Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - [PGT] Flames show up 50 minutes late, lose 3-2 to Montreal

Calgary4LIfe · 12-23-2017, 07:54 PM

I just don't see enough moxy from this team. Call it what you want, but it is lacking. I can really only guess if it is systems-based or player effort based, but this team doesn't drive the net.

Who here can say this is a fast team? I can't. Yet take a look at the lines, and you find mostly quick players on both forwards and defence. The 4th line is slow, but that's about it.

This team is so intent on coming up the ice as a 5 man unit every time. This is the RIGHT approach if you are facing off against a team that has much more speed, or a team that is playing the trap. Their breakouts have become so predictable that the opposing teams know where to go and stand to limit it.

The Flames need to be much more flexible on their breakouts. Their strength is the backend. They are a mobile bunch that can both skate the puck out of harm's way, as well as make good tape-to-tape passes. I really do think that they should be trying to stretch this team on the ice more and give them more of those passes, which will allow for a faster transition since players are already moving their feet.

The only guy that is always moving his feet on the breakout it seems is Gaudreau, but he is starting from the defensive side of the ice. That's a great zone entry at times, but it shouldn't be used this much. It makes the Flames predictable, and it makes the other 4 guys on the ice slow.

People always remember the long 'stretch pass' under Hartley's system, but it wasn't just that stretch pass. They did do dump-ins at times. Hartley preached "get the puck, and pass it up the ice quickly". Gulutzan is preaching: "Get the puck, hold onto it, set your breakout, and then start moving".

This type of hockey is seemingly resulting in a lot of positive CORSI events. Yeah, they will often make it into the offensive zone, but they are then limited to outside shots or shots from poor angles.

When the Flames do make a power-move to the net, they will get hooked. Why avoid it? They have the worst PP in the league. Giordano and/or Hamilton should be on the first unit PP. They can both pass the puck, have the ability to score from distance, and also can recover decently if the other team gets possession (Giordano in particular - he is just that good on both sides of the puck).

Brouwer is not going to work. Yes, he screens goalies. However, Flames lose possession on the PP since he is not quick enough to beat the defencemen to the puck behind the net, or into the corners. Ferland, Tkachuk or Jankowski - that's the net front presence on this team. Pick two and put them on each unit.

This team plays slow and plays predictable. It is like seeing the exact polar opposite in terms of generating offence from Hartley's days. Hartley's system resulted in a fast team that was difficult to contain, but didn't generate a tonne of CORSI events. What they did seem to generate is a lot more high-quality chances. Let's not even talk about looking at the "high danger chances" being tabled by analytic guys. I swear I watch a game, maybe see the Flames create 2-3 high danger chances where I felt they had a high chance of scoring, and after the game I see "Flames generated 12 high scoring chances vs the opposing team's 8". I don't see it. Sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't. I do think that Hartley's system resulted in way more high-scoring chances, and the Flames weren't as stifled as often.

What I find funny is the defensive zone play between the two squads. Hartley's system was all about clogging up the lanes and sacrificing your body. I felt that it wasn't an aggressive enough system like one employed by Minnesota. I haven't keyed-in on how Minnesota play now, but during Hartley's time here, Minnesota had their defence actively challenging the opposition. Even after the opposing team set-up in the zone, the Wild would challenge you to make a play quickly and attack the puck carrier, while doing a decent job of covering the other areas. I thought this is what the big change would be under Gulutzan. In hindsight, I don't think that Hartley's teams were constructed to play the way Minnesota did back then (just look at the rosters), but I do think that Gulutzan's team CAN and should be very effective at it. Instead they rely on clogging lanes and trying to cause turnovers by intercepting the puck of sticks.. or something. Still a fairly passive system defensively overall.

Maybe I am just a simpleton. Maybe as far as a complete moron. What I see that works time and time again in hockey is this: You create more turnovers than you allow, and you usually win the game. Turnovers generate higher quality of chances (which is why the Flames' under Hartley were labeled as 'lucky'). I thought they always generated the more high-danger chances (like, actual high danger chances).

To me this team looks like the inverse of Hartley's team. It is almost like going from Keenan to Brent Sutter. Keenan didn't seem to worry so much about defence, but focused on offence. Brent Sutter came in, and it seemed to be the total 180.

Had Brent Sutter (or another coach) just come in and made some SMALLER adjustments, I think that team would have made the playoffs and maybe even win a round or two. Instead, they take such a drastic change, and it wasn't much better.

This is how I am seeing the change between Hartley and Gulutzan. Too much change. Too much pushing that proverbial needle the other way, instead of trying to see how the team was playing, what was working, and what needed improving upon. Make the necessary adjustments. Fiddle with the team.

You don't need a master system that provides you with the ability to conquer every team. You just need a system that plays to your strengths, limits your weaknesses, and you fiddle with it and make adjustments throughout the year. As a coach, you should be more concerned with generating offence, and limiting the other team to do so (which I am sure Gulutzan is well aware of). I just see this team being overly worried on generating offence 'the right away' (much like Brent Sutter preached with the 5 man units, shoulder-to-shoulder'). Flames are a fast team (outside the 4th line) but they play like they are decrepit vets half the time.

We lost the CORSI battle almost every night under Hartley but won the games (on a poorly constructed team!). We are winning the CORSI battle now, but losing the games (on a MUCH improved team) under Gulutzan. Why couldn't there be a happy medium there between the two?

