Burke Philosophy VS Feaster Philosophy

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Seriously? If that is truly the case, this just highlights what sort of f-ed up philosophy the organization is involved in. You're a cap team for the past 2 seasons, trying to make massive FA signings and you really don't think you'll make the playoffs?

I agree that it's a terrible strategy, but I've always assumed it was what ownership was demanding last year. The organization thought the playoffs were a realistic goal in 2011-12 (hence the idiotic attempt to sign Brad Richards), but I think the mandate for 2012-13 was basically, "keep using Iginla and Kipper to sell tickets, and do your best to keep the team in the hunt." Given that, I think the Hudler, Wideman and Cervenka signings were decent low-risk moves.

Thankfully, staring with the Iginla trade, it seemed like ownership had finally realized that we needed to go through a few painful years to get back on top, so I think a lot of us are concerned that they'll revert to their impatient ways now that the self-described "impatient" Burke is in charge.

[mikeecho]

The biggest concern I have with the Burke strategy is that he's chasing a trend. When you do that, you risk continual mediocrity. You need to set the trends to have any advantage.

By the time he builds a big, tough team 2-3 years down the road, the progressive GMs in the league are already building teams to be better than the big tough teams.

The game is continually evolving and Burke needs to think where the game is going and build a team in that mould as opposed to where the game is today.

I think Feaster was trying to do that, to some extent with this re-build.

The way I see it, Birke just placed an order for a bunch of iPhone 5s to be delivered in 2-3 years. By the time he gets them, people will think they're brick phones.

[Vulcan]

Despite Burke saying that other teams are copying the Ducks team, big tough teams have been winning championships since Canadian pro hockey began. This isn't a trend, although some GMs may have other ideas, it's the way to win.

[PeteLFan]

Teams that have size speed and skill will always win out. We have seen it time and time again. The trend becomes being skilled fast and small, fun too watch and then playoffs come.

The game of hockey doesn't change. You need too win the battles along the boards, and defend.

[macrov]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Acquiring Jiri Hudler, Chad Billins, Kris Russell, Mike Cammalleri, Mark Cundari, Paul Byron, Lee Stempniak, Sven Baertschi, Ben Street. To name a few that have seen roles on the Flames.



I've bolded the ones that he actively had a hand in that meet the size criteria (and I'm being generous here) that were brought in prior to this year in your list.

I removed Ferland and Reinhart, since those were not his picks and Roy because he is a goalie. If anything this gives credence to the idea that his philosophy changed with the direction of the wind - if size was a priority, it was only recently considered.

Anyways, the fact remains we are one of the smallest teams in the NHL right now. We were last year too when we were competing (for real). One of the smallest if not the smallest forwards and defense cores. Results show that Feaster doesn't place a high value on size.

Or perhaps it was that

1) the best available players available when the flames were picking were bigger in 2012 than in 2011 by random luck. You don't know. Its hard to say "it changed with the wind" when the sample size is 2 years. And the fact that Monahan, Porier, and Klimchuck are all normal to large players, also leads one to believe that again, the best available players available were bigger in 2013 than in 2011 by random luck.

Baertchi was the best player available at 13. Its obvious. And Gadreau was a great pickup. Outside of those 2 players, theres nothing in his draft record to suggest he's specifically targeting smaller guys. He just wasn't shying away from it when a smaller guy was the best player available.

2) on the UFA market and trade market, other GMs tend to undervalue smaller players across the board, making it a quicker and cheaper way to add skill. Perhaps bigger skilled guys are extremely expensive to aquire via trade or free agency.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Despite Burke saying that other teams are copying the Ducks team, big tough teams have been winning championships since Canadian pro hockey began. This isn't a trend, although some GMs may have other ideas, it's the way to win.

^ This.

Even though it was in a different era the last time we had success we had guys like Regehr, Warrener on the backend and Iginla and a huge powerforward in Simon. I think people sometimes forget how key Simon was for our PP and overall in our cup run.

Even though the NHL has changed and slower powerforwards and defensive defensemen have a tougher time it hasn't reduced the effectiveness of the powerforwards and big, strong d-men who can skate. You win championships with those types. They are also quite rare, similar to big, skilled centres with size which luckily we've found one of (Monahan). If we can get a big powerforward at the top end of this draft or a big, strong, two-way d-man we'll have found another key piece.

[Vinny01]

This has been the best week for the Flames organization in recent memory. Iginla's return followed by the call that should have been made long ago which was firing Feaster.

