Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
I thought Hartley's system was a great plan for an up-temp, entertaining game that played to the strengths on the backend. It worked for a year (some may argue despite itself but I won't ) That was the most fun season of Flames hockey in years.
The problem is he didn't adapt as other teams adjusted, not to mention it had inherent flaws that were exposed when there was less team buy in.
|
I too thought it was one of the most entertaining hockey the Flames have played since I've watched them, and perhaps the most entertaining since I've followed hockey. The come-backs kept me tuned in until the last minute, whereas before I would watch something else if the Flames were down a few goals in the 3rd. The tic-tac-toes, breakaways, and desperation saves were exciting.
People complain about low scoring but when we see a system that keeps us on the edge of our seats, they complain it's too risky? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I can see the argument from bean counters that it's "not sustainable", as well as those who point out it's strategic flaws. But every system has it's flaws, because if there were a perfect system than everybody would be playing the same. And corsi is still a very primitive analytic. I couldn't care what the analytics say as long as I'm enjoying what I watch.