[PGT] Arizona 2 Calgary 1

[CaptainYooh]

I really don't understand the reluctance of some hardcore fans here to criticize the obvious. This was not a close game, where both teams fought really hard and one got luckier. To me, this was a very poorly coached and executed game against the opponent whose game is well-known and was expected. Harltey said as much this morning :"we knew they will be clogging the neutral zone". Well then, what have you done to the game plan to combat that? What's the point of bringing a knife to a gun fight? One poster already commented on the issues of consistently poor PP and poor zone entry this season. That's coaching.

To dismiss the importance of this loss (and a similar loss to Anaheim a little earlier) is to neglect the looming question: what does this team need to do to be able to fight bigger and grittier defensively-oriented teams successfully?

[calgary2220]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Didn't watch the game but Russell with 4 minutes played more then Brodie and a minute more then Gio? Wide man almost 3 more minutes then Brodie? Brodie should be playing 30 minutes a night.

Hartley's love affair with mediocrity continues....

I agree! If you want to win, Brodie needs to play 30min +, not just saying that cause he's family either. Russell tipped the game winner in while standing in front of the yoke's player? That's novice hockey, move the player or detain his stick, tough to do if your in front of the guy!!!

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I too must take some responsibility. I have been wearing my 3rd jersey to every game and it has not failed me this year.

Last night I was stuck in a suit and the results speak for themselves.

Court date?

[FiveSeven]

I don't think it's the coaches fault the team couldn't execute against the 4-1.
You either let Johnny try his magic or you drop pass and short pass to a winger. Or you dump and chase.

Then you got 2 on 1 and if they don't get there in time they can rim to the open player and clear. Everyone on the the team knows this, it's just execution, but the yotes play the same style all the time so clearly they will be effective in their strategy. This is where speed and size come in big.

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

I haven't said anything in over a week about Russell. I don't see how me pointing out him having a bad game is any worse than someone else pointing out Wideman had a bad game.

Am I wrong in my thoughts about his play ? I don't think so. I doubt I'm the only one that would be open to moving him to a team that needs a puck mover instead of a stay at home type guy, so what's the problem with proposing that ?

You must forgive AC, he knows not of what he speaks.

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Anyone think of a big physical d man we could exchange for Russell ? I'm sick of seeing him get hemmed into our end every night.

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Wideman is taking a whipping tonight. Honestly I thought Russell was worse defensively. If you pay attention to who's on the ice when we get hemmed in our own zone, I swear nearly half the time Russell is on the ice.

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Colborne - Horrible
Raymond - Horrible
Wideman - Horrible
Russell - Horrible
Etc

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Russell with the game winner.

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Wideman and Russell are so bad defensively.

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Russell is ####.

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

I prefer Smid over Wideman and Russell tbh.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I really don't understand the reluctance of some hardcore fans here to criticize the obvious. This was not a close game, where both teams fought really hard and one got luckier. To me, this was a very poorly coached and executed game against the opponent whose game is well-known and was expected. Harltey said as much this morning :"we knew they will be clogging the neutral zone". Well then, what have you done to the game plan to combat that? What's the point of bringing a knife to a gun fight? One poster already commented on the issues of consistently poor PP and poor zone entry this season. That's coaching.

To dismiss the importance of this loss (and a similar loss to Anaheim a little earlier) is to neglect the looming question: what does this team need to do to be able to fight bigger and grittier defensively-oriented teams successfully?

I agree that there needs to be adjustments against boring neutral zone trapping bull#### passive #### teams like Anaheim and Phoenix, and that Hartley doesn't have an answer for it. We all know we need to get bigger and tougher to play against. We all know special teams has been bad and that's on coaching and our top players. We know that Colborne shouldn't be on the top line. We know that Wideman isn't very good defensively at times, and that Russell is too small for his style of play. We know this was a very important divisional game in the dog days of the season, and that the Flames did not play well.

