[PGT] All hail Lord Zebulon! Flames win it 2-1

[PugnaciousIntern]

Don’t forget Backlund started the year with an injury. Came back and played poorly to start the year, slightly improving overall now with highs and lows. The whole team also took a step back to start the year so wet can’t look at him in isolation. I’m not convinced that he’s healthy. I don’t think this is entirely an irreversible decline of a player

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by AC

How has Backlund projected since being moved to the wing? Feels like a lot better offensively.

I would hope so considering he's playing with gaudreau and Monahan instead of tkachuk and God knows who else.

I thought he looked his best last night with Bennett and Ryan once that line got put together. Ultimately I'd like to see Mangiapane/lucic - backlund - Ryan because I liked dube with gaudreau and Monahan a lot more.

If the flamea move Bennett for a top 6 forward I think Dube - backlund - Ryan would look great as well for a 3rd line. Speedy, some puck skills, some 3 some 3 some pressure and faceoffs.

I'd put them out there for every d zone draw.

Still a critical piece missing in that top 6.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So 36 points is a bottom 6 player on a playoff roster.

So then maybe EE isn't being premature with his push for backlund to a bottom 6 role?

If you want to expand the definition then you'd both be right.

If you stick with bottom six, then no you're not.

[Toonage]

Somewhat related, I'm surprised we haven't seen Czarnik recalled.

Worked well in the past with both Bennett & Backlund. Putting up points in the AHL, a RHS also.

Bennett-Backlund-Czarnik or even Mangiapane-Ryan-Czarnik would be worth a look

Also in regards to Backlund on the wing, I thought I read his numbers there weren't hot either.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Somewhat related, I'm surprised we haven't seen Czarnik recalled.

Worked well in the past with both Bennett & Backlund. Putting up points in the AHL, a RHS also.

Bennett-Backlund-Czarnik or even Mangiapane-Ryan-Czarnik would be worth a look

Also in regards to Backlund on the wing, I thought I read his numbers there weren't hot either.

I think they're still going with the cheapest roster possible to accrue more cap space for their big top six add.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If you want to expand the definition then you'd both be right.

If you stick with bottom six, then no you're not.

I don't get it. You're saying 36 points is player 7 or worse on teaams 1-15, right?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't get it. You're saying 36 points is player 7 or worse on teaams 1-15, right?

While I don't disagree with you, I think that it is worth mentioning that at least 1 of the 'top 7 points player' on teams 1-15 is probably a defencemen. I that sense Backlund would still be a top 6 forward. But I see you point, that's not exactly who you want to be your 2C.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Plus even including last night's 2 goal night, the team has put up 3.2/GP in their last 5 games. That's right up there for 5 game segments this year.

The offence is coming ... David Rittich first periods probably cost this team a pretty solid run since Xmas.

Flames are 4-2 since Christmas...but yeah could be 5-1 or 6-0 I guess

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't get it. You're saying 36 points is player 7 or worse on teaams 1-15, right?

What's to get?

If you want to alter the description to a top six player on a playoff team or something you'd be correct. If left as a straight top six player definition, you're wrong.

Top 15 teams together average 35 points for player 7, so you can take out "or worse" as it's actually a bit better.

But all that ignores the rest. He's on a 36 point pace now, but has turned it around, is getting chance generation in the top five of the team, and has only had his goal pace drop this year, not his assists. That's not a steep decline player.

He's averaged 46.5 points in the last four years which would be player five on a top 15 team.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

Don’t forget Backlund started the year with an injury. Came back and played poorly to start the year, slightly improving overall now with highs and lows. The whole team also took a step back to start the year so wet can’t look at him in isolation. I’m not convinced that he’s healthy. I don’t think this is entirely an irreversible decline of a player

I blame Baby Backlund! Come on Baby Backlund, grow up already! Tell your dad to get 2 nannies. He needs his rest to score some key goals for us down the stretch! Get some sleep Baby Backlund!

(John Oliver voice-so fake over the top British Accent)

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

While I don't disagree with you, I think that it is worth mentioning that at least 1 of the 'top 7 points player' on teams 1-15 is probably a defencemen. I that sense Backlund would still be a top 6 forward. But I see you point, that's not exactly who you want to be your 2C.

We are isolating only forwards in this discussion

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

We are isolating only forwards in this discussion

I must not have been following closely enough.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

What's to get?

If you want to alter the description to a top six player on a playoff team or something you'd be correct. If left as a straight top six player definition, you're wrong.

Top 15 teams together average 35 points for player 7, so you can take out "or worse" as it's actually a bit better.

You'll excuse me if I don't care what the worst teams in the league are doing when evaluating players.

