[PGT] Flames win! Monahan with his first goal!

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by New Era

“There’s no more divisions on the team,” said Hartley. “Everyone’s (been) warned that we’re not going to tolerate this, from the ownership down to the video coach. We preach every day that we’re going to be a team. That’s how we want to create this new chapter. This is the new edition of the Calgary Flames.”

Iginla's legacy takes a kick in the naughty parts.

Not really.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

IMO one of the most unappealing sides of this board is the constant certainty people have that just because there's been a lot of smoke there can absolutely not be any fire. They want to really believe that everything was perfect and their favourite players were in fact perfect even though this is not reality and anyone that thinks otherwise is psychoanalyzing.

When the coach comes out and says there's no more divisions on this team and that it will no longer be tolerated there can only be one conclusion in that there was in fact divisions on this team. End of story. This really isn't surprising as there have been numerous indications from Robyn Regehr, Brent Sutter, Jim Playfair, etc that certain players weren't on the same page as the coach and that there were differing opinions within the locker room on how some players were expected to play. I'm not telling you that you have to accept this as truth but it's not up to you to push for everyone else to ignore the fact that there is a lot of evidence that places some pretty fair merit to the constant rumours.

My problem wasn't the conclusion that there was division, it was the unfounded next jump: "I assume this means Tangs and Iginla". It follows in the same vein as previous declarations by people, with complete certainty, that they were a "mentally weak team" or that the problem was with the "leadership of the core" which was never defined but somehow a constant despite immense overhaul over the years.

Yes, when there's smoke, there may be fire, but if you're standing on a distant hill and all you see is smoke, there's not necessarily fire, and there's no reason to conclude that there is fire, which started in the kitchen, because Iginla left the iron on.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by New Era

“There’s no more divisions on the team,” said Hartley. “Everyone’s (been) warned that we’re not going to tolerate this, from the ownership down to the video coach. We preach every day that we’re going to be a team. That’s how we want to create this new chapter. This is the new edition of the Calgary Flames.”

Iginla's legacy takes a kick in the naughty parts.

And yet Mike Cammalari, a friend of Iginla, a favourite of the former captain still remains and is seen as a leader of the current team.

Maybe we shouldn't pretend to know what goes on inside the locker room and just take this comment at face value.

[Miniac]

Joey Mac gets the start tomorrow night.

Pat Steinberg ‏@Fan960Steinberg 1h
MacDonald starts tomorrow. I like the message: Joey won, Ramo didn't, so MacDonald starts. #Flames

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

All speculation of course, but I wouldn't be shocked if Sarich was on the opposite of those two.

And yet Sarich waived his no trade to go to Colorado with Tanguay?

But keep the speculation coming.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think that certainty is explained by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I think now you're just calling people who disagree with you dumb.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Not really.

Yeah, probably not. There are still a lot of fans who think Theo Fleury is a great too.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

And yet Mike Cammalari, a friend of Iginla, a favourite of the former captain still remains and is seen as a leader of the current team.

Which is probably why Cammalleri will find himself on another team as soon as he can a) put up some points to make teams take notice of him, or b) a team is desperate to add an offensive player with some obvious warts.

Maybe we shouldn't pretend to know what goes on inside the locker room and just take this comment at face value.

Maybe we should start listening to people in the know rather than dumping all over them because their story doesn't fit the narrative. The crap and abuse Warrener took on this board for his comments was pretty sad. That was a guy that a recognized leader and warrior everywhere he played, and the fans here crapped on him for calling a spade-a-spade about something he knew quite well.

When you say take it at face value, what do you mean? The coach just said no more of those division shenanigans, from the owners down, which clearly means they existed up to a point last season, meaning someone was shipped out that was at the root. It also clearly means that an owner was in the mix of these shenanigans. The only player an owner had a major relationship with was Murray Edwards with Jarome Iginla. There has obviously been a major come-to-Jesus moment within in the hockey club and it included the whole organization, owners and management, agreeing to something significant. The most significant change in the past five years just took place with the departure of the face of the franchise. Not surprisingly there are comments coming out that team has not been this together in years. Is that face value enough for you?

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Miniac

Joey Mac gets the start tomorrow night.

Pat Steinberg ‏@Fan960Steinberg 1h
MacDonald starts tomorrow. I like the message: Joey won, Ramo didn't, so MacDonald starts. #Flames

Alright, but stuff like that goal he let in late in the 3rd worries me. Softer than any of the Ramo goals allowed.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

Where is it? Where is
it? Whacking, whacking, whacking,
Where is it? Rob Kerr.

fyh

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

I think now you're just calling people who disagree with you dumb.

