What can be done to create a winning culture?

[rollie619]

The thing that scares me about the Flames ever since Sutter has been gone and Feaster and co. have taken over is that we have gotten away from the "family" that Darryl tried to create. It was relieving to read about what Conroy said at the STH meeting and I think he could be instrumental in re-establishing that in Calgary. However, I feel as long as we have a lawyer running things we can have the best players in the world, but that doesn't mean they'll gel together. (see NYR this past year) What do you guys think?

[$ven27]

Win?

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Win?

Win.

[REDVAN]

Draft winners.

[Table 5]

I'm a driver, I'm a winner. Things are gonna change, I can feel it.

[T@T]

Do the opposite of the Oilers

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Win?

I don't know about others, but I know in 2004 before the playoffs, we all had that feeling that if the Flames could somehow get into the playoffs, they would be a real threat. I haven't had that feeling the past few years.... yes it would be nice to win, but I don't think thats the only thing. I think the part that fundamentally is missed here, and I know this is a topic beaten to death, is Feaster isn't a hockey-guy; he's not a sports-guy. I think one has to be at least some working knowledge of the sport to really understand all the dynamics; it doesn't have to be the NHL or pro hockey, but at least have been part of a team and played at a decent competitive level.

With Feaster, it just doesn't seem like he's got that understanding - he seems out of phase with whats going on. Sure he's organized and got the PUCKS program going and convinced owners to spend more money on scouting, but I really can't see how someone who has never played the sport can evaluate something like hockey sense. Just lots of loosy-goosy open ended mistakes like Modin and Cervenka, both of which didn't have much consequence but really highlight the fact that Feaster is out of phase with whats going.

Going back to Darryl, the day Darryl was hired, Darryl had a log book of ideas and criticism of the Flames and had a game plan of what to improve. You really got the feeling that Darryl bleed Flaming C, that he loved hockey more then anyone and if he only had 13 hours of hockey that day, he'd pull up Game Center and watch some more hockey before packing it in for the day. Feaster doesn't seem like that type of guy, he seems more like a guy who takes marching orders and tries to do what he can within the 9am-5pm he works or the 40 hours he puts in a week. Hockey fell into his lap, and he put in his due diligence to learn his job, but its not the love of his life the way it was for Darryl. I doubt Feaster had a book on the Flames before the job was first brought to him, and its obvious he didn't have very much working knowledge of the Flames before he came on board.... Feaster doesn't "bleed the Flaming C" ... this is just a job for thats better then his underwear blogging.

Maybe its asking too much, but I would just rather have that GM who really knows the in's and out's of the dressing room, and hockey is really his passion.

/ rant over

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I don't know about others, but I know in 2004 before the playoffs, we all had that feeling that if the Flames could somehow get into the playoffs, they would be a real threat.

I certainly never had that feeling. I was just happy as bananas to see them get in the playoffs. Expectations were 0 for me until we beat Detroit.

In 2004, it was such a foreign concept to be in the playoffs, I had no idea how they would do. The last few years of playoffs in comparison however, expectations going in were negative. You just knew they would never get past the 1st.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I don't know about others, but I know in 2004 before the playoffs, we all had that feeling that if the Flames could somehow get into the playoffs, they would be a real threat.

Originally Posted by Table 5

I certainly never had that feeling. I was just happy as bananas to see them get in the playoffs. Expectations were 0 for me until we beat Detroit.
.

IIRC the answer is somewhere in the middle. Most people thought we could beat the Canucks, maybe that was just rivalry bravado but it seemed like we could knock of the Canucks. Flames had world class goaltending and the Canucks had Dan Cloutier.

Once we got by them the term "everything else is gravy" was the most popular phrase on Calgarypuck.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I certainly never had that feeling. I was just happy as bananas to see them get in the playoffs. Expectations were 0 for me until we beat Detroit.

In 2004, it was such a foreign concept to be in the playoffs, I had no idea how they would do. The last few years of playoffs in comparison however, expectations going in were negative. You just knew they would never get past the 1st.

True, that 5-2 loss was still "well we're still in the playoffs, this is awesome" but I thought there was this real never-say-die unification on that team that even though we didn't have the talent of the Canucks, I thought we had that winning attitude... but maybe just cause I was used to losing and Darryl really had that team believing in themselves.

But I have to think Darryl knew exactly which guys he wanted; i.e. he went out of his way to target Rhett Warraner, Stephane Yelle, Marcus Nilson in particular (also Chris Simon was particularly targetted).

