Burke Philosophy VS Feaster Philosophy

[CliffFletcher]

I find all this talk of Boston being one of the big tough teams hard to understand. They're not especially big or tough. Let's look at the core of the roster that want to the finals last year.

Chara
Lucic

Definitely big, tough guys. After that?

Bergeron
Krejci
Marchand
Seguin
Seidenberg

In recent years you could also include Kessel and Savard in that group. Not exactly the 74 Flyers. Even the depth players aren't especially big or tough. Peverly, Campbell, Ference, Kelly, Paille. Now they have Krug and Erikkson, and an Iginla who is a perimeter player. They definitely have a roster full of guys who play a strong two-way game. But that's a different thing entirely from the 'black and blue' roster that Burke is advocating.

[Scoreface]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I find all this talk of Boston being one of the big tough teams hard to understand. They're not especially big or tough. Let's look at the core of the roster that want to the finals last year.

Chara
Lucic

Definitely big, tough guys. After that?

Bergeron
Krejci
Marchand
Seguin
Seidenberg

In recent years you could also include Kessel and Savard in that group. Not exactly the 74 Flyers. Even the depth players aren't especially big or tough. Peverly, Campbell, Ference, Kelly, Paille. Now they have Krug and Erikkson, and an Iginla who is a perimeter player. They definitely have a roster full of guys who play a strong two-way game. But that's a different thing entirely from the 'black and blue' roster that Burke is advocating.

Boychuk, McQuaid, Thornton

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Friedman was mentioning that Burke looks at overvaluing advanced stats with derision. Feaster mentioned increased use of these and the Pucks system. I suspect this is part of the philosophical disconnect. Friedman even pretty much said that Burke goes to meetings of guys discussing advanced stats to pretty much be, how shall we say, a very strong devils advocate.

I think Feaster actually got a lot of decent pieces that have value, and perhaps needed to distance himself from them emotionally to parlay some of them into useful pieces that fit the blueprint with which Burke is on board.

I remember Feaster sort of brushing aside advanced stats. I think it was during an interview on the Fan960. Anyone remember?

Feaster was asked a somewhat leading question about how important advanced stats have been in the rebuild, and Feaster more or less corrected him saying (paraphrasing here): "We do look at advanced stats, but we spend much more time on the PUCKS system." My paraphrasing is probably leaving much to be desired, but it sounded like (to me) that they are using advanced stats to just qualify what they are seeing at times. Maybe I was making a bit of a leap or something.

However, I am pretty sure this came out post Burke hire, so maybe it was a change that was made because of Burke? Purely speculating now.

[dying4acup]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

They way Sutter left this team, with a core of 30-somethings on the downsides of their career and the worst prospect pool in the NHL, his successor was doomed to failure. Feaster had the thankless task of dismantling a team two years too late, and then suffering the early years of a rebuild. I don't think any GM in the league could have turned around the team Sutter left in anything less than 5 years. The only way this team would have been a playoff team in the last three years was by trading away more first rounders. At least Feaster stopped the bleeding and stabilized the patient.

That said, even though Burke makes claims about being impatient, I think the reason he took this job was that ownership told him to take his time and do it right. His big claims about being IMPATIENT! were targeted at the fanbase.

When Burke was fired in Toronto, he emphasized repeatedly about ownership changes costing him his job. He knew the flames ownership wasn't going to change, and he took a job that allowed him more security and time to accomplish his ultimate goal: to build a team from scratch to champion, and receive ALL THE CREDIT!

I fear that if Toronto gets another team, Burke might leave.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

If Burke can make us closer to an Anaheim or an LA we should be happy.

Detroit isn't the powerhouse they used to be, look at them this year. They aren't in the same class as Anaheim/LA IMO.

PIT has two of the best forwards in the entire league. We have zero. So the comparison is a bit rough from the start. But I'm not really sure I see them as a Feaster like team. They do seem a bit preoccupied with getting an elite forward core without focusing enough on goaltending and defense. Not sure Feaster even had a team like that.

Burke is absolutely right in that we need some beef up front to be able to compete. We need a skilled powerforward or two, perhaps Ferland can be one. We need some more size and strength in the top 4 defense. We could use size and strength sprinkled throughout the lineup. He's not wrong there.