I love having Burke here to guide the rebuild. He is a guy that makes things happen. Unlike MacT who just talks about bold moves Burke can actually make them. I love the identity the Flames had under Sutter when they were big and bruising.

I think this roster is going to go through a massive makeover between now and the start of next season.

Feaster was all talk, he tried to make bold moves that would have crippled the franchise for years. He was a poor trader but seemed decent at drafting.

Jay was brought in to guide the ship until Iggy and Kipper were ready to move on, he made the tough deals to start the rebuild and positioned this team well for the guy to take over. A few solid prospects, tons of cap space, contract room, veteran trade assets.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by gargamel

Isn't the PUCKS system based, at least somewhat, on advanced stats? I don't know exactly what it takes into account, but I assumed that was part of it.

Well, I am not 100% sure, but from the sounds of it, the PUCKS system is just video. If the Flames are let's say, wondering about a particular prospect this upcoming draft like Reinhart or Ekblad. They can punch in all the advanced stats numbers that these guys have been part of, and see for themselves what happened there.

Things like: "Ok, when PK'ing, Kootenay seems to be one of the worst in the league. Let's see how big a part Reinhart is to that", and they can keep focused on Reinhart for all the goals against on the PK while Reinhart was on the ice, and determine if he was a part of the problem, or things happened in spite of him being on the ice.

It can apparently just take any event and show all the video that relates to it.

I don't think it really keeps track of advanced stats (at least, not that I know of), and I have no idea what the shortcomings are, or how 'deep' it goes into being able to pull up video relating to any particular stat. It is something like I described (at least, that is how I understood it from a Flames PR video on their site last year I believe).

Anyone that knows more please correct me or add to it.

[PeteMoss]

Here's the PUCK system website... there's a power point presentation there http://www.sydexsports.com/html/hockey.html

It just looks like a system to watch video a bit easier... so you can pull a shift from a particular player or whatever.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Well, I am not 100% sure, but from the sounds of it, the PUCKS system is just video. If the Flames are let's say, wondering about a particular prospect this upcoming draft like Reinhart or Ekblad. They can punch in all the advanced stats numbers that these guys have been part of, and see for themselves what happened there.

Things like: "Ok, when PK'ing, Kootenay seems to be one of the worst in the league. Let's see how big a part Reinhart is to that", and they can keep focused on Reinhart for all the goals against on the PK while Reinhart was on the ice, and determine if he was a part of the problem, or things happened in spite of him being on the ice.

It can apparently just take any event and show all the video that relates to it.

I don't think it really keeps track of advanced stats (at least, not that I know of), and I have no idea what the shortcomings are, or how 'deep' it goes into being able to pull up video relating to any particular stat. It is something like I described (at least, that is how I understood it from a Flames PR video on their site last year I believe).

Anyone that knows more please correct me or add to it.

It definitely has some stat components to it. I believe the Flames evaluate shots and scoring chances based on it and where the shot comes from. PUCKS gives them info about where every shot came from, if it was a rebound, etc. This gives them data with which to make their own advanced stats. They can get a SV% that is modified by where the scoring chance comes from. For example shots from the boards are low % scoring chances. Shots on rebounds or in the slot are high % scoring chances. Shots from the point near the boards are lower % scoring chances than shots from the point in the middle of the ice. So they have stats on how many good scoring chances players are generating, how many good scoring chances goalies are facing, etc. In a way it provides more than the advanced stats some people are using because it is evaluating more than just shots, it evaluates where the shots are coming from and thus how quality the scoring chance was.

I've always thought advanced stats that were based on simply shots weren't telling us much. You really need to separate good scoring chances from poor scoring chances.

[FAN]

