[PGT] Flames fall to TB 5-2

[djsFlames]

Wait why is there Gaudreau bashing? He put up a point and is suffering from the flu. The drop in play coincided with him getting sick, so it's pretty obvious what you can attribute it to. We all saw what that did to Monahan, and it took him a couple weeks to get back to speed, but look what he was doing last night. Gaudreau will be back to his week ago self soon enough.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Wait why is there Gaudreau bashing? He put up a point and is suffering from the flu. The drop in play coincided with him getting sick, so it's pretty obvious what you can attribute it to. We all saw what that did to Monahan, and it took him a couple weeks to get back to speed, but look what he was doing last night. Gaudreau will be back to his week ago self soon enough.

Don't see it as bashing - just comments that he wasn't as good in the game (I myself thought he was OK, but just that). I also think we are guilty of being a little too high on the guy after his two or three really good games. Notwithstanding the flu, he's had more average games than really good ones.

I hope it's just the flu and not a matter of "returning to earth" or getting tired over the grind (this is way way tougher than NCAA).

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Ok I've had enough, I'm calling you out.

Please don't act like you don't have a bias on Sven Baertschi. I've read your "Sven reports" over the last 3 games and they really are a stretch. You write up 5-7 bashing paragraphs about him on his first 2 games where he had 7 and 10 minutes in those games.

He wasn't at 7 mins in the first period as you report. He had 8 shifts and 5:30 in the first. In the first Monahan was at 7:02. Other players also hovered around 7 mins. You were just trying to make it seem like he got ice in the first, but made mistakes and lost puck battles so thats why he didn't have the same ice time later in the game. Trying to paint a picture that suits your Sven bashing motives. Lame.

As far as your issue with the "disappointing icing" he had in the first, I like how you failed to mention that it was Sven who cut off the pass along the boards, breaking up the shooting gallery that had been going on in our zone for 40 seconds where the Flames were running around in panic mode. He broke up the pass, carried it out of our zone and was met by the TB defender coming at him. He didn't just fire it up the ice for ####s and giggles or because he is lazy. As you say "Just skate a little bit more before dumping it!" Like it was that easy. Watch the play again. I did.

You also failed to mention it was Sven who got the puck out of the zone for the line change off of the icing faceoff in our zone. Big surprise you left that out. You made it seem as though his "disappointing icing" lost us the game or cost us a goal. It actually let us regroup from the relentless attack of TB and got us a line change 9 seconds into that shift.

Also like how you just dismiss the advanced stat line of Sven last night. It doesn't fit your Sven isn't good enough obsession. You constantly saying that he loses puck battles is also not true. He may lose some, but you talk like he has no chance and loses every one of them. The Flames had three takeaways last night. One of them belonged to Sven. How could he possibly get credited with a takeaway if he loses every puck battle or doesn't try hard enough defensively?

If you are just going to continue being passive aggressive when discussing his play and make false statements, trying to paint a picture that simply isn't true for whatever reason, maybe you should stop discussing his play. Just because you keep saying the same crap doesn't make it true.

Baertschi had a much better game than his first two, the work ethic was there and he was engaged even with only 11 mins of icetime. I'm not saying he had some AMAZING game, but give the guy some props for trying to work his way to more icetime and responsibility without bashing him right after you begrudgingly give him a little credit.

As Mike F pointed out, it is absolutely comfirmation bias. C4L and others are focusing in and looking for mistakes. The issues that they've pointed out are mistakes that every single player on this team makes and would like to improve on.

That doesn't mean a player didn't have a good game. It just means he wasn't perfect.

Again, considering his role with the team right now, I don't understand why people are expecting perfection. All things considered, Baertschi had a very good game last night.