No, he's quoting a cognitive bias study where participants could not recognize the inherent weakness in their own abilities. That isn't being dumb. It's being cognitively challenged in a very specific way.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by fotze

No, just people who are 100% certain (or close to that number) of things where it is not possible to be that sure. First person I thought of was Iggy when I heard that comment, I just realize that is it quite possible I am wrong though to be really sure of it.

People use strong language on the internet. There are a surprising number of players in the best league in the world who are "brutal" and "beyond garbage" on a nightly basis. You can't really quantify their level of certainty even though they argue a certain position.

The Dunning-Kruger effect has to do with overestimating one's competence in some skill. Being a hockey fan isn't a well-defined skill. Interpreting what happens inside your favorite hockey team is subject to many different types of reasoning and biases. And in any case, the idea isn't that certainty implies being wrong. Effects aside, it's entirely possible to be more certain about something simply because you've spent more time thinking about it, and conversely it's possible see someone as unreasonably sure in their opinions simply because you haven't really wanted to seriously consider the evidence.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by New Era

No, he's quoting a cognitive bias study where participants could not recognize the inherent weakness in their own abilities. That isn't being dumb. It's being cognitively challenged in a very specific way.

It's problematic to apply that bias in this discussion. I would say the reason to bring it up is just to easily dismiss a group of people who you disagree with. We always think that people who we think are wrong are too certain in their opinions. That's not the Dunning-Kruger effect. To bring it up is simply to say, 'my "abilities" as a hockey fan are greater than yours, so you're wrong.'

[Frank MetaMusil]

Haha, New Era is EddyBeers.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Mike F

My problem wasn't the conclusion that there was division, it was the unfounded next jump: "I assume this means Tangs and Iginla". It follows in the same vein as previous declarations by people, with complete certainty, that they were a "mentally weak team" or that the problem was with the "leadership of the core" which was never defined but somehow a constant despite immense overhaul over the years.

Yes, when there's smoke, there may be fire, but if you're standing on a distant hill and all you see is smoke, there's not necessarily fire, and there's no reason to conclude that there is fire, which started in the kitchen, because Iginla left the iron on.

The most inane part of this entire discussion is the fact that "the team will be one of the worst in franchise history" yet the organization trades away their best player in franchise history and now the discussion degrades into "well, see, he was the problem all along, now we can start winning"

Rhett Warrener and some of the posters here really need to find some new material. I'm sure they'd disagree with me saying Hartley is a better coach than his predecessor.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Miniac

Joey Mac gets the start tomorrow night.

Pat Steinberg ‏@Fan960Steinberg 1h
MacDonald starts tomorrow. I like the message: Joey won, Ramo didn't, so MacDonald starts. #Flames

The result of the first two games would probably have been the same if they swapped the goalies.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by fotze

Not when you actually think the poster is actually correct, how can I be biased against when I share the opinion?

Everyone is biased, but apologies for assuming that you disagreed. Dunning-Kruger still doesn't apply however.

[macrov]

It also might be that when they say "divisions" it refers to a lack of team cohesion. Like, the dressing room may have been fine, and no one had an issue with each other, but all the players weren't exactly brothers. Iggy, Tangs, and Cammy were friends, but they might not have been "Hey Sven, lets go grab a beer" type thing...

I remember hearing no one was really taking the time to spend with the younger guys, make them feel welcome etc in more than a superficial way, not because they were mean, but because it wasn't really a priority. I remember hearing the older guys kept to themselves, which isnt a dick thing to do, but its not exactly the best environment for building real bonds between players.

You want an environment where guys are willing to take proverbial bullets for each other. Guys who are willing to kill for eachother, and sacrifice for each other - for the team. A band of brothers. A wolf pack mentality.

I honestly think thats what the quote referred to.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

The most inane part of this entire discussion is the fact that "the team will be one of the worst in franchise history" yet the organization trades away their best player in franchise history and now the discussion degrades into "well, see, he was the problem all along, now we can start winning"

Rhett Warrener and some of the posters here really need to find some new material. I'm sure they'd disagree with me saying Hartley is a better coach than his predecessor.

The problem was that when things go past their expiry date, they go stale. And I don't mean the players are past expiry, but it was evident that the Flames and the vets such as Iginla no longer had a symbiotic relationship. That led to a less than optimal environment, even if everyone was trying their best.

The Flames started this rebuild a few years late, and as a result they almost ca help to create a better environment by casting off players like Iggy, not because he's a bad leader, but because he was in the wrong situation at the end with the Flames. Iggy and Tangs will be much more like their old selves again with change of environment too, everyone wins!

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Fire

The result of the first two games would probably have been the same if they swapped the goalies.

That huge rebound Mac kicked out cost a goal. Ramo, I thought he was a little slow or awkward coming across on the one timer. There was another one where he came across but got beat on a goal Kipper usually stops. They both have to be better if we expect to win our share of games.

[iggy_oi]

I must have missed it, but what exactly did Warrener say that everyone is talking about?