Too early to panic about Markstrom

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Kasi

No my feeling last year is how it always is with Sutter. It’s great if there is buy in. We know from previous stints with us and LA that there is a shelf life with Sutter that after a certain point players check out. Heck Tkachuk has pretty much told the media he wanted no part of Sutter anymore. So yeah my thoughts were yay Sutter was connecting with the team and we did well. Now it’s just hard to not think of the impending expiry date we knew was coming at some point. I didn’t think it would be this year though.

Over the last 13 games, the Flames have let in 2 or fewer goals 7 times. During this time they have a record of 5-8. The fact they aren't even winning the vast majority of these 7 games is fairly telling that the offense isn't getting it done.

**If you toss out empty net goals they have actually held opponents to 2 or fewer goals 8 times during this stretch.

Does not scoring enough equate to players checking out? I'd say holding teams to account defensively more than 60% of the time indicates the opposite - the team is buying in, they just need more from a lot of the best players. You're not winning many games in this league by 1-0 or 2-1 margins and last year the teams best players were getting it done.

[Jiri Hrdina]

If Sutter isn't the guy and a decision was made to move on from him (which I think is unlikely but posing it as a thought exercise) where do they go next?
For years when people were pining for a coaching change it was often because "why don't they go get the guy from Viking". Well they did that.

So where do people think/want them to go next?

[Kasi]

Well a Sutter style team doesn’t have huge margins generally. Sure they have at times had good goals against but it still doesn’t explain to me the constant lapses. Like I just can’t explain the chances we gave up to Columbus and Montreal. Constant 2-1s against and such. Or just the repeated coming out of the gate slow like last nights game. It’s not that I don’t think Sutters style works I think it’s been proved that it does and even though maybe it’s not quite as strong as it was 10-20 years ago it’s still effective. But it requires buy in to be disciplined and out work your opponent and I’m just not seeing that.

[Toonage]

Scary thought isn't it? Ownership has seemingly been hesitant to spend big money on a top tier coach unless it was Darryl.

Spent money on Darryl. End up in the suggested scenario of moving on.

Whats the message to ownership and whats their message to the team?

Enjoy the next Gulutzan I suppose.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Kasi

Well a Sutter style team doesn’t have huge margins generally. Sure they have at times had good goals against but it still doesn’t explain to me the constant lapses. Like I just can’t explain the chances we gave up to Columbus and Montreal. Constant 2-1s against and such. Or just the repeated coming out of the gate slow like last nights game. It’s not that I don’t think Sutters style works I think it’s been proved that it does and even though maybe it’s not quite as strong as it was 10-20 years ago it’s still effective. But it requires buy in to be disciplined and out work your opponent and I’m just not seeing that.

If you cruise around you'll find every fan base lamenting the fact that there team is inconsistent when they don't dominate for 60 minutes.

The two on ones against were actually a sign of a team with too much enthusiasm in my mind, not a lack of it.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Kasi

Well a Sutter style team doesn’t have huge margins generally. Sure they have at times had good goals against but it still doesn’t explain to me the constant lapses. Like I just can’t explain the chances we gave up to Columbus and Montreal. Constant 2-1s against and such. Or just the repeated coming out of the gate slow like last nights game. It’s not that I don’t think Sutters style works I think it’s been proved that it does and even though maybe it’s not quite as strong as it was 10-20 years ago it’s still effective. But it requires buy in to be disciplined and out work your opponent and I’m just not seeing that.

For me, if this group starts getting production from its best players, the rest of the lineup is doing more than enough to succeed. Huberdeau cannot continue to be on pace for 50 points and 15 goals and this team's leading scorer (lindholm) cannot be nearly 100th in the league.

When you're constantly walking on razor blades as a group, everyone plays tight and this leads to gaffes from the goalie on out.

Its frustrating considering this team was so thrilling to watch last year, but the alternatives like blowing up the coaching staff just make no sense to me because we've been down that road and it's not a pretty one.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Yikes

1) Vladar is the starter, say what you want, the Flames play better in front of him.

2) Bring up Wolf as back up and play him
3) Get rid of Sutter and his bull####

4) Move Markstrom for decent picks, retain what we have to
5) Attach the Lucic contract to a Hanifin trade, retain what we have to on Lucic, only works when Tanev is ok.

6) Buy out Kylington
7) Buy out Rooney

8) Give Phillips a regular shift
9) Not sure on other Wranglers?
10) Put the $ from Markstrom, Kylington, Rooney and Lucic to work

We have a new winner.

And it's not for a chicken dinner.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

We have a new winner.

And it's not for a chicken dinner.

in all fairness it is a perfectly cromulent plan

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The thread was going to get bumped regardless. It's on you not to let a singular post get under your skin.