Somebody on HF Flames posted what C4L posted here and one person responded with this before the game:

I did watch specifically Sven for every second he was on the ice in the first period last game (after the fact). The times when he was coasting, he was coasting in good position, with the puck somewhere else on the ice. When he wasn't where he was supposed to be, he skated hard to where he was supposed to be. I don't understand how you're supposed to cover the point guy with intensity while the puck is in the far corner, or get in the cross-ice passing lane on the backcheck with intensity while the puck carrier is on the far boards. Sven did a lot of things with intensity. He chased the puck down with intensity on the forecheck. He tried to disrupt the breakout as the long forechecker... again with intensity. So I can't agree with that analysis. Again, it seems that it's trying to match what the poster sees with what the poster thinks he sees. What I saw in my viewing (as I mentioned before) was over and over again the puck finding ways to avoid Sven. It's a two game sample size. It can't keep up forever.

People keep using these buzz words. Intensity. Energy. Apparently Sven needs to be moving his feet at all times to be considered intense (even when he's already in the right position). It's odd. I don't know what people want to see.

Does Sven need to sit on the bench with intensity? Is he otherwise pouting?

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Don't see it as bashing - just comments that he wasn't as good in the game (I myself thought he was OK, but just that). I also think we are guilty of being a little too high on the guy after his two or three really good games. Notwithstanding the flu, he's had more average games than really good ones.

I hope it's just the flu and not a matter of "returning to earth" or getting tired over the grind (this is way way tougher than NCAA).

Because the first couple weeks of games were the first of his career?

He's had more "OK" ones because he's been adjusting to the league. Prior to coming down with the flu, he had a solid stretch (8pts in 7gp) where you could see he stepped his game up to another level. An indication that he had a much better handle of the NHL game as opposed to earlier when he was still very much adjusting.

Was he supposed to come in and light the world on fire in his first bunch of games? I'll say he gets back to the level he as playing prior to this week because that's what he's capable of. It's not getting "too high" it's seeing with your own eyes what the kid can and will do. He's proven he can dominate the ice when he's feeling it. I think you missed all of the past two weeks or something, cause you probably one of two or three people anywhere that isn't sold on him.

[GioforPM]

No one expects perfection, and Sven did indeed have his best game so far last night. with several decent chances to score. Improvement is good and I thought it was big one. It tailed off to some degere, but that's to be expected.

It's unfortunate that the biggest flaw in his game last night, which was either shying away from contact or getting on the wrong side of it and sealing himself off, was made most evident in the icing play which is the type that drives coaches crazy.

I confess I didn't look at him much in the Dzone (and I think most people are guilty of that - looking for just his offense). A couple times he seemed to fly the zone early and his D men got trapped (considering the D weren't moving the puck well at all).

The other unfortunate (for Sven) aspect was that the other guy who's been criticized, Setoguchi, also had his best game and was better IMO than Sven, mainly because of physicality.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

You also failed to mention it was Sven who got the puck out of the zone for the line change off of the icing faceoff in our zone. Big surprise you left that out. You made it seem as though his "disappointing icing" lost us the game or cost us a goal. It actually let us regroup from the relentless attack of TB and got us a line change 9 seconds into that shift.

Yeah, that was a good segment by Sven....I feel like heisthisclose to having it click. I get the Backlund vibe out of this situation....I think he's going to be ok.

...all right now that I cleared that up for all of you we can just stop talking about him and go ahead and enjoy watching him develop.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Not sure if there really is a point to posting this, but the Sven discussions (let's call them) really have deteriated and become useless. The reason being, because the two groups, if that makes sense (even though I don't think there are two groups or that these group titles accurately reflect peoples opinions as there is actually a wide range of opinions of varying degrees), of "Sven supporters" and "Sven dissenters" are now arguing totally different things. It's apples and oranges, and it's now to the point where we have lengthy posts citing times when Sven got the puck out on a line change for example as part of the argument. Which really in it's self highlights the issue with all things Sven at the moment, when these are the types of things we are talking about when it comes to a former 1st round draft pick.

"The Sven supporters", are micro analysing his game, saying it's not all that bad, and are looking to show that Sven is really no worse than some of the other bodies on this club.

Where the "Sven dissenters" are looking for him to distinguish himself from some of the other bodies on this club and show that he's at least an upgrade on some of our very average veterans or shows the potential to be an upgrade on them in the near future, something the likes of Monahan, Gaudreau, Jooris and Granlund have all done.

The argument goes on and on in circular fashion because the fact is, both sides are correct in what they are arguing.