That's great for backlund that he would be a #5 guy on the New Jersey devils, but unfortunately I like to compare to players on good teams to get an accurate sense of where they are rather than comparing them to the worst teams to get an inflated picture in order to tell another poster they are being premature.

That's just me being silly I guess.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I must not have been following closely enough.

That's ok, there is a lot going on in this thread

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You'll excuse me if I don't care what the worst teams in the league are doing when evaluating players.

That's great for backlund that he would be a #5 guy on the New Jersey devils, but unfortunately I like to compare to players on good teams to get an accurate sense of where they are rather than comparing them to the worst teams to get an inflated picture in order to tell another poster they are being premature.

That's just me being silly I guess.

No, that is you misunderstanding the concept of how "averages" work, and then moving goalposts to suit your argument. If the question, "Is Mikael Backlund a NHL top-six player?" is what is in discussion, then according to the essential definition the answer is "Yes."

[thefoss1957]

Stellar goaltending at both ends. The Flames' D did a good job at keeping the 'Hawks on the perimeter. The 'Hawk D did exceptionally well (for them) in clogging shooting lanes. Tkachuk found Lindholm in high danger areas twice, after bad 'Hawk turnovers. It was enough to waste Crawford's efforts.

Very good road win against a pursuer by your guys.

Looking forward to the rubber match.on 2/15.


Thanks for hosting, see you guys/gals around!

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I've always felt Backlund was overrated to an extent here but I don't think I overly complain about him relative to a lot of posters here. I don't think his overall play is terrible but his lack of finish is concerning. I'm not sure anyone can deny a that a lot of very good scoring opportunities have died on his stick this season. We are all here to discuss hockey and the Flames so if you find differing opinions to yours annoying maybe you should make up your own forum that has specific rules that everyone must agree on everything.

Your take sucked. You were called out on your bad take. Now you’re getting all defensive because people don’t agree with your bad take.

That was your big takeaway from the win? That you’re worried about Backlund’s contract? While he’s playing fine?

You shouldn’t be surprised at the reaction.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You'll excuse me if I don't care what the worst teams in the league are doing when evaluating players.

That's great for backlund that he would be a #5 guy on the New Jersey devils, but unfortunately I like to compare to players on good teams to get an accurate sense of where they are rather than comparing them to the worst teams to get an inflated picture in order to tell another poster they are being premature.

That's just me being silly I guess.

You don't need to be excused, but the only thing silly about this is how you can't just accept a simple definition without a qualifier is different than the one you are floating out.

There are 31 teams, so the top 6 x 31 forwards are by very definition top six players. Backlund is one of them. That's straight math.

I've admitted several times that if you want to alter that definition to "top six on a playoff team" you'd be right, but that's not good enough for you.

You need to walk out the snark.

Honestly man just get over yourself. It's tiresome.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

That's just me being silly I guess.

More argumentative than silly. By my definition.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You don't need to be excused, but the only thing silly about this is how you can't just accept a simple definition without a qualifier is different than the one you are floating out.

There are 31 teams, so the top 6 x 31 forwards are by very definition top six players. Backlund is one of them. That's straight math.

I've admitted several times that if you want to alter that definition to "top six on a playoff team" you'd be right, but that's not good enough for you.

You need to walk out the snark.

Honestly man just get over yourself. It's tiresome.

I guess to me it's obvious that when someone says a 'bottom 6 player' the implication is they are not talking about the absolute worst teams in the league. Like, duh, backlund isn't a bottom 6 player on the oilers or the kings or the senators.

You're using averages here to pour cold water on what is a very real criticism: that backlund on his current projected pace is a bottom 6 roster player for a good team. Further to that, you're supplying information that says not only is backlund not a top 6 player on a top 10 team, he's actually not a top 6 player on a playoff team, which is taking things much further than the point i made and in my opinion makes 'league average' comparisons appear even more inaccurate and frankly a bit dishonest, because no one would use a non playoff team as a justification for basically any team building strategy or judgement of talent.

I don't often feel comfortable speaking for other posters but in this instance I do. We all get what EE is saying here, that Backlunds decline from a 46 point player to a 36 player is a problem and has him slotted as a bottom 6 roster player on the flames who are otherwise a good team. Coincidentally, that was the line he found himself on after the 1st period in last night's game.

So yes, absolutely, on a league wide average backlund is a #5 guy. Clearly on a top 10 team he is not.

Your criteria was the delineation between 6 and 7, and it's also your criteria that that league average is what matters. Unless I'm missing something here, EE never suggested league wide average matters, that's the criteria you're using to call his opinion premature.

So it's nice that you think backlund is a top 6 forward. Unfortunately given your own evidence that means Calgary is not a playoff team.

That strikes me as a problem.