[PGT] Canucks 5 @ Flames 1

[cannon7]

If you ask me, the story of the game is an extension of what we saw against the Jets. There appears to be a book on how to play the Flames and Hartley needs to make some adjustments.

The moment the Canucks scored the first goal of the game they started playing a 1-3-1 or 1-4-0 formation and the Flames simply couldn't penetrate the Canucks zone with any sustained pressure because the Flames rely on stretch passes from the blueline. This is becoming increasingly common and is the new trap.

The Flames need to adjust their system to have more puck support through the neutral zone or they're gonna get smothered.

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I would counter that over the course of 82 games, that's about 15 goals. That isn't razor thin as that's about 5 to 6 more lost games and the Flames not being in the playoffs

Don't really want to get into it, but doesn't quite work out that way.

If you take Hiller's total shots faced and extrapolate Ramo's save percentage if had the same amount of shots face it would result just 8 more goals. Now you can't say when those goals would come so you can't really say that that results in x amount of wins or losses. All you can say is that if Ramo kept up his save percentage and faced the same amount of shots as Hiller he would have let in 8 more goals.

Now another way to look at this is, what would Ramo have to do to get to Hiller's save percentage at the same amount of shots. Hiller faced 524 more shots and let in 38 more goals. So that means Ramo would have to face 524 more shots and make 486 saves, or have a .927 SV% over the next 524 to be equal to Hillers SV% at the same amount of shots faced. With an average of 30 shots against per game (actually 29.2, but we'll use a round number) that means Ramo would have to play about 17.5 more games (played 18 less) and allow only 38 goals in those games. I.e. have a GAA over only 2.17 over those 17.5 extra games.

Not really taking a side one way or the other, but going off the numbers, if Ramo continued to play the same as his averages for the season and faced the same shots as Hiller, he would have allowed 8 more goals. But for Ramo to be as good as Hiller with the same amount of shots and games he would have to go on an incredible hot streak in those games.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I would be fine with this as it worked with Wideman at this time last season and Backlund really needs a bounce back season as last season he was one of the Flames most disappointing forwards. If he can't show improvement at this stage of his career it's probably a sign that he's no longer part of the future.

The Flames signed him to 3 year, $3.5 million per contract. I hope you're wrong.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The Flames signed him to 3 year, $3.5 million per contract. I hope you're wrong.

Backlund has the best advanced stats of any forward on the team over the last three seasons.

Treliving thinks high of him or he wouldn't have signed him to that deal.

[ScorchyScorch]

If Raymond ever got his game back to where it was, he'd be a fine 2nd line LW. Right now he's a clumsy shadow of his former self.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

The whole flipping team was so bad last night that I have trouble identifying one player to single out over the others.

True but I think you need to hold veteran leaders to a higher standard.

Gio
Backlund
Wideman
Russell
Hudler
Stajan

Those are the team's veteran leaders IMO. You're not going to sit your captain. Russell wasn't terrible, and maybe you sit Wideman but you can't really sit a d-man since we are a little stretched out there already with the injury to Brodie.

Of the three veteran forwards Backlund had the worst game, and an out of character game for him. Poor positionally, weak play in his own end, over-committing on the forecheck, and some soft giveaways.

Agree that is can be tough to single somebody out, but Backlund is now counted on as a key leader on this team and he was run over by the Sedins last night.

[robaur]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Outside of Frolik that is not a second line. Bouma is not a top 6 forward either

so essentially you are saying we dont have a 2nd line...because..

Ferland-Bennett-Jooris

is not a 2nd line either....even though Ferland was one of our better forwards last night...he is not a top 6 forward YET. only Bennett might be remotely close to playing that role.

So glaringly...we are missing at the minimum 1 top 6 forward if/when Bennett steps up into that role.

We have a lot of fluff in our lineup:

Backlund
Ferland
Jooris
Bollig
Jones
Raymond
Stajan
Colborne

are all bottom 6 forwards and should not be playing a top 6 role.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by ScorchyScorch

If Raymond ever got his game back to where it was, he'd be a fine 2nd line LW.

Raymond hasn't been at the point for over four years.

And even before his injury, he was known by Canucks fans to be their most streaky player.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Backlund has the best advanced stats of any forward on the team over the last three seasons.

Treliving thinks high of him or he wouldn't have signed him to that deal.

He had some really bad gaffes in the defensive zone last night. Missed coverage a lot.

[robaur]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Backlund has the best advanced stats of any forward on the team over the last three seasons.

Treliving thinks high of him or he wouldn't have signed him to that deal.

Treliving also gave Mason Raymond a contract. Means nothing.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

He had some really bad gaffes in the defensive zone last night. Missed coverage a lot.

Freaking everybody had massive gaffs last night.

The team was poorly prepared and simply not up for a challenge yesterday.

I really can't look at any technical aspects of the game and be satisfied, but I really also can't draw any conclusion from one game.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by robaur

Treliving also gave Mason Raymond a contract. Means nothing.

My guess is Treliving is going to give Backlund some more slack than just the first game of the season, in a game where everybody looked like absolute trash. His numbers have been trending up the last few season, versus the opposite for Raymond.

Hell, Raymond was the worst player on the Flames last season and it took an entire year before he was waived.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Why not use your best Goalie more?