Sven, is seemingly just as capable right now as some of our bottom end roster vets. Truth.

Sven also hasn't distinguished himself from his peers at all to date or shown the potential yet that he will. Truth.

So really, both sides are right. What does it all mean, who knows. All that really matters is what management, the coaches and Sven expect from him, and how that relates, but we don't really know what that is.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Because the first couple weeks of games were the first of his career?

He's had more "OK" ones because he's been adjusting to the league. Prior to coming down with the flu, he had a solid stretch (8pts in 7gp) where you could see he stepped his game up to another level. An indication that he had a much better handle of the NHL game as opposed to earlier when he was still very much adjusting.

Was he supposed to come in and light the world on fire in his first bunch of games? I'll say he gets back to the level he as playing prior to this week because that's what he's capable of. It's not getting "too high" it's seeing with your own eyes what the kid can and will do. He's proven he can dominate the ice when he's feeling it. I think you missed all of the past two weeks or something, cause you probably one of two or three people anywhere that isn't sold on him.

Why the vitriol?

I'm sold on him as an NHLer. I'm just making the factual observation that his first 5 games were just OK and his last 2 were just OK. His games against Carolina and Washington in Calgary were sort of in the middle.

I fully understand the explanations for the last two games, and the first 5. I thought he was better in the first period last night, but tailed off, which is down to the flu I'm sure.

I hope he gets back to the level he was at just after his scratch. I think he will, but I also don't want to be too unrealistic and I think everyone should remember that he played a 40 games schedule last year (although he also played the WJC so there's that).

Bottom line for me - let's not be fanboys who ignore weaker efforts or haters who ignore good efforts.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by jg13

Hiller didn't have much of a chance on most of the goals, i'd start him against Florida.

Hiller was ok in the game and not the reason we lost at all, but he did have a chance on most of the goals.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Hiller was ok in the game and not the reason we lost at all, but he did have a chance on most of the goals.

I'd start Ramo because he needs a start. And Fla is terrible on offence. At least this way Hiller isn't being sat during a winning streak.

I thought Hiller was just fine considering the quality of chances especially in the 3rd. But the backup needs some games or he won't be sharp.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Ok I've had enough, I'm calling you out.

Please don't act like you don't have a bias on Sven Baertschi. I've read your "Sven reports" over the last 3 games and they really are a stretch. You write up 5-7 bashing paragraphs about him on his first 2 games where he had 7 and 10 minutes in those games.

He wasn't at 7 mins in the first period as you report. He had 8 shifts and 5:30 in the first. In the first Monahan was at 7:02. Other players also hovered around 7 mins. You were just trying to make it seem like he got ice in the first, but made mistakes and lost puck battles so thats why he didn't have the same ice time later in the game. Trying to paint a picture that suits your Sven bashing motives. Lame.

As far as your issue with the "disappointing icing" he had in the first, I like how you failed to mention that it was Sven who cut off the pass along the boards, breaking up the shooting gallery that had been going on in our zone for 40 seconds where the Flames were running around in panic mode. He broke up the pass, carried it out of our zone and was met by the TB defender coming at him. He didn't just fire it up the ice for ####s and giggles or because he is lazy. As you say "Just skate a little bit more before dumping it!" Like it was that easy. Watch the play again. I did.

You also failed to mention it was Sven who got the puck out of the zone for the line change off of the icing faceoff in our zone. Big surprise you left that out. You made it seem as though his "disappointing icing" lost us the game or cost us a goal. It actually let us regroup from the relentless attack of TB and got us a line change 9 seconds into that shift.

Also like how you just dismiss the advanced stat line of Sven last night. It doesn't fit your Sven isn't good enough obsession. You constantly saying that he loses puck battles is also not true. He may lose some, but you talk like he has no chance and loses every one of them. The Flames had three takeaways last night. One of them belonged to Sven. How could he possibly get credited with a takeaway if he loses every puck battle or doesn't try hard enough defensively?

If you are just going to continue being passive aggressive when discussing his play and make false statements, trying to paint a picture that simply isn't true for whatever reason, maybe you should stop discussing his play. Just because you keep saying the same crap doesn't make it true.