I've thought our team was too weak for years. I was disappointed when we signed Hudler because the last thing we needed was another small, skilled forward. Hudler meanwhile has been great and the move was huge in a vaccum but you can't win with a lineup full of guys the size of Cammalleri and Hudler, you'll just get dominated by the Anaheim's, LA's and Chicago's. Feaster never addressed the size/strength issue. We got weaker and smaller his whole tenure in fact. Subtracted Regehr and later Sarich and Iginla. Added guys like Byron, Hudler, Cammalleri, Butler, Wideman, Russell. Some of those moves were good, great or fine but overall he failed to add the types of players who can physically dominate while playing large roles.

I don't dislike Feaster and I think a bunch of what he did what positive but Burke is right IMO. We won't be contenders until we've added more size/strength to our top 6 forwards and top 4 defensemen. Even though he's not a banger we've got a key piece in Monahan as one of our top 2 centres. Other pieces to build around appear to be Brodie, Gaudreau, Baertschi and perhaps Russell. We need to surround those smaller, slighter players with some beef. It will help give our skilled players space and time, it will help us win battles along the boards and in front of the net.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I remember Feaster sort of brushing aside advanced stats. I think it was during an interview on the Fan960. Anyone remember?

Feaster was asked a somewhat leading question about how important advanced stats have been in the rebuild, and Feaster more or less corrected him saying (paraphrasing here): "We do look at advanced stats, but we spend much more time on the PUCKS system." My paraphrasing is probably leaving much to be desired, but it sounded like (to me) that they are using advanced stats to just qualify what they are seeing at times. Maybe I was making a bit of a leap or something.

Isn't the PUCKS system based, at least somewhat, on advanced stats? I don't know exactly what it takes into account, but I assumed that was part of it.

I think Feaster's strategy of getting intelligent, hard-working, undervalued guys was perfect for the early stages of a rebuild and getting us out of cap hell, but a different strategy will be needed to get us back to elite status once Gaudreau, Monahan, Baertschi, and some of our other skilled young guys start to pan out. I had confidence that Feaster would make that transition, but Burke can certainly do it as well.

The only real philosophical difference that concerns me is that Feaster was showing great patience post-Iginla in going about the rebuild, whereas Burke seems like the kind of guy to take short-cuts to get us back into the playoffs while making us a perennial 6-8 seed. I really hope that we take our time and do this right.

[Textcritic]

I have defended the Jankowski pick in the past, and I still think it is too early to make a sound assessment of the value of that pick, given that he was ALWAYS going to be a long-term project.

Having said that, and regardless of whether this was a good pick or not, I certainly hope that the following hypothetical conversation is not something that would ever take place:

Originally Posted by Hockeyboy2

...The conversation between Burke and the scout would have looked like this:

Scout: Brian you gotta check this out, theres a kid playing hockey for a high school who has tons of talent that you gotta check out for the draft this year.

Brian Burke: Kid playing high school hockey? While raising eyebrow

Scout: Yes Brian and we can get him in the first round

Brian Burke: Kid playing high school hockey....First Round (As he roles his eyes).

Scout: Yes Brian

Brian Burke: Stop drinking the kool aid or i'll fire you. End of conversation.

In the first place, how irresponsible would it be for scouts and management to merely dismiss a player entirely because of the league in which he plays, and without any assessment of the actual player, and the context of his present situation?

Secondly, the Jankowski pick DID NOT occur in a vacuum. It has been well documented that there was another team (possibly two) that had targeted Jankowski later in the first round. The Flames wanted the player, and would not have been able to pick him if they did not select him with their first-round pick. Much like the Poireir pick this year, the Jankowski pick looks like an outlier because the Flames had compiled their list, and they were sticking to it. Was it a huge risk? Absolutely, but there are times when these sorts of risks are acceptable. I suppose the argument here is whether it was an acceptable risk or not, and I still think it is too early to know one way or the other. There still remains the very real possibility that the risk pays off.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I remember Feaster sort of brushing aside advanced stats. I think it was during an interview on the Fan960. Anyone remember?