I don't get that feel with Feaster... the one guy he particularly targeted that I thought was right was Hudler, just makes a lot of sense and went in the right direction. (a bit expensive though). As it turns out, Wideman seems to be a great addition, though his contract is a bit heavy too.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I don't know about others, but I know in 2004 before the playoffs, we all had that feeling that if the Flames could somehow get into the playoffs, they would be a real threat. I haven't had that feeling the past few years.... yes it would be nice to win, but I don't think thats the only thing. I think the part that fundamentally is missed here, and I know this is a topic beaten to death, is Feaster isn't a hockey-guy; he's not a sports-guy. I think one has to be at least some working knowledge of the sport to really understand all the dynamics; it doesn't have to be the NHL or pro hockey, but at least have been part of a team and played at a decent competitive level.

With Feaster, it just doesn't seem like he's got that understanding - he seems out of phase with whats going on. Sure he's organized and got the PUCKS program going and convinced owners to spend more money on scouting, but I really can't see how someone who has never played the sport can evaluate something like hockey sense. Just lots of loosy-goosy open ended mistakes like Modin and Cervenka, both of which didn't have much consequence but really highlight the fact that Feaster is out of phase with whats going.

Going back to Darryl, the day Darryl was hired, Darryl had a log book of ideas and criticism of the Flames and had a game plan of what to improve. You really got the feeling that Darryl bleed Flaming C, that he loved hockey more then anyone and if he only had 13 hours of hockey that day, he'd pull up Game Center and watch some more hockey before packing it in for the day. Feaster doesn't seem like that type of guy, he seems more like a guy who takes marching orders and tries to do what he can within the 9am-5pm he works or the 40 hours he puts in a week. Hockey fell into his lap, and he put in his due diligence to learn his job, but its not the love of his life the way it was for Darryl. I doubt Feaster had a book on the Flames before the job was first brought to him, and its obvious he didn't have very much working knowledge of the Flames before he came on board.... Feaster doesn't "bleed the Flaming C" ... this is just a job for thats better then his underwear blogging.

Maybe its asking too much, but I would just rather have that GM who really knows the in's and out's of the dressing room, and hockey is really his passion.

/ rant over

and is really smart...


Trade the Pittsburgh 1st round pick to Columbus for John Davidson.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Once we got by them the term "everything else is gravy" was the most popular phrase on Calgarypuck.

I like and miss gravy

[Hockey_Ninja]

Realistically: Commitment, hard work and determination to get better, be better and to get to the top

Unrealistically: Trade a 7th round pick and Crosby's underwear to Bettman for the rights to draft McDavid, S. Reinhart and Ekblad in the next two draft.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

Realistically:

Commitment, hard work and determination to get better, be better and to get to the top

Unrealistically:

Trade a 7th round pick and Crosby's underwear for the rights to draft McDavid, S. Reinhart and Ekblad in the next two draft.

Or, just steal Sidney Crosby's underwear and clone 9 of him.

[Cole436]

What we've complained about so long is what we're missing now. We need those "Sutter players". The big, bottom six players who bleed for their team, shift after shift. We need the,Yelle's, Simon's, Primeau's and Clark's of the game, who make it difficult for a team, every night.

[Street Pharmacist]

There are a litany of great/good general managers that didn't play hockey at a high level. I really don't think that's the problem. A whole host of great hockey players have made terrible managers too. At the end of it all is the managers ability to make good hockey decisions. Feaster so far has made about as many good ones as bad ones. Problem is for me, the bad ones were far more egregious. I have no issue with a non player at the helm, but I'm looking for a good track record.

As for the topic at hand, a winning atmosphere is elusive. As with many things, there isn't really certain things specifically that will make a winning atmosphere, but thre are things that ruin it.
1) players that don't want to be there
2) players that don't have a high compete level or a complacent
3) disengaged management, and conversely, overinvolved management
4) quiet stereos

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Cole436

What we've complained about so long is what we're missing now. We need those "Sutter players". The big, bottom six players who bleed for their team, shift after shift. We need the,Yelle's, Simon's, Primeau's and Clark's of the game, who make it difficult for a team, every night.

D.Sutter could turn Zombies into hockey players.

[CalgaryFan1988]

For me rebuilding starts with winning in the AHL.

I think you have to start winning at the AHL level with younger players (with a mix of vets) and then when those younger players make the NHL they have confidence. Then get rid of the older "losers" off the NHL club by replacing them with the younger "winners".

Unless players are true superstars, forcing them into the NHL prematurely, under a losing environment, is a recipe for disaster (see Oilers).

[DazzlinDino]

I think having the right coach with the right mix of players is important. Look what Sutter did with LA. Babcock also seems to get a lot out of his players. Take out both Sutter and Babcock and I bet those teams slide without good coaching.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Win