Like Stan Bowman said, there are many ways to win and there isn't just one blueprint but you need one. It's pretty pointless to compare team building philosophies without having personnel moves to back it up because any one of us can come up with a better one. Eg. I believe in having strength down the middle, an elite #1 center, an elite #1 defenseman, an elite #1 goaltender etc. We can all dream, but it doesn't mean we all know how to build a Cup winner when faced with limitations. Take Burke's work in Toronto, that was a small and soft team he built. Why? Because as Burke found out the hard way, you can't have a team full of Colton Orr's and you can't just go out and get a Malkin or a Kopitar, or Getzlaf and Perry or a Milan Lucic. And let's not forget Burke did make an offer to Cammalleri. Sometimes GMs get caught up in acquiring a certain type of player especially when it comes to the draft and I think Burke has been guilty of that in the past. While I think Burke is stubborn enough to go out of his way to acquire the big guys he likes, at the same time, he's not stubborn enough to not draft a Nazem Kadri or a Morgan Reilly when they are the players he and his scouts feel to be the BPA. Oh and Burke has been about drafting the BPA (whatever that means) since he's been a GM so don't spin this as Feaster being better than Burke. Burke's draft record speaks for itself. He's been pretty good at nailing his top 5 picks and not so much is later picks. Feaster has been terrible in the past, but it looks like he got it right with Monahan. I bet Burke exerts more influence over the first round pick than Feaster but both rely on their scouts to pick guys.

Feaster, like most GMs, hasn't been outspoken about his philosophies the way Burke has been. He's been pretty outspoken about the fact that he doesn't believe in bypassing a better hockey player just because he lacks size. But do I think Feaster wants to build a team of smurfs? No. But he has tried to acquire the next Martin St. Louis and predictably failed at it. Remember when I said that some GMs get caught up in acquiring certain players? That's what happened with Feaster. It's like he concentrates on one thing at a time. The team needs more skill? I'm going to go out and acquire some pure skill guys without regard to the fact that he was building a team of smurfs. And it looks like Feaster didn't learn his lesson about replacing a proven #1 goalie with an unproven goalie.

At the end of the day, Burke is a better GM (and hockey mind) than Feaster and I'm in no way sad to see Feaster go.

[FAN]

Burke knows how to turn a non playoff team into a team that makes the playoffs. His problem is adding the final pieces needed to win the Cup.

[moon]

Originally Posted by FAN

Burke knows how to turn a non playoff team into a team that makes the playoffs. His problem is adding the final pieces needed to win the Cup.

Didn't seem to be a problem in Anaheim.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by FAN

Burke knows how to turn a non playoff team into a team that makes the playoffs. His problem is adding the final pieces needed to win the Cup.

Isn't that nearly everyone's problem?

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by calgARI

Evidence that Feaster had no plan or knowledge of the game - there was 1 real NHL center on the team last year.

and he told us he signed 3 in that off-season, so we wouldn't have 1.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Here's the PUCK system website... there's a power point presentation there http://www.sydexsports.com/html/hockey.html

It just looks like a system to watch video a bit easier... so you can pull a shift from a particular player or whatever.

I downloaded the demo for it awhile back. Its just a glorified spreadsheet basically.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I've always thought advanced stats that were based on simply shots weren't telling us much. You really need to separate good scoring chances from poor scoring chances.

Think that all you like but it isn't true. Shot quality evens out over the sample. Shot based stats tell us way more than whatever else we have.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by moon

Didn't seem to be a problem in Anaheim.

Burke lucked out with the development of Getzlaf and Perry. He traded Shane O'Brien for a first round an attempt to acquire help at the deadline and failed to do so.

[moon]

Originally Posted by FAN

Burke lucked out with the development of Getzlaf and Perry. He traded Shane O'Brien for a first round an attempt to acquire help at the deadline and failed to do so.

He added Pronger, Selanne and Niedermayer arguably the 3 biggest pieces to the Ducks winning the Cup that year.

Also, getting a 1st for SOB is a great move and a steal not sure how that is looked as a bad thing that he did.

Seems odd to say he can't add pieces to help a team win the Cup when the Ducks won the Cup after he added the final pieces.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by mikeecho

The biggest concern I have with the Burke strategy is that he's chasing a trend. When you do that, you risk continual mediocrity. You need to set the trends to have any advantage.

By the time he builds a big, tough team 2-3 years down the road, the progressive GMs in the league are already building teams to be better than the big tough teams.

The game is continually evolving and Burke needs to think where the game is going and build a team in that mould as opposed to where the game is today.

I think Feaster was trying to do that, to some extent with this re-build.

The way I see it, Birke just placed an order for a bunch of iPhone 5s to be delivered in 2-3 years. By the time he gets them, people will think they're brick phones.

Big physical teams isn't a trend. It's what Darryl Sutter tried to build, it's what the Kings, Ducks, Bruins, etc built. There was a stretch after the 2004 rule changes where small and skilled was a trend but it's petered out and we are back again to big, physical teams. Players are getting bigger and stronger and that's not a trend, it's a fact.