Feaster was asked a somewhat leading question about how important advanced stats have been in the rebuild, and Feaster more or less corrected him saying (paraphrasing here): "We do look at advanced stats, but we spend much more time on the PUCKS system." My paraphrasing is probably leaving much to be desired, but it sounded like (to me) that they are using advanced stats to just qualify what they are seeing at times. Maybe I was making a bit of a leap or something.

However, I am pretty sure this came out post Burke hire, so maybe it was a change that was made because of Burke? Purely speculating now.

You're exactly right. He did say that. BUt attempted to separate the tool that is the PUCKS system from the Advanced stats like Corsi.

I dont believe Burke will shut down the Pucks system. But may not rely on it's information as heavily as Feaster and Weisbrod. It's done them some good. But like with all things. Needs time to optimize results.

[FlameZilla]

D. Sutter was to Feaster what George W. Bush is to Obama. If your predecessor leaves your organisation in total clusterfata after years of terrible management you will inevitably suffer & take the blame when trying to right the ship. It's especially magnified in extremely important positions like President of the United States & General Manager of the Calgary Flames.

Credit to Feaster: he's left a mark on this franchise, and it's not necessarily a bad one. I'm looking forward to seeing what direction Burke takes.

[moon]

Originally Posted by macrov

lol...You picked the 3 best prospects in the Toronto system as a comparison? Yes, the top 3 prospects on any team better be highly intelligent players. They better be projected to make the NHL. They better be good ####ing players if they're your top 3 prospects.

What I'm showing is that there are 15+ prospects that Feaster has picked out, and all of them have reports stating their decision making and hockey iq is above par.

Originally Posted by DOOM

Nothing that you would judge fairly.

Hilarious that you didn't include Biggs, whatever helps you......eh moon?

INclude Tyler Biggs if you want. Include any of the their prosepcts. I went with a 1st, 2nd, 3rd round pick to compare to the 3 guys you chose but if you prefer I would pose the same question using Biggs, Leivo and Ross?

What have the Calgary 3 shown to indicate they have better hockey IQ than those 3 listed?

[moon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I find all this talk of Boston being one of the big tough teams hard to understand. They're not especially big or tough. Let's look at the core of the roster that want to the finals last year.

Chara
Lucic

Definitely big, tough guys. After that?

Bergeron
Krejci
Marchand
Seguin
Seidenberg

In recent years you could also include Kessel and Savard in that group. Not exactly the 74 Flyers. Even the depth players aren't especially big or tough. Peverly, Campbell, Ference, Kelly, Paille. Now they have Krug and Erikkson, and an Iginla who is a perimeter player. They definitely have a roster full of guys who play a strong two-way game. But that's a different thing entirely from the 'black and blue' roster that Burke is advocating.

Is that much different than the Anaheim team he built that won the cup?

Sure Pronger and maybe Getzlaf and Perry are black and blue but Penner (big but soft), Kunitz, Selanne, MacDonald, Niedermayer, Pahlsson aren't big tough guys.

There were a few on the bottom lines but in terms of the top 9/top 4 they look fairly similar to the Bruins in that they have some big bodies but also a lot of skilled softer players as well.

The current TO team has a lot of skill and isn't a ton of big, dumb, bruiser as well.

Vancouver had a team built around guys like Naslund, Morrison, Ohlund, Jovo, the Sisters, Linden. Not exactly huge behemoth bruisers.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by macrov

Everything he's done since coming in has been consistent with his philosophy. He was not building a small team.

Acquiring Jiri Hudler, Chad Billins, Kris Russell, Mike Cammalleri, Mark Cundari, Paul Byron, Lee Stempniak, Sven Baertschi, Ben Street. To name a few that have seen roles on the Flames.

And for those who suggest he's purposefully building a "small team," see his draft record. He's clearly going for skill, hockey smarts, and 2-way players. Size isn't irrelevant, but he is willing to draft a few HIGHLY skilled small players. Remember all these kids drafted are still growing:

Monahan: highly skilled, highly intelligent, 2 way forward, 6'2
Porier: highly skilled, highly intelligent, 2 way forward, 6ft
Klimchuk: 2 way forward, skilled, 5'11
Agostino: 2 way forward, skilled, 6'1
Hanowski: 2 way forward. 6'2
Gadreau: Highly skilled, small
Baertchi: Highly skilled, small
Granlund: Highly skilled, small
Seiloff: 6'0, high intelligence
Wotherspoon: 6'1, high intelligence
Jankowski: 6'2
Knight: 6'1, 2-way player
Kanzig: 6'7, high intelligence

I've bolded the ones that he actively had a hand in that meet the size criteria (and I'm being generous here) that were brought in prior to this year in your list.