Because it seldom works out that way, especially with goalies like Hiller and Ramo. Last season Hiller had a bad game in Florida, Ramo started the next one, and went on to win six straight. In the playoffs Hiller lost the net to Ramo in the second round, and I am not sure that the Flames don't get swept without the goaltending change in Game 1. The point being, Hiller does not always give the Flames the best chance to win. He might moreso than Ramo, but this does not mean that Ramo is so clearly dispensable. The rotation is what keeps both players as sharp as they are.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It frustrated that Ramo's best season (last year) still isn't as good as Hiller's worst (last year) and yet Hartley insists on treating them as equally effective or even Ramo as superior

Put your best Goalie in seems like the right thing to do.

I was surprised that Ramo got the start against Vancouver last night, given that he didn't play them in a single regular season game at all last season. But I don't think this is so much about Hartley favouring Ramo over Hiller: I think the team is honestly pretty desperate to unload one or the other, with the greatest chance of moving Hiller. Last night was as much about seeing what a Ramo/Ortio tandem might do in the long run as anything.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Freaking everybody had massive gaffs last night.

The team was poorly prepared and simply not up for a challenge yesterday.

I really can't look at any technical aspects of the game and be satisfied, but I really also can't draw any conclusion from one game.

I'm sure he got an ear full from Bob on the bench last night after the second goal. His man was Sutter and let him slide right into the slot.

It's game 1, it was sloppy but hopefully they can start the game with a classic Hartley line brawl of the hop and get to business.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I'm sure he got an ear full from Bob on the bench last night after the second goal. His man was Sutter and let him slide right into the slot.

It's game 1, it was sloppy but hopefully they can start the game with a classic Hartley line brawl of the hop and get to business.

I hope everybody got an ear full from not just Bob last night.

The team needs to play with more emotion. They had none last night. They aren't good enough to play without it.

I simply have a hard time blaming one player, certainly one without a letter, for any more than any other player last night.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by robaur

so essentially you are saying we dont have a 2nd line...because..

Ferland-Bennett-Jooris

is not a 2nd line either....even though Ferland was one of our better forwards last night...he is not a top 6 forward YET. only Bennett might be remotely close to playing that role.

So glaringly...we are missing at the minimum 1 top 6 forward if/when Bennett steps up into that role.

We have a lot of fluff in our lineup:

Backlund
Ferland
Jooris
Bollig
Jones
Raymond
Stajan
Colborne

are all bottom 6 forwards and should not be playing a top 6 role.

Disagree on Backlund.

By all statistical measures (except for goals/60) he is a second line player.



Hudler, Monahan, Gaudreau, Frolik, & Backlund are all legitimate top 6 players. That means that only "1" of our fluff players is playing a top 6 role (Bouma).

One worry is that Frolik also tends to have the same weakness as Backlund in the G/60 aspect of his game.



However outside of Backlund all of the players that you listed do play a bottom 6 role. So not sure why you listed 7guys, whom all actually play in the bottom 6, and then stated they shouldn't play top 6.

The team has a poor night, and Backlund specifically was not good, but I don't think that changes his past 3 seasons of progress.

I will agree that the Flames do not have an elite 2nd line, it is a fairly average 2nd line, especially in terms of production. Which is why we need our strong bottom 6 depth, and Bennett in particular, to really step up with better match up to produce from lower in the lineup.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by robaur

so essentially you are saying we dont have a 2nd line...because..

Ferland-Bennett-Jooris

is not a 2nd line either....even though Ferland was one of our better forwards last night...he is not a top 6 forward YET. only Bennett might be remotely close to playing that role.

So glaringly...we are missing at the minimum 1 top 6 forward if/when Bennett steps up into that role.

We have a lot of fluff in our lineup:

Backlund
Ferland
Jooris
Bollig
Jones
Raymond
Stajan
Colborne

are all bottom 6 forwards and should not be playing a top 6 role.

We don't have a perfect collection of 3 first liners, 3 second liners, 3 third liners, and 3 fourth liners? You don't say.

We get a lot of fluff on this board after one loss too apparently

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If you ask me, the story of the game is an extension of what we saw against the Jets. There appears to be a book on how to play the Flames and Hartley needs to make some adjustments.

The moment the Canucks scored the first goal of the game they started playing a 1-3-1 or 1-4-0 formation and the Flames simply couldn't penetrate the Canucks zone with any sustained pressure because the Flames rely on stretch passes from the blueline. This is becoming increasingly common and is the new trap.

The Flames need to adjust their system to have more puck support through the neutral zone or they're gonna get smothered.

It is also sort of what Anaheim did in the playoffs. Time will tell if teams haev picked up on this and if Hartley and Co will adjust.

[heep223]

Agreed Bouma is not a 2nd liner. Backlund always seems to be stuck between 2nd and 3rd line ability IMO

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I hope everybody got an ear full from not just Bob last night.

The team needs to play with more emotion. They had none last night. They aren't good enough to play without it.

I simply have a hard time blaming one player, certainly one without a letter, for any more than any other player last night.

You've got it there. It was not one player who crapped the bed last night. A few guys stood out and that was a really nice play from Gaudreau and Hudler on the goal but the emotion wasn't there.

Any chance the Flames bring up Hunter Smith for the next game? Is that wishfull thinking?