Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I think the Flames offensive woes are a little exaggerated by how poorly the season ended. I agree, they absolutely need more scoring next year, but I suspect that the core group of forwards is not nearly as offensively inept as they are made out to be by some.
Something to consider:
In the second week of December the Flames were in the middle-of-the-pack in terms of team scoring. At the time, Johnny Gaudreau was scoring at a 1.22 pts/gp rate, and Sean Monahan was averaging 0.94 pts/gp. It is now reported that Monahan began receiving injections in his wrist just after Christmas. From in the third week of December to the end of the season Gaudreau's production dropped a full quarter-point to 0.94 pts/gp, Monahan dropped to 0.81 pts/gp, and the Flames plummeted to 28th in the League in scoring through the final 50 games. From mid-February until the end of the season they were dead last. Through the final three weeks of the season after Monahan was shut down, Gaudreau scored one goal and one assist. It is worth considering how much Monahan's health affected the entire team.
Once again, yes, I agree that the Flames need to add some pieces to improve their scoring depth, and they need more offence overall. But by the same token, I don't believe that a player like Vanek is the answer. There is still good reason to expect much of the improvement to come from within.
|
It's a good point that the last 20 games of the season, when the PP was working at 2% and getting outscored by opponents' PKs, dragged the Flames down. And you're definitely right to point to Monahan's injurieS as being significant.
I guess I think the Flames need more forwards that can score. And I think Vanek could be part of that answer because he is still a productive player. That said, I think there are probably better options. We just need to see how expensive those other options will be in terms of salary, term and precious prospects.
If the Flames can add a RW that can score 50 points without trading any assets, why wouldn't they?