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

Savvy27 · 02-18-2021, 04:59 PM

The way that the coaches and players answered the identity questions were very interesting to me.

Giordano answered that the Flames identity is that they are a "checking team that scores". Which is unfortunately vague, imo. And I don't think that it really describes them all that well. From my viewing, the Flames are a talented team that pushes the pace when the context of the game demands it.

They play basically the same style every game, which is to play passively in the D zone, keeping opponents to the outside and try to outcompete them for rebounds and other loose pucks to exit the zone with quick passes (you can usually see this as a quick bump off the boards by the winger to the C and then either to the opposite winger who has come to the middle lane for the breakout or to one of the D who have jumped up into the empty space on the far side of the ice).

Offensively, they rarely seem to shoot off the rush, instead they either rim the puck hard around and battle for it with the other team, or they pull up and try to hit one of the trailers entering the zone. Otherwise they play a cycle game where their D are very aggressive pinching whenever the puck switches sides and they move the puck up to the blueline and across to attack from the top of the zone.

They are not overly physical on the forecheck or in the D zone. They step up at the blueline when they are defending the rush, but they are not a highly aggressive team on transition defense. They have individuals who are excellent shot blockers but I don't think it is even close to being a calling card of the team.

As for being detail oriented, I just don't see that. They are atrocious at giveaways in important areas of the ice, bottom third in the league for faceoffs (22nd), only 10 goals for in the first period (20th) while giving up the 5th most goals against, middle of the pack for penalty minutes (13th), mid-pack in shots against (13th), middle of the pack on PP(16th) and PK (18th) and they are bottom-half at maintaining leads for wins when they score first (18th). I'm sure there are a bunch of other stats that could show their details, but I'm very skeptical that any stats are going to prove the claim that they are a detail-oriented, tight-checking team that scores.

Realistically, I think they are a fairly loose team that is skilled enough that when they are rolling or when they really need a goal, they can hold onto the puck for long stretches, especially if their opponents are not trying that hard to score themselves.

Listening to Warrener this morning, I agree with him that they don't have an identity that reflects having a top goalie in either direction. They aren't a team that takes a ton of risks to generate offence and rely on Markstrom and they definitely aren't a team that plays ultra conservatively and dares their opponents to find a way to score on them.

They seem to be a team that wants their identity to be "we are very good at defence and also very good at offence", but that isn't an identity, it's perfection.They are a bland, "try to play the right way" team and it's a bore that isn't leading to wins.

02-18-2021, 04:59 PM	#73
Savvy27 #1 Goaltender Join Date: Sep 2002 Exp:	The way that the coaches and players answered the identity questions were very interesting to me. Giordano answered that the Flames identity is that they are a "checking team that scores". Which is unfortunately vague, imo. And I don't think that it really describes them all that well. From my viewing, the Flames are a talented team that pushes the pace when the context of the game demands it. They play basically the same style every game, which is to play passively in the D zone, keeping opponents to the outside and try to outcompete them for rebounds and other loose pucks to exit the zone with quick passes (you can usually see this as a quick bump off the boards by the winger to the C and then either to the opposite winger who has come to the middle lane for the breakout or to one of the D who have jumped up into the empty space on the far side of the ice). Offensively, they rarely seem to shoot off the rush, instead they either rim the puck hard around and battle for it with the other team, or they pull up and try to hit one of the trailers entering the zone. Otherwise they play a cycle game where their D are very aggressive pinching whenever the puck switches sides and they move the puck up to the blueline and across to attack from the top of the zone. They are not overly physical on the forecheck or in the D zone. They step up at the blueline when they are defending the rush, but they are not a highly aggressive team on transition defense. They have individuals who are excellent shot blockers but I don't think it is even close to being a calling card of the team. As for being detail oriented, I just don't see that. They are atrocious at giveaways in important areas of the ice, bottom third in the league for faceoffs (22nd), only 10 goals for in the first period (20th) while giving up the 5th most goals against, middle of the pack for penalty minutes (13th), mid-pack in shots against (13th), middle of the pack on PP(16th) and PK (18th) and they are bottom-half at maintaining leads for wins when they score first (18th). I'm sure there are a bunch of other stats that could show their details, but I'm very skeptical that any stats are going to prove the claim that they are a detail-oriented, tight-checking team that scores. Realistically, I think they are a fairly loose team that is skilled enough that when they are rolling or when they really need a goal, they can hold onto the puck for long stretches, especially if their opponents are not trying that hard to score themselves. Listening to Warrener this morning, I agree with him that they don't have an identity that reflects having a top goalie in either direction. They aren't a team that takes a ton of risks to generate offence and rely on Markstrom and they definitely aren't a team that plays ultra conservatively and dares their opponents to find a way to score on them. They seem to be a team that wants their identity to be "we are very good at defence and also very good at offence", but that isn't an identity, it's perfection.They are a bland, "try to play the right way" team and it's a bore that isn't leading to wins.