Baertschi had a much better game than his first two, the work ethic was there and he was engaged even with only 11 mins of icetime. I'm not saying he had some AMAZING game, but give the guy some props for trying to work his way to more icetime and responsibility without bashing him right after you begrudgingly give him a little credit.

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Ok I've had enough, I'm calling you out.

Please don't act like you don't have a bias on Sven Baertschi. I've read your "Sven reports" over the last 3 games and they really are a stretch. You write up 5-7 bashing paragraphs about him on his first 2 games where he had 7 and 10 minutes in those games.

He wasn't at 7 mins in the first period as you report. He had 8 shifts and 5:30 in the first. In the first Monahan was at 7:02. Other players also hovered around 7 mins. You were just trying to make it seem like he got ice in the first, but made mistakes and lost puck battles so thats why he didn't have the same ice time later in the game. Trying to paint a picture that suits your Sven bashing motives. Lame.

As far as your issue with the "disappointing icing" he had in the first, I like how you failed to mention that it was Sven who cut off the pass along the boards, breaking up the shooting gallery that had been going on in our zone for 40 seconds where the Flames were running around in panic mode. He broke up the pass, carried it out of our zone and was met by the TB defender coming at him. He didn't just fire it up the ice for ####s and giggles or because he is lazy. As you say "Just skate a little bit more before dumping it!" Like it was that easy. Watch the play again. I did.

You also failed to mention it was Sven who got the puck out of the zone for the line change off of the icing faceoff in our zone. Big surprise you left that out. You made it seem as though his "disappointing icing" lost us the game or cost us a goal. It actually let us regroup from the relentless attack of TB and got us a line change 9 seconds into that shift.

Also like how you just dismiss the advanced stat line of Sven last night. It doesn't fit your Sven isn't good enough obsession. You constantly saying that he loses puck battles is also not true. He may lose some, but you talk like he has no chance and loses every one of them. The Flames had three takeaways last night. One of them belonged to Sven. How could he possibly get credited with a takeaway if he loses every puck battle or doesn't try hard enough defensively?

If you are just going to continue being passive aggressive when discussing his play and make false statements, trying to paint a picture that simply isn't true for whatever reason, maybe you should stop discussing his play. Just because you keep saying the same crap doesn't make it true.

Baertschi had a much better game than his first two, the work ethic was there and he was engaged even with only 11 mins of icetime. I'm not saying he had some AMAZING game, but give the guy some props for trying to work his way to more icetime and responsibility without bashing him right after you begrudgingly give him a little credit.

This is a funny post

Lame? Calling me out? Passive-Aggressive? Begrudgingly giving him credit? When you post aggressively like this, you don't generally get a discussion, you get an argument. Let's try and have a discussion anyways.

First off, did you listen to Sven get criticized for that icing? Not sure what you are seeing, but he had other options than icing it. It was a lazy play. It happens, but he had more time, or could have chipped it out, or skated it out a bit more. You don't ice it from that spot. You disagree, that's fine. He got criticized for it on-air, and I think that rightfully so.

His TOI in the first period - maybe I was wrong about that, but when I looked to see how much time he was getting near the end of the 1st period, I could have sworn he was ~7 minutes. Maybe I didn't match it up properly? Point taken, and I won't make such an assertion in the future without being completely sure. However, if he got 5 minutes in the first, he still got his ice-time reduced as the game progressed (ending at 11:02 TOI). However, I can accept that he got his time shortened as a product of Hartley shortening his bench in an effort to play catch-up. Implying that I was merely trying to write some sort of narrative to for my 'obsession with knocking him down' is simply a fallacy.

Regardless, I thought he came out with more jump, much more effort, but just kept losing too many puck-battles. He is simply not as tenacious as Gaudreau, and not as strong as Granlund it seems. He IS getting better, however, and I agree with you there. What I posted wasn't the same CRAP. Did I say he lost every puck-battle? I didn't realize I would have to go into perfect detail describing every single positive and negative play - I saw him lose many more puck-battles than he won, so this is an 'area of concern' for me regarding him. That doesn't mean he loses every single one - just he loses more than he wins. So he gets credited with a takeaway - great! Doesn't show that my point is wrong. Again, this is what I said:

He does lose quite a number of puck battles

"Quite a number" is not the same as "Every single".

