Consistency

[Bingo]

Hartley brought up consistency last night, this morning Peter Maher remarked on how he keeps hearing the same thing from coach after coach in Calgary.

So my question ....

Are the Flames more inconsistent than most? They've rolled over a good percentage of the roster since Keenan was here so can it be the same team issue year to year and coach to coach?

Or ...

Do all teams on the bubble (9-12th every season) get similar things said about them by their coaches and in their markets? Good enough to be in the mix, but not on a consistent basis to make the playoffs?

I've never thought the "core" in Calgary was a good leadership group, but it's changed so much over the years that I'm not sure that's still relevant?

Personally I think it's just part of being a "tweener" team in a hockey market. Thoughts?

[Phaneufenstein]

I think consistency is a league-wide issue, and that has a lot to do with parity.

A bottom feeding team has the potential to beat a contender on any given night, but they won''t be able to play at that level consistently and thus are a bottom-feeder.

[Flabbibulin]

Consistency only seems to be a huge topic of conversation for average to poor teams. Good and great teams have off nights just as often as the bottom feeders- the difference being that good teams are often able to pull off a win on those off nights- the Chicago win against Calgary is a good example.

When coaches ask for consistency, they are basically asking their players to play at 100% every night. No team can achieve this imo, but a 60% effort is often enough for the Chicagos of the league.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Hartley brought up consistency last night, this morning Peter Maher remarked on how he keeps hearing the same thing from coach after coach in Calgary.

So my question ....

Are the Flames more inconsistent than most? They've rolled over a good percentage of the roster since Keenan was here so can it be the same team issue year to year and coach to coach?

Or ...

Do all teams on the bubble (9-12th every season) get similar things said about them by their coaches and in their markets? Good enough to be in the mix, but not on a consistent basis to make the playoffs?

I've never thought the "core" in Calgary was a good leadership group, but it's changed so much over the years that I'm not sure that's still relevant?

Personally I think it's just part of being a "tweener" team in a hockey market. Thoughts?

I agree, I think most teams will have their on nights and their off nights.

Its actually not rocket science as to why the Flames aren't a playoff team. They just don't have marquee players in their prime. Its more about talent than anything else.

Case in point, Chicago can get vastly outplayed by a team like Calgary and come away with 2 points. Why? Because they have players that can excecute a couple of moments of magic that will get the job done. If Calgary gets dominated it generally means you're reading about a blowout in the papers the next morning.

Consistent winning just comes with being a better team, plain and simple.

[Erick Estrada]

IMO inconsistency is part of being mediocre. Some highs cancelled out by lows and .500 in between. Good teams have more highs than lows and bad teams more lows than highs. Flames are in between which is why they define mediocre; moderate to inferior in quality. That's the Calgary Flames in a nutshell.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Are the Flames more inconsistent than most?

Or ...

Do all teams on the bubble (9-12th every season) get similar things said about them by their coaches and in their markets? Good enough to be in the mix, but not on a consistent basis to make the playoffs?

I've never thought the "core" in Calgary was a good leadership group, but it's changed so much over the years that I'm not sure that's still relevant?

Personally I think it's just part of being a "tweener" team in a hockey market. Thoughts?

I don't think the Flames are more inconsistent than teams on the bubble. And I don't think it's as much of a leadership issue as it is a team makeup issue with playing style factoring in. The truth is that the Flames simply haven't iced good teams. Good teams find a way to win and the Flames simply haven't. The Flames either couldn't defend or they couldn't score or both.

[nik-]

The elephant in the room, it wears number 12. I can't explain the reason, but he is really the only consistent factor. Because I just can't see a mild mannered goaltender affecting the team culture.

But I'm afraid the Flames are always destined to be this team, regardless of who's the captain. Mostly mediocre with rare flashes of brilliance.

Maybe it has nothing to do with #12 at all ... maybe this is just our fate as fans of this team.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Hartley brought up consistency last night, this morning Peter Maher remarked on how he keeps hearing the same thing from coach after coach in Calgary.

