Obviously team identity is a thing. Do you not have a pretty good idea of what kind of game to expect when you play the Leafs? Or the Islanders, or the Wild, or the Blues?
Doesn't mean you have to commit yourself to a specific style of play to be a good team, though. I mean, what is the Lightning's team identity, other than "we're good at hockey"?
For the Flames, this is an obvious transition year. Previously, the aim has been to make the team into Carolina west, and not just by taking their players and coach. With the Hurricanes, you might say their goaltending situation is suspect but they're very deep on the blue line. That seemed to be the situation here for a while. Now, Calgary has a clear-cut #1 goalie, but the blue line now skews either very young (Andersson and Valimaki still trying to establish who they are and Hanifin just about to enter what should be his prime) or old (Giordano and Tanev are past their prime). So the question marks are there now - can the young guys become top-end defensemen, and can the old guys hang on and be productive for a couple more seasons. That doesn't make for an obvious team identity, but what is obvious is that if the answer turns out to be "yes" to those latter two questions, the team will be good anyway.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|