If Sven improves his play and earns a permanent roster spot this season and becomes a great player (something I think is within his ability, actually), he will not even 'prove me wrong'. I have maintained that Baertschi is a very skilled prospect, and I am glad that the Flames do indeed have him in the organization. I am just thinking his development is just taking longer. I am hardly someone who 'has it in' for Baertschi. Once again, just because I see him as a different player at the moment than how you see him, doesn't make what I say "Crap".

Funny that you think I have some "Anti-Sven" bias going on and that I have some sort of evil and insidious motive to bash him at every turn. I have stated numerous times that this kid will be a pretty important player, but that it seems it will just take some time. Guess we are seeing two very different players on the ice there. You really don't think that happens? Someone has to be fabricating a fictional narrative when it doesn't agree with your own, so you must call them lame, accuse them of having a bias, and insist they are being passive-aggressive? Please point out where I was passive-aggressive in that post.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

As Mike F pointed out, it is absolutely comfirmation bias. C4L and others are focusing in and looking for mistakes. The issues that they've pointed out are mistakes that every single player on this team makes and would like to improve on.

That doesn't mean a player didn't have a good game. It just means he wasn't perfect.

Again, considering his role with the team right now, I don't understand why people are expecting perfection. All things considered, Baertschi had a very good game last night.

Somebody on HF Flames posted what C4L posted here and one person responded with this before the game:



People keep using these buzz words. Intensity. Energy. Apparently Sven needs to be moving his feet at all times to be considered intense (even when he's already in the right position). It's odd. I don't know what people want to see.

Does Sven need to sit on the bench with intensity? Is he otherwise pouting?

No idea what post from here I wrote that got copy/pasted onto HF (don't really care either way), but if I feel like having a discussion based on what someone from over there said, I will go over there and have a discussion. I don't see the point in discussing here what someone from there has said about a post I made here that got copied and pasted there (partially, fully, out of context?) and whose reply was copied from there and pasted here (again - partially, fully, out of context?) so we can end up arguing over he said, she said... See how confusing it is already? If I want to address what a poster on HF has said about a post I wrote here, I will go there and do so, not form any rebuttal (if I even disagree or have a rebuttal to give) and write it here so you can copy/paste it there.

This is CalgaryPuck. I come here to have discussions here. If I felt my time was better served in HF, I would do so. I do visit that other site from time to time, but rarely (if ever) in the Flames forum there, as I find it is just not active enough and I get all the information I am looking for regarding the Flames here. I mostly go there just to read what is going on with other teams when I have time. I find this site meets my needs.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

People keep using these buzz words. Intensity. Energy. Apparently Sven needs to be moving his feet at all times to be considered intense (even when he's already in the right position). It's odd. I don't know what people want to see.

Those same buzzwords are the ones the coaching staff and scouts use. They seem to know what they want to see and it is Baertschi that is struggling to show them that.

It was mentioned earlier, that Baertschi is showing about the same as some of the lesser veterans in the lineup. The sad thing is that these are guys we point at being failures for the team and wanting them traded or dispatched to the minors. The guys Baertschi has to be showing the same as are the guys in the top six roles, and more importantly the guys on the left side. If Baertschi wants to win a job on the left side he has to show more than Glencross, Gaudreau and Granlund. That is the bottom line for the kid and he isn't even close to competing with those three guys. That is how he is going to be judged because the expectation is he is supposed to be a top line left winger.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This is a funny post

Lame? Calling me out? Passive-Aggressive? Begrudgingly giving him credit? When you post aggressively like this, you don't generally get a discussion, you get an argument. Let's try and have a discussion anyways.

First off, did you listen to Sven get criticized for that icing? Not sure what you are seeing, but he had other options than icing it. It was a lazy play. It happens, but he had more time, or could have chipped it out, or skated it out a bit more. You don't ice it from that spot. You disagree, that's fine. He got criticized for it on-air, and I think that rightfully so.