I removed Ferland and Reinhart, since those were not his picks and Roy because he is a goalie. If anything this gives credence to the idea that his philosophy changed with the direction of the wind - if size was a priority, it was only recently considered.

Anyways, the fact remains we are one of the smallest teams in the NHL right now. We were last year too when we were competing (for real). One of the smallest if not the smallest forwards and defense cores. Results show that Feaster doesn't place a high value on size.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

If anything this gives credence to the idea that his philosophy changed with the direction of the wind - if size was a priority, it was only recently considered.

I don't think it's fair to say that Feaster's philosophy changed. First of all, as Burke said this week, it's easier to add size than to add skill, so it was logical for Feaster to go after Baertschi and Gaudreau types first, then add guys like Knight, Poirier and Kanzig once we had some skill in the organization. Secondly, there's no reason why Feaster should have always made the same type of moves when there were three distinct phases of his time as GM, and each phase required a different focus:

1. Try to get the mess of a team left behind by Darryl into the playoffs. I'm not sure that any GM could have done much better, but that doesn't change the fact that this phase was a failure, and could have been even worse if Feaster had managed to sign Richards.

2. Give it one last shot with Kipper and Iginla, but get younger and don't do anything that will limit the long-term flexibility of the team. Although the team didn't make the playoffs, I don't think they were necessarily expecting to, and they set-up the rebuild well. I can't say that this was a success, but it wasn't really a failure either.

3. Rebuild. It's too early to say how it will turn out, but I liked the direction that Feaster had things going post-Iginla.

[devo22]

Pretty sure he meant Eric Roy, the defenseman from Brandon who was our 5th rounder this June, not Olivier Roy, the goaltender who was part of the Smid trade.

[PeteLFan]

Feaster relied on the pucks and decision lens system. It was that system they used to pick between Sven and I'm assuming Nathan Beaulieu

[Da_Chief]

I don't think a SINGLE person can argue the fact we need to get bigger. Even if it wasn't the winning formula, which it is, the fact remains we're in a division that is built for this hockey.

Kings, Ducks, Sharks, Coyotes, Canucks are all big. Get big or get run over.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by gargamel

1. Try to get the mess of a team left behind by Darryl into the playoffs. I'm not sure that any GM could have done much better, but that doesn't change the fact that this phase was a failure, and could have been even worse if Feaster had managed to sign Richards.

2. Give it one last shot with Kipper and Iginla, but get younger and don't do anything that will limit the long-term flexibility of the team. Although the team didn't make the playoffs, I don't think they were necessarily expecting to, and they set-up the rebuild well. I can't say that this was a success, but it wasn't really a failure either.

Seriously? If that is truly the case, this just highlights what sort of f-ed up philosophy the organization is involved in. You're a cap team for the past 2 seasons, trying to make massive FA signings and you really don't think you'll make the playoffs?

You don't make potentially franchise crippling moves (ROR / Richards) unless you're prepared for the consequences to satisfy your goal of making the playoffs. I would be extremely surprised if this was actually the case.

I wonder what would have happened if the organization had a proper selection process for their GM. If almost every top candidate came into the King's office specifically mentioned they had to change direction, you wonder if they would have gotten the message soon than they did.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by dying4acup

I fear that if Toronto gets another team, Burke might leave.

Burke is 58. He loves Calgary. His daughter lives here. He is a hunter.

I expect he ends his career in Calgary, and lives here afterwards. I think he wants to make his mark right here.

[liamenator]

The thing about 'Jay Feaster teams' is that he's never built one that achieved anything.

After the inherited Tampa team won in 2004, Feaster was tasked with sustaining that momentum. He had two options, neither of which were great: 1) preserve the core Big Four, remake the supporting cast around them, or 2) sell high on one of the Big Three, distribute that value through the line-up.

