Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
It is worth mentioning though that when he went to Tampa, he complained to Tortorella that he wasn't getting quality ice-time to produce. Tortorella gave him some pretty tough love by plastering him to the bench and 4th line. St. Louis went scoreless in something like his first 20 games and then out of the blue, Torts put him on the first line and told him to prove it. He made St. Louis want it so bad that once he had the chance, he wasn't going to let anyone take it away. If he stayed in Calgary, I am not sure he would have developed the same way.
The exact same kind of tactic coaches here used on Bennett and people thought it was unfair. He didn't respond nearly as well as St. Louis did.
|
1. 4th line/bench Bennett
2. ???
3. Profit
We just forgot to try the bolded step.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper
Right, but you also have to realize that Troy Brouwer was the Flames’ prized free agent. The guy had a few 20 goal seasons and a really strong playoff performance the previous season. It’s not like Gulutzan threw league minimum junk with the pair. It was a more then fair attempt.
Obviously a more skilled driver in play would’ve been the ideal choice. But like I said earlier, Treliving wouldn’t know a good right winger if it bit him in the ass. Edge and competitiveness is what Treliving wanted and that’s what he got. Had he went with speed and skill, maybe Bennett that line would’ve has more success, but c’est la vie I guess.
|
This is actually a really important point. But, as it became increasingly clear that Brouwer was destined for a buyout, perhaps they should have reconsidered past evaluations/conclusions they made based on false assumptions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper
Well, if you’re in Gulutzan’s position and your sole objective is to make the playoffs or you’re fired, you kind of don’t have the option to “try” things out. You go with what works and at the time, Tkachuk-Backlund and Gaudreau-Monahan worked. I don’t blame Gulutzan for sticking with those pairs because it ended up getting them to the dance in the end.
|
The bolded is a major failure 2 years into a start-stop rebuild. "win-now" mode vs. "win-right" mode. There's a fine balance between sheltering your most important young players and giving them the opportunity to learn from mistakes. The GM needs to earn the coach's trust that development is >= to winning. But that may have been impossible given ownership mandate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Here’s the dilemma. Half of the posters say he needed to play his natural centre. But that would have meant displacing Monahan or Backlund if you want him in the top 6. And you have to remember Monahan as he was, not as he now is. People can say it all they want now, but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone advocating moving him off the top line.
The other half say he should have been the winger on the top 6. Except Lindholm worked so great it was hard to do that, and Tkachuk was a fixture on the second line. Bennett has never looked great on RW. But even then he had Mangiapane blossoming and filling that spot.
|
I think the other thing we can look at is Monahan's development. Riding shotgun with Gaudreau was never a recipe to help him develop into a complete player.
Bergeron was an offensive wunderkind his 2nd and 3rd years (70+ pts). Then he got hurt, and came back slotted behind Savard and Krejci. He adapted to that role and fleshed out his game.
Tkachuk-Backlund-
Brouwer
Gaudreau-Bennett-
Ferland
Versteeg-Monahan-Frolik
Janko-Stajan-Chiasson
Same problem as always; still 1 quality forward short to really make things work (Brouwer slot).
Eye to the future (ie. following year) from this would be: