Bieksa's comments on the Flames

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Team identity is a talking point for tv & radio, that’s it.

Another description of a team identity is that they’re one dimensional.

Whilst I'm generally inclined to agree with you, the tennis player rating scale includes the having an identifiable style as a mark of a strong player. I think it's less about being one dimensional and more that if you're going to be strong overall, you'll probably have some dimension that is exceptional that compensates for your relative weaknesses.

[TheChief]

Bieksa is right on when he says the Flames identity was historically that of a hard nosed/gritty/physical team. It was this way for a few decades after the glory years of the 80's.



It was one of the reasons I became a Flames fan.I loved a tough team and we had it in spades for two decades.A team that would fight and stand up for one another. I loved the work ethic of the Brian Sutter years, and all though they never made the playoffs there were undoubtedly other factors at play (Canadian $).



We see how much this style pays off in the playoffs. What I would give up for a Tom Wilson or even a Garnet Hathaway/Gallagher/Lowry type player to mix in with the flames current skill group.


This current iteration DID carve out a bit of an identity last playoffs, but so far this year they haven't captured that. That's the key...to bring that team to the regular season.

[Mr.Coffee]

So is Jeff Wiemer, Jason’s brother or dad or something? I’m pretty sure Jason played for Calgary but not sure who he’a talking about.

[Lanny_McDonald]

He isn't wrong.

[Textcritic]

Everything I read in here convinces me even more that "having an identity" is just double-talk for "being tough."

I don't care if the Flames have an identity. So long as they play well, and they win that is what matters.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Brieksas reasonings are stupid. But I agree with his main point. He knew what he was walking into every game against Calgary in the Iggy/Sutter era. Pain.

Can't honestly say this team has or even had an identity coming out of the post iggy era other than wildly inconsistent. And lacksadaisical.

So yeah, maybe they have an identity. Its just not a very good one.

The Iggy/Sutter era was wildly inconsistent and lackadaisical though

2004 was nice, almost didn't happen...the rest of Iggy's tenure was worse than the Gaudreau/Monahan era. Iggy/Sutter got past the first round one time and never finished tops in the conference.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Everything I read in here convinces me even more that "having an identity" is just double-talk for "being tough."

I don't care if the Flames have an identity. So long as they play well, and they win that is what matters.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Whatever you have read in this thread, that’s not really correct

Hartley’s team had an identity. The ‘find a way Flames’ were fast, well conditioned, quick on the transition, had Jooris as the poster boy for ‘always earned, never given’. Poured it on in the third and never quit. D has the green light as long as they bust their ass to get back.

Nothing to do with toughness, everything to do with belief

Brent wanted to have an identity and the team hated it. Wolf pack, Junior style hockey, a team that works hard, and gets ugly goals because it doesn’t score on the rush. Bad system for the roster.

The 04 Flames had an identity. Also hard working. Physical and stifling D with 4 lines, relentless wave after wave of forechecking.

Keenan’s team was D be damned firewagon hockey.


This team? I dunno. The closest I have seen the last few years was when Peters seemed to have the team flying before they made their adjustments post all star game. Had something to do with Purple Gatorade but I can’t remember because it seems like the gap between the last game and the next one feels like an eternity

[Harry Lime]

Players who's GAF meter is high on this team (who will throw themselves 100% into the game, at all times), IMO : Tkachuk, Bennett, Andersson, Dube, Mangiapane and Tanev. Monahan has actually gotten better this season in this regard, and Gio has gotten worse. If you have a professional sports team, and you can't list at least half the starting roster, you have a problem.

This is why whenever someone asks whether Kylington, Gawdin and Phillips should be brought up, I say 'yes', because this team needs some hunger.

[ComixZone]

He's not wrong, even if he's mistaken when he mentions Hamonic.

I think we do have some ultra competitive players - specifically Andersson, Mangiapane, Tkachuk, Dube, and Bennett (I'd also put Johnny in here, although his effectiveness is definitely muted when things do escalate), but that end of the game spat is just another good example of what is wrong with this team. No one is willing to step up. If you see one of your teammates at the end of the game getting into it the way Tkachuk was - everyone on the ice should immediately be involved. Suspensions/fines? Sure, you deal with what you have to - and any loss or issue you have to deal with as a result is better than what this team deals with night in and night out when they apathetically take the ice and don't start playing until they're down by 1 or 2 goals.

For the most part, this team is gutless - and I think a lot of that comes from 3 of the 4 players in our "leadership group" - Monahan, Backlund, and Giordano. They play with zero emotion, and I absolutely hate it. Yes, "playing your system" night in and night out is important to building consistency, but it is not enough. You need that something extra every night to win. You need players emotionally engaged every night - and this team has a culture of not being emotionally engaged.