In typical Feaster fashion, he waffled his way into choosing both. He went with option 1 for the two post-lockout seasons, re-signing each of Lecavalier, St. Louis, Richards, and Boyle to huge contracts. Then he abruptly switched gears when he realized the failure of this experiment, trading Richards at the 2008 deadline. The Lighting's post-apex period was one of steady decline and seemed to lack any sense of coherent direction. Granted, he was in the unenviable situation of being the first GM tasked to preserve a cup winning team under a salary cap. Probably was always doomed to failure.

But we've just witnessed his second kick at the can, and it's a familiar story--JF inherits a post-apex team, has to determine the best course of action. First he chooses to keep the core together, that doesn't work. So then it's going to be a 're-tool' (not a rebuild!). That doesn't work either. Finally we arrive at the rebuild phase. So, 3 years in charge, three different philosophies. People talk a lot about Burke's impatience, but Feaster has never been able to stick with a team-building philosophy for more than a couple of years.

Jay Feaster is a waffler. He's a smart guy and has good intentions, but his early success in administering an inherited team to a cup has masked the fact that, in the 7 seasons he has been a GM since 2004, his teams have improved their point totals over the year prior exactly once: 06-07 TB improved over 05-06 by a single point. So, 6 of 7 years his teams declined.

The man is a terrible NHL General Manager.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Acquiring Jiri Hudler, Chad Billins, Kris Russell, Mike Cammalleri, Mark Cundari, Paul Byron, Lee Stempniak, Sven Baertschi, Ben Street. To name a few that have seen roles on the Flames.



I've bolded the ones that he actively had a hand in that meet the size criteria (and I'm being generous here) that were brought in prior to this year in your list.

I removed Ferland and Reinhart, since those were not his picks and Roy because he is a goalie. If anything this gives credence to the idea that his philosophy changed with the direction of the wind - if size was a priority, it was only recently considered.

Anyways, the fact remains we are one of the smallest teams in the NHL right now. We were last year too when we were competing (for real). One of the smallest if not the smallest forwards and defense cores. Results show that Feaster doesn't place a high value on size.

Feaster drafted the BPA.. They were available because they were small. In Gaudreau's case a great pick at #104 but Granlund was available at #45 because he was so small and not that wanted.

Sieloff at 6-0 200 was never going to be picked in the first round. He did not have Karlson or Russell type offense and will be a smaller NHL d-man. There were 16 D men picked before Sieloff went with the #42 pick . There were 3 or 4 the same size as him - Rielly and Trouba with obvious talent and 1 guy smaller.
Jankowski was not only off the board he is not above average size. He is a bean pole and will have trouble making it to average 202 pounds that the average NHL forward goes. He will never be physically dominate.

This year the Flames picked Kanzig at #67. He didn't have the talent to be in the top 100 but..........


The average forward is 72.93" (6' 1") tall, weighs 202.4 lbs

The average defenseman is 73.87" (6' 1 7/8") tall, weighs 209.66 lbs

Monahan - 6-2 195 average
Poirier -6-1 185 small but may end up being average
Klimchuk - 6-0 180 small and will have a challenge to grow into average
Wotherspoon - 6-2 210 exactly average
Jankowski - 6-2 180 could end up average
Sieloff - 6-1 210 average haven't seen him play against men
Reinhart - Average 6-1 185 light
Colborne - Huge 6-5 213
Brodie - 6-1 185 undersized
Ferland - 6-2 215 above average
Granlund - 6-0 185 undersized
Arnold - 6-0 210 average
Hanowski - 6-2 210 above average
Knight - 6-2 200 average
Culkin - 6-2 185 below average might be able to add 25 pounds to become average
Kanizg - Huge 6-7 241
Kulak - below average might grow into average only 15 pounds
Ramage - 6-0 200 undersized
Backlund - 6-0 198 below average




so out of Flames under 23 guys there is Kanzig and Colbourne who are clearly bigger than average.

Ferland, Bouma and Hankowski that are slightly above average.

Wotherspoon , Knight, Arnold and Sieloff, Monahan that are average

And then best of the young players

Brodie, Backlund, Baertschi, Rienhart, Klimchuck, Gaudreau that are all below average

Jankowski and Porier are small but have a chance grow into average.

The Flames fans have become accustomed to guys like Stempniak, Glencross and Stajan (all slightly below average size) playing the big man roles that when Backlund focuses and plays hard he seems to be average.