Flames goaltending is killing our chances at McDavid/Eichel/Hanifin: Discuss

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Other than Tavares the Islanders improved through free agency. Anyone can do that and you don't have to finish last to do it.

I hope we never follow the path thier management group has taken.

Try and follow the conversation if your going to quote. We were talking about team culture.

Also 5/6 of the Islanders top scorers this year were drafted by them. And if your referring to Boychuk and Leddy they were traded for, NOT aquired through free agency.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by dino7c

why? Islanders are contenders now?

You hit the nail on the head. Good job.

I think most knowledgable fans see their potential and expect them to improve this year. Challenging for a playoff spot would be a step in the right direction.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Hackey

You hit the nail on the head. Good job.

I think most knowledgable fans see their potential and expect them to improve this year. Challenging for a playoff spot would be a step in the right direction.

Sure, after 15 years they MIGHT be an average to slightly above average team

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Hackey

You hit the nail on the head. Good job.

I think most knowledgable fans see their potential and expect them to improve this year. Challenging for a playoff spot would be a step in the right direction.

I think it was also telling that aside from the Avs, Iginla was looking at the NYI and/or Columbus I believe (and puke, Vancouver, but we won't go there).

[CliffFletcher]

A lot of people seem to forget how bad the Hawks were for a long, long time. Not much of a winning culture in that organization when Toews was drafted.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Save percentages are wildly, unsustainably high.
A correction is coming.

Yeah looking at the possession data and it's pretty clear that the tide is coming in.

Flames are 3rd last in 5 on 5 shots for so far this season and 7th last in 5 on 5 shots against.

We are second last in Corsi for behind Buffalo.

High save percentages are carrying the team through games while Hiller has faced the 4th most shots per game on average of any goalie. Unsustainable.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A lot of people seem to forget how bad the Hawks were for a long, long time. Not much of a winning culture in that organization when Toews was drafted.

For every anecdote about one team having a losing culture and continuing to lose, there's one about a team drafting top players and turning it around very quickly.

Which leads you to believe that the culture of losing is some unknown undefined variable that has very little to do with winning or losing. It is a very convenient crutch for people who want to justify some type of team building approach that satisfies their immediate, win now impatience but really, what determines winning is good players playing in a a well coached system.

Which is why I'm more machiavellian than most, critical importance is drafting top players, that's achieved by picking high and picking often. The well coached system is the easier to implement variable.

[PeteMoss]

^^ Agreed. In the Flames defense they have played a ton of road games and a couple of heavyweights already (Chicago/St.Louis).

Being outshot by a million in the Chicago game kind of skews things in such a small sample size as well.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

For every anecdote about one team having a losing culture and continuing to lose, there's one about a team drafting top players and turning it around very quickly.

Which leads you to believe that the culture of losing is some unknown undefined variable that has very little to do with winning or losing. It is a very convenient crutch for people who want to justify some type of team building approach that satisfies their immediate, win now impatience but really, what determines winning is good players playing in a a well coached system.

Which is why I'm more machiavellian than most, critical importance is drafting top players, that's achieved by picking high and picking often. The well coached system is the easier to implement variable.

Hard to argue with any of this. Picking for high hockey IQ and character also helps.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Sure, after 15 years they MIGHT be an average to slightly above average team

Mainly because of incompetent ownership and management and a lack of talent not a supposed losing culture that just plagues them.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yeah looking at the possession data and it's pretty clear that the tide is coming in.

Flames are 3rd last in 5 on 5 shots for so far this season and 7th last in 5 on 5 shots against.

We are second last in Corsi for behind Buffalo.

High save percentages are carrying the team through games while Hiller has faced the 4th most shots per game on average of any goalie. Unsustainable.

6 of 7 games were on the road. The team was hard hit by the flu.

Unsustainable? Absolutely. But that can be changed just as easily by having the ice tilted more normally. The argument:

P: team being out-shot heavily (bad possession numbers)

P: bad possession numbers correlates to losing more

C: therefore team will start losing more

is a classic case of trying to make an argument from correlation numbers

far more likely, IMO, that the possession numbers start to normalize.

How about we see how things go on the 5 game homestand and then we'll have a larger (and more fair) sample size.

If the possession numbers remain skewed, well then we can probably start to expect the imminent demise of the team

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

6 of 7 games were on the road. The team was hard hit by the flu.

Unsustainable? Absolutely. But that can be changed just as easily by having the ice tilted more normally. The argument:

P: team being out-shot heavily (bad possession numbers)

P: bad possession numbers correlates to losing more

C: therefore team will start losing more

is a classic case of trying to make an argument from correlation numbers

far more likely, IMO, that the possession numbers start to normalize.

How about we see how things go on the 5 game homestand and then we'll have a larger (and more fair) sample size.

If the possession numbers remain skewed, well then we can probably start to expect the imminent demise of the team

What you're saying is that if the Flames play better they'll avoid dropping off from what the current stats on their play indicate they'll drop to.

Sure, isn't that self-evident?

My point was basically the same as yours only I was saying that should they continue to play as they have been then they will see a correction in their points pace.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A lot of people seem to forget how bad the Hawks were for a long, long time. Not much of a winning culture in that organization when Toews was drafted.

True, but I would argue that Toews is a good example in support of the culture argument.

Players like Toews, who can single-handedly change the culture of a team, are extremely rare. Chicago sucked for 16 or 17 years before Toews came along and threw the team on his back.

I don't want to have to wait years - or decades - for a savior. I would rather keep the culture in place.

How much would NYI, EDM, FLA, CBJ, TOR, SJS, WAS, CAR or WPG pay for a Toews right now?

Obviously, every team would love a Toews, but the point is that waiting for a savior to change the culture is a risky game.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What you're saying is that if the Flames play better they'll avoid dropping off from what the current stats on their play indicate they'll drop to.