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

He's not wrong, even if he's mistaken when he mentions Hamonic.

I think we do have some ultra competitive players - specifically Andersson, Mangiapane, Tkachuk, Dube, and Bennett (I'd also put Johnny in here, although his effectiveness is definitely muted when things do escalate), but that end of the game spat is just another good example of what is wrong with this team. No one is willing to step up. If you see one of your teammates at the end of the game getting into it the way Tkachuk was - everyone on the ice should immediately be involved. Suspensions/fines? Sure, you deal with what you have to - and any loss or issue you have to deal with as a result is better than what this team deals with night in and night out when they apathetically take the ice and don't start playing until they're down by 1 or 2 goals.

For the most part, this team is gutless - and I think a lot of that comes from 3 of the 4 players in our "leadership group" - Monahan, Backlund, and Giordano. They play with zero emotion, and I absolutely hate it. Yes, "playing your system" night in and night out is important to building consistency, but it is not enough. You need that something extra every night to win. You need players emotionally engaged every night - and this team has a culture of not being emotionally engaged.

I feel like they have been trying to address this for the future with their drafting the last little stretch. Finding the guys like Mangiapane and Dube. Hopeful that Pelletier and Zary play that way. Seems like a changing of the guard is on the horizon.

Tough doesn't have to necessarily mean big and mean in the new NHL when scrums are mostly glove mashing. I noticed Mangiapane jump in and rip Brodie out of a scrum. He didn't care he was a former teammate. He saw a scrum and got in there.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I’ve always thought identity is the most overrated fan/talking head speak in sports.

Not all 31 teams have an identity, it’s a way for people to describe teams in a general way without actually talking about the real problems.

You know what I want our identity to be? Winning all the time.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

I feel like they have been trying to address this for the future with their drafting the last little stretch. Finding the guys like Mangiapane and Dube. Hopeful that Pelletier and Zary play that way. Seems like a changing of the guard is on the horizon.

Tough doesn't have to necessarily mean big and mean in the new NHL when scrums are mostly glove mashing. I noticed Mangiapane jump in and rip Brodie out of a scrum. He didn't care he was a former teammate. He saw a scrum and got in there.

Yeah, that seemed weird to see - but it shouldn't. It should happen all the time. This team is too nice, and they need to get over it.

Backlund's play so far this season makes him, as of today, my easy choice for exposure to Seattle - and the more I think about his time here, and the "nice/soft" identity that this team has, that I'd be completely fine with him moving on.

Yeah, I'm on the negativity train right now but it is only because of how unengaged this team looks yet again this year. Poor starts leading to playing from behind. The team pushes back (as other teams fall into shells to defend the lead), and then go into the post game saying that they battled back but that they can't start games like that. How many bloody years does this need to go on before they make actual changes to address it? I don't think it is a unique issue to just the Flames though, I think it's a pretty common theme for bottom-half teams.

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I’ve always thought identity is the most overrated fan/talking head speak in sports.

Not all 31 teams have an identity, it’s a way for people to describe teams in a general way without actually talking about the real problems.

You know what I want our identity to be? Winning all the time.

Yeah the concept of "identity" is silly, but I really think it is just the media trying to put a word to the question of "what is wrong with this team? They have talent, they have depth - but they constantly fall apart". I think that it comes down to the fact that they don't compete hard enough night in and night out, and they never have. They aren't engaged at puck drop, and for years they are far too passive for the early parts of games.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I’ve always thought identity is the most overrated fan/talking head speak in sports.

Not all 31 teams have an identity, it’s a way for people to describe teams in a general way without actually talking about the real problems.

You know what I want our identity to be? Winning all the time.

Yeah, there are a lot of things that go in to motivating people. A lot of people have put a lot of effort in to understanding how to motivate and in to making teams effective.

For an athlete to reach his potential, he needs motivation. Self determination is important, having people do what you want them to do because they want to do it. And you have to get everyone pulling in the same direction. To understand how your role fits in to what the team is trying to do, you have to frame what the team is trying to do. It generates purpose

Tangentially relevant., Mohammed Ali once said something along the lines that he told everybody he was the best so often so that they would start to believe it, and his opponents did as well.

I think it is absurd to think that giving team members unifying messaging about what the team strives to be is overrated. Good teams know what their team is

Identity can help articulate expected behaviours, and if you aren’t executing them, you are letting the team down / not being part of the team

I guess the coach should just, what, tell the team to go out and win? Thanks, coach

[Winsor_Pilates]

The truculent identity the Flames tried to have for so long became a huge negative for the organization.