12-23-2017, 07:54 PM	#185
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	I just don't see enough moxy from this team. Call it what you want, but it is lacking. I can really only guess if it is systems-based or player effort based, but this team doesn't drive the net. Who here can say this is a fast team? I can't. Yet take a look at the lines, and you find mostly quick players on both forwards and defence. The 4th line is slow, but that's about it. This team is so intent on coming up the ice as a 5 man unit every time. This is the RIGHT approach if you are facing off against a team that has much more speed, or a team that is playing the trap. Their breakouts have become so predictable that the opposing teams know where to go and stand to limit it. The Flames need to be much more flexible on their breakouts. Their strength is the backend. They are a mobile bunch that can both skate the puck out of harm's way, as well as make good tape-to-tape passes. I really do think that they should be trying to stretch this team on the ice more and give them more of those passes, which will allow for a faster transition since players are already moving their feet. The only guy that is always moving his feet on the breakout it seems is Gaudreau, but he is starting from the defensive side of the ice. That's a great zone entry at times, but it shouldn't be used this much. It makes the Flames predictable, and it makes the other 4 guys on the ice slow. People always remember the long 'stretch pass' under Hartley's system, but it wasn't just that stretch pass. They did do dump-ins at times. Hartley preached "get the puck, and pass it up the ice quickly". Gulutzan is preaching: "Get the puck, hold onto it, set your breakout, and then start moving". This type of hockey is seemingly resulting in a lot of positive CORSI events. Yeah, they will often make it into the offensive zone, but they are then limited to outside shots or shots from poor angles. When the Flames do make a power-move to the net, they will get hooked. Why avoid it? They have the worst PP in the league. Giordano and/or Hamilton should be on the first unit PP. They can both pass the puck, have the ability to score from distance, and also can recover decently if the other team gets possession (Giordano in particular - he is just that good on both sides of the puck). Brouwer is not going to work. Yes, he screens goalies. However, Flames lose possession on the PP since he is not quick enough to beat the defencemen to the puck behind the net, or into the corners. Ferland, Tkachuk or Jankowski - that's the net front presence on this team. Pick two and put them on each unit. This team plays slow and plays predictable. It is like seeing the exact polar opposite in terms of generating offence from Hartley's days. Hartley's system resulted in a fast team that was difficult to contain, but didn't generate a tonne of CORSI events. What they did seem to generate is a lot more high-quality chances. Let's not even talk about looking at the "high danger chances" being tabled by analytic guys. I swear I watch a game, maybe see the Flames create 2-3 high danger chances where I felt they had a high chance of scoring, and after the game I see "Flames generated 12 high scoring chances vs the opposing team's 8". I don't see it. Sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't. I do think that Hartley's system resulted in way more high-scoring chances, and the Flames weren't as stifled as often. What I find funny is the defensive zone play between the two squads. Hartley's system was all about clogging up the lanes and sacrificing your body. I felt that it wasn't an aggressive enough system like one employed by Minnesota. I haven't keyed-in on how Minnesota play now, but during Hartley's time here, Minnesota had their defence actively challenging the opposition. Even after the opposing team set-up in the zone, the Wild would challenge you to make a play quickly and attack the puck carrier, while doing a decent job of covering the other areas. I thought this is what the big change would be under Gulutzan. In hindsight, I don't think that Hartley's teams were constructed to play the way Minnesota did back then (just look at the rosters), but I do think that Gulutzan's team CAN and should be very effective at it. Instead they rely on clogging lanes and trying to cause turnovers by intercepting the puck of sticks.. or something. Still a fairly passive system defensively overall. Maybe I am just a simpleton. Maybe as far as a complete moron. What I see that works time and time again in hockey is this: You create more turnovers than you allow, and you usually win the game. Turnovers generate higher quality of chances (which is why the Flames' under Hartley were labeled as 'lucky'). I thought they always generated the more high-danger chances (like, actual high danger chances). To me this team looks like the inverse of Hartley's team. It is almost like going from Keenan to Brent Sutter. Keenan didn't seem to worry so much about defence, but focused on offence. Brent Sutter came in, and it seemed to be the total 180. Had Brent Sutter (or another coach) just come in and made some SMALLER adjustments, I think that team would have made the playoffs and maybe even win a round or two. Instead, they take such a drastic change, and it wasn't much better. This is how I am seeing the change between Hartley and Gulutzan. Too much change. Too much pushing that proverbial needle the other way, instead of trying to see how the team was playing, what was working, and what needed improving upon. Make the necessary adjustments. Fiddle with the team. You don't need a master system that provides you with the ability to conquer every team. You just need a system that plays to your strengths, limits your weaknesses, and you fiddle with it and make adjustments throughout the year. As a coach, you should be more concerned with generating offence, and limiting the other team to do so (which I am sure Gulutzan is well aware of). I just see this team being overly worried on generating offence 'the right away' (much like Brent Sutter preached with the 5 man units, shoulder-to-shoulder'). Flames are a fast team (outside the 4th line) but they play like they are decrepit vets half the time. We lost the CORSI battle almost every night under Hartley but won the games (on a poorly constructed team!). We are winning the CORSI battle now, but losing the games (on a MUCH improved team) under Gulutzan. Why couldn't there be a happy medium there between the two?