So my question ....

Are the Flames more inconsistent than most? They've rolled over a good percentage of the roster since Keenan was here so can it be the same team issue year to year and coach to coach?

Or ...

Do all teams on the bubble (9-12th every season) get similar things said about them by their coaches and in their markets? Good enough to be in the mix, but not on a consistent basis to make the playoffs?

I've never thought the "core" in Calgary was a good leadership group, but it's changed so much over the years that I'm not sure that's still relevant?

Personally I think it's just part of being a "tweener" team in a hockey market. Thoughts?

Obviously consistent teams will hear about their lack of consistency less than those who lack consistency.

I would say the flames have been pretty consistent this season. Bounces have been inconsistent, and some nights, a couple of good bounces have made things look better than they are.

Calgary unquestionably got the bounces in the first game against Dallas. One of the worst games I've seen from an opposition team against Calgary in a long, long. They got the bounces though so it didn't appear like a rough game, even though it was a real disaster of a hockey game.

Calgary didn't get many bounces against Chicago.

Got some bounces against Columbus, not against San Jose.

Got some bounces against Colorado but had some go against them.

No bounces against St. Louis.

The most inconsistent thing for the franchise is the the compete level of their captain. This obviously has a ripple effect on the rest of the roster.

[Ezio]

The Flames should make the playoffs if they get adequate goaltending and continue to outshoot teams the rate they have this year.

[FlamesAddiction]

There are 2 different types of consistency:

Consistency in actual performance (A) and consistency in results (B) - and yes, while B can be a function of A, they aren't always the same thing.

If a team looks like world beaters for one game, and then craps the bed the next, it is likely a mental problem and not a skill problem.

[Sakari]

I think our problem is period to period consistency, not game to game. Every game we play at least one good period. If not two. Very rarely do we not play a good period, at least for the most part, in a hockey game.

[Sakari]

Maybe if we could get the puck past our own blueline without handing it over in the slot we wouldn't be such a ####box of a team. Just throwin' that out there, too.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by nik-

Maybe it has nothing to do with #12 at all ... maybe this is just our fate as fans of this team.

So the problem with the Flames is, they are the Calgary Flames?

[Brick]

I think that the reason the team isn't consistent is because of their make-up. They have been weak down the middle for many years and have failed to address it. When the wingers and D do their best to compensate, they appear to be a decent team. When they don't, their lack of centers is obvious. With Matt Stajan as the only NHL centre on the team, they are bound to be inconsistent.

I know that it's not easy, (at least not for the Flames) to acquire strength down the middle of the ice, but until they do, we'll be seeing more of the same mediocre to less than mediocre team.

[Northendzone]

seems to me that the flames are inconsistent all over......some nights goaltending is great, others nights sub-par, some nights d are rock solid, other nights no so much.....same with forwards.

how can you truly identify the needs of the team when it is a different problem on different nights/periods.

the obvious immediate need is at center - maybe if we could fix that problem then parts of the game that are inconsistent, would become consistent......

[nik-]

Originally Posted by zamler

So the problem with the Flames is, they are the Calgary Flames?

Perhaps we're the Cubs with a shorter history.

[Rocky Raccoon]

In response to the OP, I will quote my post from the PGT which I made this morning:

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

On 960 this morning on the way to work Peter Maher mentioned that during the Hartley presser last night that Hartley talked about his frustrations with the team playing well and following the system for parts of games and being successful and then playing completely inconsistent hockey and falling off track; paraphrasing obviously.

Maher further made it clear that this is exactly the same things Keenan, Sutter, and to a lesser extent Playfair were saying about this team; so four coaches now who have the same frustrations.

The Flames have moved out and replaced many pieces and there are 6 current roster players who have played for at least 3 of the coaches:

Glencross - 3 coaches
Iginla - 4 coaches
Tanguay - 4 coaches
Giordano - 4 coaches
Sarich - 3 coaches
Kipper - 4 coaches

Who is/are the culprit(s)?

