means he should be playing every night in a rebuild year unless someone else can push him down to the 10 spot. For example, if Hartley thinks Sven should actually be a top 4 forward on this team, but is playing about 6 or 7th, and he feels Sven would benefit from watching, or maybe even benefit from a kick in the butt, how is Hartley suppossed to send that message or create that opportunity if the only criteria is meritocracy?
If Sven was on a contending team, it be a lot easier for the coach to sit him on the basis of "meritocracy" because a contending team has much better top 9. I think what Hartley is trying to do is ensure that the fact that Sven doesn't really have to be "that good" to earn a spot in our weak ass line up hurt him from reaching his overall potential, which is better for Calgary and Sven long term.
Competition does often bring out the best in folks, and I think Hartley is trying to create competition where the Flames situation doesn't organicaly have it, by being harder on the rookies who we care about long term development with. It's not cause he's focused on winning now or likes vets. If he was focused on winning now, Sven would be playing because he's a better option, I think Hartley knows much better what this teams goals are for this season and is really trying to stick to them by pushing Sven in a year where there is no natural competition for the guy.