The league was changing and we were one of the slowest to adapt because "Big, Western Canadian, Truculent".

The team has come a long way from being stuck on that useless identity.
Most players of that mold can't even stay in the league now or get skated around like fools by the faster game.
Bieksa is an idiot.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Whatever you have read in this thread, that’s not really correct

Hartley’s team had an identity. The ‘find a way Flames’ were fast, well conditioned, quick on the transition, had Jooris as the poster boy for ‘always earned, never given’. Poured it on in the third and never quit. D has the green light as long as they bust their ass to get back.

Nothing to do with toughness, everything to do with belief

Brent wanted to have an identity and the team hated it. Wolf pack, Junior style hockey, a team that works hard, and gets ugly goals because it doesn’t score on the rush. Bad system for the roster.

The 04 Flames had an identity. Also hard working. Physical and stifling D with 4 lines, relentless wave after wave of forechecking.

Keenan’s team was D be damned firewagon hockey.


This team? I dunno. The closest I have seen the last few years was when Peters seemed to have the team flying before they made their adjustments post all star game. Had something to do with Purple Gatorade but I can’t remember because it seems like the gap between the last game and the next one feels like an eternity

You basically just quoted a bunch of emotions. In essence your idea of an identity is “work hard with a good goalie” ie. Kipprusoff.

Excellent strategy. I can’t believe they haven’t thought of that.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Boreal

You basically just quoted a bunch of emotions. In essence your idea of an identity is “work hard with a good goalie” ie. Kipprusoff.

Excellent strategy. I can’t believe they haven’t thought of that.

I don’t understand what you are saying, but your first paragraph is not correct Every team has to work hard to win.

Whatever you are saying is my idea is not my idea

[taxbuster]

Personally, I think "identity" is something a bit different: simply "tough to play against". In different games that may mean quite different things.

In the first Van-Cgy game the Flames came out gangbusters for the first few minutes...hard on the puck, flying around the ice, crisp passes, moving as a group...all the right things. Then they stopped. What made them successful (or at least semi-so in catching back up)? Doing those things all over again in the second period. Identity - tough to play against.

Now in the last game what they actually needed to do was hit. They didn't. Oh Benny gave a few bang and crashes and so did Looch, but the fact is as a team they didn't hit enough on a night when they were slow (so couldn't play like the first game) to compensate. Hit, hit, hit....tough to play against.

There are many ways to win. But as a team you have to come out and actually perform. Last season the Flames didn't really do that. So far this season, for me, the jury is out. Part of that is on the coach.

Tough to play against? Pick your method for the team you're playing tonight and stick with it. That is what they need to do and keep doing.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Maybe this will help some of you

It’s about the Canucks team that went to the final and includes comments from Bieksa

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...-history-part/

BIEKSA The identity of the Canucks. We really felt like we were the best conditioned team in the world. We took a lot of pride in that. You are what you value. We valued being in top shape. We argued over who has the better bike times, who’d burn the most calories. We were all in probably the best shape of our lives. When Chris Higgins comes in at the deadline, he has to [do a fitness] test right away and he’s like, “What the hell is this?” That’s what our team was — in unbelievable shape. Our bag skates at the end of practice weren’t, “Let’s get through it.” It was competitive. I’m going to beat Henrik, Henrik wants to beat Kes, Kes wants to beat Burr. I feel that translated into our games. We came at teams in waves.

We were fast and physical … so highly skilled. We didn’t always have the biggest team, but we had every guy come in and finish their hits on you and re-attack and just swarm you.

TAMBELLINI When your two best players, Danny and Hank, win the strength and conditioning every year, if you don’t show up in good shape, you look like an idiot. The standard was so high in the room. And there was never a time when guys complained about doing the work. The gym was always busy. It was just paying the price to stay in great condition. It wasn’t like anybody was told to do something. That was part of everyone’s daily routine.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Maybe this will help some of you

It’s about the Canucks team that went to the final and includes comments from Bieksa

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...-history-part/

Why don't we just call it what it is, then? A team with "identity" is one that is highly competitive and tough to play against. I don't see why we would make it any more complicated than this: good teams are difficult to beat.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Everything I read in here convinces me even more that "having an identity" is just double-talk for "being tough."

I don't care if the Flames have an identity. So long as they play well, and they win that is what matters.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I'd completely agree. But nobody is just going to let you win.

You have to fight for it.

We can debate the validity of platitudes all day long, but this team has no other gears to grab. Its hockey. Toughness is important. Both physical and mental.

This is whats particularly frustrating for me at least. It seems like most of the pieces are all there...they're just not doing it.

They need a General.