Friedman's 31 thoughts - Feb 7

[sureLoss]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/3...e-controversy/

Flames related:

6. Calgary is getting asked about 2017 first-rounder Juuso Valimaki, but that’s not happening.

20. Very interesting take from one head coach on the Michael Frolik mistake that started Vegas’s ridiculous comeback in Calgary last week: “Twenty years ago, he throws it off the glass into a safe place and Calgary wins the game,” he said. “Now, no one is allowed to throw it off the glass.”

Also trade deadline related:

Thinks Faulk for Athanasiou trade makes sense

Thinks Colorado will keep Barrie because what they have in the system is not ready yet

Leivo asked for trade and some teams have showed interest in Soshnikov
Thinks Toronto would retain money to move Matt Martin

Rumblings about ROR being available have been shot down

Pens looking at lots of options at cente: Brassard, Letestu, Pageau, Plekanec, Ryan, Cullen and more

Chicago needs cap relief and he wonders if they give Saad a fresh start.
Blue Jackets in the same boat with Jenner

Kovalchuk is now a UFA and if he decides to come back to the NHL next season, it is believed he is looking at New York

[JackJack]

Jenner for Bennett?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by JackJack

Jenner for Bennett?

Yeah, because trading Bennett for an older, worse player makes plenty of sense.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

20. Very interesting take from one head coach on the Michael Frolik mistake that started Vegas’s ridiculous comeback in Calgary last week: “Twenty years ago, he throws it off the glass into a safe place and Calgary wins the game,” he said. “Now, no one is allowed to throw it off the glass.”

Uh... what? Yeah you are. Of course you are. Especially in the third period of a tight game. No one's coaching Frolik to make that play in that situation. What nonsense is this?

[JackJack]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Yeah, because trading Bennett for an older, worse player makes plenty of sense.

Didn't realize Jenner was 3 years older and performing that poorly.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Yeah, because trading Bennett for an older, worse player makes plenty of sense.

only if it happens now!

...I'll see myself out

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Uh... what? Yeah you are. Of course you are. Especially in the third period of a tight game. No one's coaching Frolik to make that play in that situation. What nonsense is this?

Yeah, that comment strikes me as odd. Maybe he meant that they're being coached to not throw it off the glass?

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Uh... what? Yeah you are. Of course you are. Especially in the third period of a tight game. No one's coaching Frolik to make that play in that situation. What nonsense is this?

The prevailing thought is that players are being instructed to maintain possession, so in Frolik's case he is going to try and make a play to maintain possession rather than dumping it out even if it means playing it back.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Toonage

The prevailing thought is that players are being instructed to maintain possession, so in Frolik's case he is going to try and make a play to maintain possession rather than dumping it out even if it means playing it back.

Sure, in general, and that's all for the good, because all things being equal it translates to success. But there's such a thing as situational play. You're winning by a goal with less than two minutes left, you send it around behind the goal, or at worst, maintain possession by tying it up along the wall. You don't throw it in the direction of your net. There's no system ever conceived by any coach in the league where that's the right play. I mean, not to relive it, but there's a reason Brodie was so surprised.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Sure, in general, and that's all for the good, because all things being equal it translates to success. But there's such a thing as situational play. You're winning by a goal with less than two minutes left, you send it around behind the goal, or at worst, maintain possession by tying it up along the wall. You don't throw it in the direction of your net. There's no system ever conceived by any coach in the league where that's the right play. I mean, not to relive it, but there's a reason Brodie was so surprised.

I know. And yet a smart, defensive player in Frolik who rarely makes that big a mistake chose to play it back.

Its puzzling. Just sharing what I heard from Friedman. Can't recall if it was his segment on the Fan last week after that game or on TV.

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Uh... what? Yeah you are. Of course you are. Especially in the third period of a tight game. No one's coaching Frolik to make that play in that situation. What nonsense is this?

You should know this better than anyone. In today's NHL possession is key and what he is saying is that coaches want the players to maintain possession in cases like this. So in turn, Frohlik attempted to maintain puck possession by passing the puck back to his D-man instead of sending the puck off the glass and out. This is due to practicing this and most likely being discouraged to lose said possession. It is all about the corsi! lol

Reality is you are allowed to do it but you are not practicing it and are discouraged to do so now.

[Inglewood Jack]

that puck obviously didn't go where Frolik was aiming. if it did, Flames win. if he decided to go off the glass, he could still have flubbed it and given it straight to a Vegas player for a goal against. there isn't any deep strategic meaning to a screwed up play, people just keep wanting to over-analyze it anyways because it was so dramatic to watch.

[GioforPM]

Throwing it back works a lot of the time, too. Especially where he's got Smith and a defenceman. I don't think Frolik realized how close the Vegas player was to Smith.

There was just no communication on that play. Frolik's other choices were to eat the puck and Brodie would have helped, or to ring it to Brodie behind the net instead of going in a straight pass. At the end of the day, it was just a confluence of events.

[Red]

Apparently GG discussed this play with the team next morning. He said that the new "possession" type game made the chip off the glass a bad play.
Because of what happened, he told the team to forget the new trend and make the safe play instead.

[Monahammer]

I don't mind the idea of potentially buying low on saad. I wonder what he would cost. On the flip side I would hate to give the blackhawks anything at all of potential value, as they deserve the worst.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I don't mind the idea of potentially buying low on saad. I wonder what he would cost. On the flip side I would hate to give the blackhawks anything at all of potential value, as they deserve the worst.

He makes $6M a year through 2020. Too much dough.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He makes $6M a year through 2020. Too much dough.

Considering people are suggesting $12M for Tavares, $6M for Saad is a bargain.

[Poe969]

Except Tavares probably gets you double the points and makes the people around him better, Saad isn't what the team needs IMO

[Yrebmi]

That's the first time I have seen the David Krejci goal.
IMO there is no way that should have been counted a goal. I fully endorse the idea of taking the final decision out of the on ice ref's hands and using a small hopefully consistent group similar to DOPS. Obviously they would need to come to decisions quicky and consistently.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Toonage

The prevailing thought is that players are being instructed to maintain possession, so in Frolik's case he is going to try and make a play to maintain possession rather than dumping it out even if it means playing it back.

It was simply a bad play by a normally reliable player. There's no other explanation needed. Has nothing to do with coaching or systems.