His TOI in the first period - maybe I was wrong about that, but when I looked to see how much time he was getting near the end of the 1st period, I could have sworn he was ~7 minutes. Maybe I didn't match it up properly? Point taken, and I won't make such an assertion in the future without being completely sure. However, if he got 5 minutes in the first, he still got his ice-time reduced as the game progressed (ending at 11:02 TOI). However, I can accept that he got his time shortened as a product of Hartley shortening his bench in an effort to play catch-up. Implying that I was merely trying to write some sort of narrative to for my 'obsession with knocking him down' is simply a fallacy.

Regardless, I thought he came out with more jump, much more effort, but just kept losing too many puck-battles. He is simply not as tenacious as Gaudreau, and not as strong as Granlund it seems. He IS getting better, however, and I agree with you there. What I posted wasn't the same CRAP. Did I say he lost every puck-battle? I didn't realize I would have to go into perfect detail describing every single positive and negative play - I saw him lose many more puck-battles than he won, so this is an 'area of concern' for me regarding him. That doesn't mean he loses every single one - just he loses more than he wins. So he gets credited with a takeaway - great! Doesn't show that my point is wrong. Again, this is what I said:



"Quite a number" is not the same as "Every single".

If Sven improves his play and earns a permanent roster spot this season and becomes a great player (something I think is within his ability, actually), he will not even 'prove me wrong'. I have maintained that Baertschi is a very skilled prospect, and I am glad that the Flames do indeed have him in the organization. I am just thinking his development is just taking longer. I am hardly someone who 'has it in' for Baertschi. Once again, just because I see him as a different player at the moment than how you see him, doesn't make what I say "Crap".

Funny that you think I have some "Anti-Sven" bias going on and that I have some sort of evil and insidious motive to bash him at every turn. I have stated numerous times that this kid will be a pretty important player, but that it seems it will just take some time. Guess we are seeing two very different players on the ice there. You really don't think that happens? Someone has to be fabricating a fictional narrative when it doesn't agree with your own, so you must call them lame, accuse them of having a bias, and insist they are being passive-aggressive? Please point out where I was passive-aggressive in that post.



No idea what post from here I wrote that got copy/pasted onto HF (don't really care either way), but if I feel like having a discussion based on what someone from over there said, I will go over there and have a discussion. I don't see the point in discussing here what someone from there has said about a post I made here that got copied and pasted there (partially, fully, out of context?) and whose reply was copied from there and pasted here (again - partially, fully, out of context?) so we can end up arguing over he said, she said... See how confusing it is already? If I want to address what a poster on HF has said about a post I wrote here, I will go there and do so, not form any rebuttal (if I even disagree or have a rebuttal to give) and write it here so you can copy/paste it there.

This is CalgaryPuck. I come here to have discussions here. If I felt my time was better served in HF, I would do so. I do visit that other site from time to time, but rarely (if ever) in the Flames forum there, as I find it is just not active enough and I get all the information I am looking for regarding the Flames here. I mostly go there just to read what is going on with other teams when I have time. I find this site meets my needs.

If somebody brings up a good point, be it another forum or an article or on the radio, it is worthy of mention. This is not a new concept that I've invented.

But glad you ignored it as you are wont to do.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by New Era

Those same buzzwords are the ones the coaching staff and scouts use. They seem to know what they want to see and it is Baertschi that is struggling to show them that.

It was mentioned earlier, that Baertschi is showing about the same as some of the lesser veterans in the lineup. The sad thing is that these are guys we point at being failures for the team and wanting them traded or dispatched to the minors. The guys Baertschi has to be showing the same as are the guys in the top six roles, and more importantly the guys on the left side. If Baertschi wants to win a job on the left side he has to show more than Glencross, Gaudreau and Granlund. That is the bottom line for the kid and he isn't even close to competing with those three guys. That is how he is going to be judged because the expectation is he is supposed to be a top line left winger.

If you want to tell me that Baertschi wasn't showing intensity yesterday or energy or whatever you want to call it, if you want to tell me he didn't have a good game, then we are going to fundamentally disagree and there is no point of discussing further.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

If you want to tell me that Baertschi wasn't showing intensity yesterday or energy or whatever you want to call it, if you want to tell me he didn't have a good game, then we are going to fundamentally disagree and there is no point of discussing further.