Sure, isn't that self-evident?

My point was basically the same as yours only I was saying that should they continue to play as they have been then they will see a correction in their points pace.

Yes.

The difference is in how we said it.

I basically said: they have played poorly (schedule), so the stats suck

You said, the stats suck so they suck

correlation (bad start is maybe the issue) vs causation (bad possession team because the stats say so)

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

True, but I would argue that Toews is a good example in support of the culture argument.

Players like Toews, who can single-handedly change the culture of a team, are extremely rare. Chicago sucked for 16 or 17 years before Toews came along and threw the team on his back.

The thing is, Toews didn't change the culture in Chicago. And there was a culture, and it needed to be changed.

What changed the culture in Chicago was the death of William Wadsworth 'Dollar Bill' Wirtz. The man had antagonized the whole city, driven away thousands of paying customers, and consequently had to cheap out on every part of the hockey operation, including player salaries. When Rocky Wirtz inherited the team, he opened his wallet and won back the fans.

Bill Wirtz died on September 26, 2007. Jonathan Toews played his first NHL game on October 10. On October 22, Rocky Wirtz announced that for the first time, the Blackhawks were going to allow their home games to be broadcast on local TV, and that he had opened negotiations with Comcast. The culture change was dramatic throughout the whole organization, from top to bottom. Toews had the enormous good luck to walk in just as the change was happening.

[thefoss1957]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A lot of people seem to forget how bad the Hawks were for a long, long time. Not much of a winning culture in that organization when Toews was drafted.

The odd thing was that it was Chaos in the front office that led to the ongoing on-ice failures, more than a conscious effort to tank (after all, in their long history, the 'Hawks had NEVER had a #1 pick, until the lottery balls came up Kane (with question marks as to his being "undersized" for the NHL)). Once $Bill was out of the picture, Pulford and the old school was shown the door...the team attitude and on-ice product instantly seemed to improve, more than just the addition of Toews could account for.

And as far as counting on a #3 pick to turn things around, one must simply look at the 'Hawks #3 pick PRIOR to Toews to see that it can lead to abject failure: Cameron Barker. High Picks are just no guarantee.

[Hackey]

High picks are not a guarantee. Wow. I don't even understand how that is somehow an argument for some of you. Obviously high picks bust. Picks 1-210 bust. What we do know is that high picks bust far less than later picks.

As for team culture let's look at our own Flames for a perfect example of how fast that can be changed. As soon as we traded a couple vets, brought in Hartley and a new organizational philosophy we saw a dramatic change in team culture. Elite talent is far more difficult to change than team culture.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Hackey

High picks are not a guarantee. Wow. I don't even understand how that is somehow an argument for some of you. Obviously high picks bust. Picks 1-210 bust. What we do know is that high picks bust far less than later picks.

As for team culture let's look at our own Flames for a perfect example of how fast that can be changed. As soon as we traded a couple vets, brought in Hartley and a new organizational philosophy we saw a dramatic change in team culture. Elite talent is far more difficult to change than team culture.

The problem is the integrity of the practice. Look at Renny's comments about Edmonton and how he was basically fired for coaching with a conscience. This is a competition. Everyone is in competition to be the best. And if you're bad and end up with a good player or two because of it, fine, but it should not be the strategy for fixing your team. It might look enticing from a management/business perspective. But their are major issues:

- Where/when do you stop? The thread title is a perfect example. The goalies are hurting our chances? Maybe we don't need a chance at McDavid, maybe we have turned it around with Monahan and Bennett and Gaudreau and Brodie. At a certain point, winning has to become good again. No one will ever know when that is. EDM is the prime example (and we use them because they were really the first to, as publically as possible without being reprimanded, claim that this was the way to do things. But where does it stop? They are caught continually trying to reboot with new young players because they think they will save them, completely skipping any type of development process.

- The idea of "tanking" involves including the people who are actually on the ice/bench. These are the people that have competitiveness flowing in their viens, thats how they got to where they are. And when you ask someone like that not to as well as possible it can create some big problems, namely: (A)Complacency, especially among young players who end up earning something for nothing. It's really hard to weed out complacency and, as Flames fans know, can really only change by booting the complacent characters. But of those complacent characters are the ones you are relying on to turn it around, you have a problem. (B) You alienate the people who are actually competitive, ala Renny. People who have too much integrity to purposefully do any less than their best. Now, when Renny tells all his (good) coaching buddies about the way things are being run in an organization like that, you won't draw quality people to come work with you. No matter how much you try to show them that you aren't tanking anymore. The reputation is immediately ruined.

[CliffFletcher]

I don't believe finishing 2nd or 3rd from the bottom of the standings in a season will have any worse long-term impact on a team than finishing 6th or 7th last. However, I do think the long-term difference between a player drafted 2nd in this draft and one drafted 7th is likely to have a big impact on the long-term fortunes of the franchise.

Doesn't mean I think anyone should do anything. There's nothing to be done. It's a matter of assessing the likely outcomes of things that are completely out of our hands.

[Enoch Root]

It seems like some people are arguing that a top 3 pic is probably going to be better than an 8-10 pick. Well duh. That isn't up for dispute.

The issue though is it worth the trade off?

I look at the growth of Brodie, Backlund, Bouma and others, and I am thankful they are not playing in a more loser-ish environment (for lack of a better word). Would Brodie be as good as he is if the Flames sucked? No one knows of course. But not having Giordano here would definitely make the team worse, and I think it's safe to say that Brodie wouldn't have developed as much as he has if Gio wasn't here.

THAT'S the argument. That's the cost. Obviously a top pick has good chance of being a better player than a later pick. The question is: what is the cost to the other prospects of sucking enough to get that pick?