The thread was bumped immediately after the Canucks second goal.

Even you, of all people, would recognize that was opportunistic at best and a dick move at worst.

(I hope I got my commas right, lmk)

[AT77]

Lmao x2

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

I like how he closed the door early, team gets back in it, then he chooses the rest of the game to turn into a sieve

whether it's to start or finish, he just can't string 60 together

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If Sutter isn't the guy and a decision was made to move on from him (which I think is unlikely but posing it as a thought exercise) where do they go next?
For years when people were pining for a coaching change it was often because "why don't they go get the guy from Viking". Well they did that.

So where do people think/want them to go next?

You would have to start above him and have an organizational reset. No way could you try and plug yet another new coach into this organization. It would be time for a new approach.

Maybe that’s ducking your question.

At this point, I wouldn’t invest in a championship calibre coach for this group of players. Go the Jared Bednar route. Maybe you find a diamond but more likely you just ride out the veteran contracts and hope for success in the draft.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You would have to start above him and have an organizational reset. No way could you try and plug yet another new coach into this organization. It would be time for a new approach.

Maybe that’s ducking your question.

At this point, I wouldn’t invest in a championship calibre coach for this group of players. Go the Jared Bednar route. Maybe you find a diamond but more likely you just ride out the veteran contracts and hope for success in the draft.

Above him being the owners?
Because I don’t know how the overall philosophy changes by swapping GMs

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Above him being the owners?

Because I don’t know how the overall philosophy changes by swapping GMs

Wasn't Burke brought in to fix the organization?

What happened to that?

[Strange Brew]

I personally don’t believe it’s the coaches fault. But there is no scenario where I let the current GM hire another coach.

If you’re telling me the GM has no ability to carry out their own vision, I’d still want him replaced before making any major moves. Maybe the next person could have more success in driving a different approach. I’m sure willing to take that chance, I see little downside.

But I wouldn’t change a thing this year.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Wasn't Burke brought in to fix the organization?

What happened to that?

He left by “mutual decision”. Basically stayed long enough to get rid of Feaster and get someone less embarrassing. I imagine ownership was tired of paying him after a while.

[Macho0978]

I'd love to know the offer Treliving made Gaudreau the summer before he left. It would be interesting what this team would look like if Gaudreau signed 8 years for less than $9 mil after a bad year what this team would like like right now. Treviling IMo did a good job in the summer with the situation despite the teams struggles now, the summer before is where he messed up.

I think he gets fired soon if this keeps up and I want a GM that takes care of business a year early and locks up guys long term before they break out. Buffalo just did this with Thompson, Devils with Hughes and Hischier.

Buffalo did it with Skinner too but Thompson deal is so good he probably more than off set how bad Skinner's deal is now.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

I'd love to know the offer Treliving made Gaudreau the summer before he left. It would be interesting what this team would look like if Gaudreau signed 8 years for less than $9 mil after a bad year what this team would like like right now. Treviling IMo did a good job in the summer with the situation despite the teams struggles now, the summer before is where he messed up.

I think he gets fired soon if this keeps up and I want a GM that takes care of business a year early and locks up guys long term before they break out. Buffalo just did this with Thompson, Devils with Hughes and Hischier.

Buffalo did it with Skinner too but Thompson deal is so good he probably more than off set how bad Skinner's deal is now.

Devils did nothing with Bratt and now they're going to pay for it. It doesn't really make sense to evaluate these deals in hindsight because players change so much. Sabres bridged Dahlin and at the time it seemed horrible. Now it seems like a bargain and they're really going to have to pay.

Who thought New Jersey would be this good this year?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Above him being the owners?
Because I don’t know how the overall philosophy changes by swapping GMs

To be fair, are we absolutely sure that the ownership is completely apprehensive against a rebuild at all costs?

There's only been three GM's for this team in the (almost) past two decades. Sutter when the team became competitive once again, and then Feaster which was a dud but started the transition into rebuild post-Iginla era, and then Treliving where he inherited a team that was essentially a clean slate.

If they are to finally relieve Treliving this offseason and bring in someone new, what's to say they wouldn't be open to the idea a GM having a future building approach? I know the contracts this off season indicates that wasn't the intention, but if the results show that the team lacks a core that could be competitive in the near term, then they won't have much of a choice but to try to shred players that won't serve the team in the long term, and try to bring in assets that can make the team good down the road, no? May not be a scored earth rebuild due to the anchor contracts of Huby/Kadri/etc., but could be a retool approach where you build around them in the meantime, and hope the prospects in the system currently can make the jump on their expected timelines.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I believe the owners are fundamentally against a rebuild and even when they did authorize one they demanded it to be very short before it was expected to try to win again