Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Calgary4LIfe · 03-31-2016, 12:14 PM

Well, last year I would say the Flames played the same system with a very active defence, and were 14th in the league in goals against. The goaltending was average.

I would argue that if they upgrade the goaltending, then it could still very much be a sound strategy.

I do think that if a team is considered a legitimate contender, they have to get their goals against into the top 10. I can't think of too many teams that win cups playing 'loosey-goosey'. I do think, however, that a team needs to play to their own strengths. If the Flames had a less offensive and less mobile group of defencemen, it would be an absolutely horrendous system to try and play. I don't think that is the case, and even Engelland hasn't shown himself to be terrible at all within the confines of Hartley's system.

I do think that the forwards need to always be aware and and cover for the defence, as well (again) having reliable goaltending in order to make it effective.

What I do think is that Treliving (and Burke) want to increase the size on the backend, so I would imagine the system will alter depending on the personnel.

I am a believer in creating a system specifically for your individual team to enhance the strengths while limiting the weaknesses. I didn't like Brent Sutter because I felt his system was a poor fit for the existing personnel on the roster. I didn't like Brian Sutter's system either, but in his tenure the team made personnel moves and I would say it was the wrong time to axe Brian as he finally had a team that I thought fit his system.

Just some observations over the years on my part. You take a look at LA - Darryl's system fits really, really well on that team and they have success. Move over to Chicago, and their system fits that team very well. If you were to switch systems between those teams, would they have as much success?

I think a GM and a coach need to work together to assure that the way the team is being built and the systems implemented correspond to one another. I do feel this is happening in Calgary. Calgary just needs further depth up front (though it is nice to see reliable secondary scoring now - however, I would like to see a larger sample size), and they are in massive need of a reliable goalie (or two if Ortio comes out poorly again).

03-31-2016, 12:14 PM	#19
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	Well, last year I would say the Flames played the same system with a very active defence, and were 14th in the league in goals against. The goaltending was average. I would argue that if they upgrade the goaltending, then it could still very much be a sound strategy. I do think that if a team is considered a legitimate contender, they have to get their goals against into the top 10. I can't think of too many teams that win cups playing 'loosey-goosey'. I do think, however, that a team needs to play to their own strengths. If the Flames had a less offensive and less mobile group of defencemen, it would be an absolutely horrendous system to try and play. I don't think that is the case, and even Engelland hasn't shown himself to be terrible at all within the confines of Hartley's system. I do think that the forwards need to always be aware and and cover for the defence, as well (again) having reliable goaltending in order to make it effective. What I do think is that Treliving (and Burke) want to increase the size on the backend, so I would imagine the system will alter depending on the personnel. I am a believer in creating a system specifically for your individual team to enhance the strengths while limiting the weaknesses. I didn't like Brent Sutter because I felt his system was a poor fit for the existing personnel on the roster. I didn't like Brian Sutter's system either, but in his tenure the team made personnel moves and I would say it was the wrong time to axe Brian as he finally had a team that I thought fit his system. Just some observations over the years on my part. You take a look at LA - Darryl's system fits really, really well on that team and they have success. Move over to Chicago, and their system fits that team very well. If you were to switch systems between those teams, would they have as much success? I think a GM and a coach need to work together to assure that the way the team is being built and the systems implemented correspond to one another. I do feel this is happening in Calgary. Calgary just needs further depth up front (though it is nice to see reliable secondary scoring now - however, I would like to see a larger sample size), and they are in massive need of a reliable goalie (or two if Ortio comes out poorly again).