I know that Giordano is having a tough year and Sarich is aging and not what he once was, but based on what I have seen over time, I believe these two players give everything they have consistently. I don't know much about how Kipper is in the room but I doubt he has anything to do with it either.

That leaves us with Glencross, Igginla, and Tanguay. Glencross is inconsistent in terms of performance and his effort seems to increase and be consistent on any line except the first line. Of what I have seen of Tanguay in a Flames and Avalanche uniform, I believe that he follows along with the leaders of the team and if they are going all out, he does as well and if they are floating, he floats; he has also spent a couple seasons away from the team.

Finally we have Iginla. I admire Iginla and all he has done for the team. He has won a Messier leadership award and his peers respect his leadership abilities and praise him verbally to the media, so how is it possible it is Iginla that is the problem?

We can argue that through 4 coaches with different approaches and philosophies, it likely isn't the coach. Players like Langkow, Jokinen, Phaneuf, and Regehr are gone, so it wasn't one of them. It's unlikely that it is any of the other 5 players who have played for at least 3 of the coaches.

So that leaves us with either Iginla, or potentially, Ken King; although I have no idea how.

It makes my gut turn coming to the conclusion that Iginla is the likely culprit somehow and players like Tanguay, and to a lesser extent Glencross, assist in manifesting the issue.

This is not a hate Iggy post or even a get rid of Iggy post. This is simply where I think the issue stems from.

It would be interesting to hear from other posters where they think the inconsistency in effort and lack of interest in playing the coaches style full time comes from.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Sakari

I think our problem is period to period consistency, not game to game. Every game we play at least one good period. If not two. Very rarely do we not play a good period, at least for the most part, in a hockey game.

True ... but then I think about the other team.

Calgary goes into Dallas and plays a solid first period, then comes out an loses it? Or do the Stars have a discussion in their room and come out and push back? Flames on their heels with the home team coming at them in waves.

Then it's intermission time again.

The Stars coach is saying "be ready, they'll push back" but the players are feeling home and cool, it's on the Flames so they start the period skating in sand.

Meanwhile down the hall the Flames are peeling paint having given up 22 shots in the second, so they come out fired up after 20 minutes of ear splitting anger.

So both teams are inconsistent and responding to the ebb and flow of a game?

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by nik-

The elephant in the room, it wears number 12. I can't explain the reason, but he is really the only consistent factor. Because I just can't see a mild mannered goaltender affecting the team culture.

But I'm afraid the Flames are always destined to be this team, regardless of who's the captain. Mostly mediocre with rare flashes of brilliance.

Maybe it has nothing to do with #12 at all ... maybe this is just our fate as fans of this team.

This is the first year I have really been concerned about #12. The team brought in a lot of his old buddies so he can be successful and he still seems to be "acting" like shadow of his former self. What else does Iggy want the Flames to do for him before he decides to start playing with the kind of energy we see from Crosby. When Theo returned for a brief stint he reminded everyone the players the fans what it is like to play with lots heart, energy and excitement. We need Iggy to step up and start being the player we is paid to be instead of being an example of "mediocre, mediocre, mediocre" which also affects the whole team. In Iggy's defense though too many times in the past he's carried the team on his back while some others, Bouque, Stajan.... were giving piss poor efforts.

This year Bowmeester, Backlund Stajan have shown more energy and excitement that we should be seeing from our "leaders".

[St. Pats]

What? There is a ton of consistency. They consistently spend money up to the cap in an inefficient manner. They consistently get no bang for that buck. They consistently get softer and softer and with less compete level. They consistently don't address their number one need positionally. They consistently have a GM that just seems to add parts and hope for the best. They are consistently playing systems without the players who can play effectively in that system. They consistently have no balance offensively and defensively.

They miss the playoffs on a very consistent basis. They are the very epitome of consistency.