What do you see as an appropriate reaction? Rip Monahan to shreds for not being intense enough? More piling on Colborne, Russell and Wideman? Call for Hartley's head? Because there are enough posters doing all of these things.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by heep223

I agree that there needs to be adjustments against boring neutral zone trapping bull#### passive #### teams like Anaheim and Phoenix, and that Hartley doesn't have an answer for it. We all know we need to get bigger and tougher to play against. We all know special teams has been bad and that's on coaching and our top players. We know that Colborne shouldn't be on the top line. We know that Wideman isn't very good defensively at times, and that Russell is too small for his style of play. We know this was a very important divisional game in the dog days of the season, and that the Flames did not play well.

What do you see as an appropriate reaction? Rip Monahan to shreds for not being intense enough? More piling on Colborne, Russell and Wideman? Call for Hartley's head? Because there are enough posters doing all of these things.

Which appropriate reaction are you referring to?

Appropriate reaction from Treliving would be to accelerate the process of making the team bigger, more dangerous and more scoring. Even with those players that are injured in the lineup, Flames are too ineffective against the big teams.

Appropriate reaction from Hartley would be to come up with game plans specific to each ream that have a better chance to succeed. "This team is big/aggressive/clogging neutral zone and we did not play our best game tonight" is a bad excuse. I hope we agree on this point. This was not a one-off game, where Flames have been outplayed and neutralized. So, I hope that next time we play Arizona or Anaheim, we will see a different strategy.

Appropriate reaction from posters - I don't know how to answer this one. "Fire everyone!" is silly. This ship is not sinking. Flames are on the rise and we already have some great pieces. But "No worries, it'll be next time" is just as silly.

Why, for example there is a taboo on criticizing coaches publicly? Coaches say things about players, when they are not happy with their performance. I'd love to hear GMs or presidents talking about coaching after the game. Not only when coaches are fired and done with but in an on-going fashion too. This would show that the problems are being seen and addressed somehow.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

To me, this was a very poorly coached and executed game against the opponent whose game is well-known and was expected. Harltey said as much this morning :"we knew they will be clogging the neutral zone". Well then, what have you done to the game plan to combat that? What's the point of bringing a knife to a gun fight? One poster already commented on the issues of consistently poor PP and poor zone entry this season. That's coaching.

To dismiss the importance of this loss (and a similar loss to Anaheim a little earlier) is to neglect the looming question: what does this team need to do to be able to fight bigger and grittier defensively-oriented teams successfully?

Originally Posted by heep223

I agree that there needs to be adjustments against boring neutral zone trapping bull#### passive #### teams like Anaheim and Phoenix, and that Hartley doesn't have an answer for it.

I don't agree that Hartley doesn't have an answer - I think he's provided what he wants the players to do: make a quick entry to the neutral zone, play a short chip and chase, make the opposing D turn, and try to retrieve the puck about 15' inside the blue line. The problem seems to be too much east-west passing just before the zone entry. Each guy seems to be waiting for someone else to initiate the "chip" part of the entry. When that happens they slow down and are easily neutralized.

It doesn't look to me like coaching: it looks like a failure of the players to execute what they're being told to do. When they actually do it (Tampa game eg.) it works well. When things get a little too cloggy at the line (Arizona eg.), they hesitate and the play is lost.

[Phil Russell]

It really is interesting how far ranging the evaluations are of last night's performance by the Flames. I thought it was a close, hard-fought game against a good team that could have gone either way and I was not frustrated by the result. Maybe its because my expectations for the team, in the second/third year of a rebuild, are bottom third of the league, maybe mid-range tops. Viewed as that level of team, last night's game was a solid performance with a lot of promising developments re- the effort and play of the youngsters, great goaltending, slump-busting points by our new core players . . . The average to lousy play of futureless, contract-obligated vets really doesn't mean much to me this season.