That's not what he said at all. He said Sven has to beat the higher LWers to move up the lineup. And he said he had a decent game.

But I'm all for your last suggestion.

[mile]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Ok I've had enough, I'm calling you out.

Please don't act like you don't have a bias on Sven Baertschi. I've read your "Sven reports" over the last 3 games and they really are a stretch. You write up 5-7 bashing paragraphs about him on his first 2 games where he had 7 and 10 minutes in those games.

He wasn't at 7 mins in the first period as you report. He had 8 shifts and 5:30 in the first. In the first Monahan was at 7:02. Other players also hovered around 7 mins. You were just trying to make it seem like he got ice in the first, but made mistakes and lost puck battles so thats why he didn't have the same ice time later in the game. Trying to paint a picture that suits your Sven bashing motives. Lame.

As far as your issue with the "disappointing icing" he had in the first, I like how you failed to mention that it was Sven who cut off the pass along the boards, breaking up the shooting gallery that had been going on in our zone for 40 seconds where the Flames were running around in panic mode. He broke up the pass, carried it out of our zone and was met by the TB defender coming at him. He didn't just fire it up the ice for ####s and giggles or because he is lazy. As you say "Just skate a little bit more before dumping it!" Like it was that easy. Watch the play again. I did.

You also failed to mention it was Sven who got the puck out of the zone for the line change off of the icing faceoff in our zone. Big surprise you left that out. You made it seem as though his "disappointing icing" lost us the game or cost us a goal. It actually let us regroup from the relentless attack of TB and got us a line change 9 seconds into that shift.

Also like how you just dismiss the advanced stat line of Sven last night. It doesn't fit your Sven isn't good enough obsession. You constantly saying that he loses puck battles is also not true. He may lose some, but you talk like he has no chance and loses every one of them. The Flames had three takeaways last night. One of them belonged to Sven. How could he possibly get credited with a takeaway if he loses every puck battle or doesn't try hard enough defensively?

If you are just going to continue being passive aggressive when discussing his play and make false statements, trying to paint a picture that simply isn't true for whatever reason, maybe you should stop discussing his play. Just because you keep saying the same crap doesn't make it true.

Baertschi had a much better game than his first two, the work ethic was there and he was engaged even with only 11 mins of icetime. I'm not saying he had some AMAZING game, but give the guy some props for trying to work his way to more icetime and responsibility without bashing him right after you begrudgingly give him a little credit.

IMO C4L was just describing what he saw.

I didn't see any passive aggressiveness, bashing, or any ulterior motive in his post.

The theatrics in your post is over the top and unnecessary.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That's not what he said at all. He said Sven has to beat the higher LWers to move up the lineup. And he said he had a decent game.

But I'm all for your last suggestion.

Then you must understand why I wonder why people were complaining about his game last night.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by New Era

Those same buzzwords are the ones the coaching staff and scouts use. They seem to know what they want to see and it is Baertschi that is struggling to show them that.

It was mentioned earlier, that Baertschi is showing about the same as some of the lesser veterans in the lineup. The sad thing is that these are guys we point at being failures for the team and wanting them traded or dispatched to the minors. The guys Baertschi has to be showing the same as are the guys in the top six roles, and more importantly the guys on the left side. If Baertschi wants to win a job on the left side he has to show more than Glencross, Gaudreau and Granlund. That is the bottom line for the kid and he isn't even close to competing with those three guys. That is how he is going to be judged because the expectation is he is supposed to be a top line left winger.

IMO, that is the THE bottom line for Sven.

That is who he is competing against for ice time.

He is a distant 4th at the moment

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Then you must understand why I wonder why people were complaining about his game last night.

Yeah, I'm sure he's wondering because what you describe is not a good performance. Showing up to the big track meet as a favored competitor, then going home with a participant ribbon is not a good performance. When Josh Jooris puts you to shame in every aspect of the game you have some 'splainin' to do.

[FBI]

Is this thread safe to come back in to read yet?