[CsInMyBlood]

Originally Posted by Phil Russell

It really is interesting how far ranging the evaluations are of last night's performance by the Flames. I thought it was a close, hard-fought game against a good team that could have gone either way and I was not frustrated by the result. Maybe its because my expectations for the team, in the second/third year of a rebuild, are bottom third of the league, maybe mid-range tops. Viewed as that level of team, last night's game was a solid performance with a lot of promising developments re- the effort and play of the youngsters, great goaltending, slump-busting points by our new core players . . . The average to lousy play of futureless, contract-obligated vets really doesn't mean much to me this season.

This is exactly how I felt after the game as well. Hard fought, close game. Probably wasn't as close if not for the great play from Ramo, but their goalie also played great.

No team, especially this one, is ever going to win 82 games in a season.

[Gaskal]

It's one thing seeing us lose 2-1 after giving it our all, but another to watch us lose when it feels like everyone's skating more sluggish, everyone is doing too much or too little, the usual whipping boys showing us why they get wrecked on CP constantly. Those kind of losses make me really mad.

[AC]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

You must forgive AC, he knows not of what he speaks.

Yeah, my view is that everybody has their player that can do no wrong as well as those that can do nothing right seemingly.

I'm just saying Monahan For Mayor's focus on Russell reminds me of Where ru Chris O'Sullivan's obsession with Backlund. At some point it just gets annoying seeing the same post in every other thread.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by AC

Yeah, my view is that everybody has their player that can do no wrong as well as those that can do nothing right seemingly.

I'm just saying Monahan For Mayor's focus on Russell reminds me of Where ru Chris O'Sullivan's obsession with Backlund. At some point it just gets annoying seeing the same post in every other thread.

...or DOOM's obsession.. with Russell.

[Monahan For Mayor]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

You must forgive AC, he knows not of what he speaks.

I still don't understand, why I'm not allowed to point out how bad Russell played but guys like Colborne,Wideman,Jooris,etc get thrashed consistently. I honestly feel Russell is one of the weak links on team, so why should I not make my thoughts into words just like everyone else does ?

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

I still don't understand, why I'm not allowed to point out how bad Russell played but guys like Colborne,Wideman,Jooris,etc get thrashed consistently. I honestly feel Russell is one of the weak links on team, so why should I not make my thoughts into words just like everyone else does ?

Besides all your posts taking a dump on Russell, you thought Wideman was better on a night where he was being everyone's favourite whipping boy. No one's gonna take your right to post about Russell away. But at the same time, no one's likely to take your opinion regarding him seriously either.

[Monahan For Mayor]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Besides all your posts taking a dump on Russell, you thought Wideman was better on a night where he was being everyone's favourite whipping boy. No one's gonna take your right to post about Russell away. But at the same time, no one's likely to take your opinion regarding him seriously either.

Take it for what you will but the advanced stats also say Wideman was better. I think many people agree with me on Russell. He is too small to handle strong forwards, has major issues clearing pucks out of his own zone, and overall isn't a guy you want playing top 4 minutes. He is a good skater and can be very effective in the offensive zone, but not nearly as effective as other dmen on the team. If he was getting sheltered minutes I think he could be very effective, but on this team he just isn't a fit right now.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by AC

Yeah, my view is that everybody has their player that can do no wrong as well as those that can do nothing right seemingly.

I'm just saying Monahan For Mayor's focus on Russell reminds me of Where ru Chris O'Sullivan's obsession with Backlund. At some point it just gets annoying seeing the same post in every other thread.

It's ad nauseum for Colborne, Russell, Wideman, Raymond and I'll freely admit my contempt for Ramo as well. What is shocking to me though is that now that all the others have been whipped mercilessly to no end that the fresh meat some have honed in on is Monahan. Like WTF? Seriously, I'd put Backlund, Bennett, Ferland, Jones and others in front of the lash long before Monahan even gets thought of. And it isn't even right to put Bennett there, and to a much lesser extent Ferland. But nigh, they do the right things but the scoresheet is a mystery to them, Monahan on the other hand is a scoring leader and is getting put ahead of the rest. It's kind of silly.

[dash_pinched]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

I still don't understand, why I'm not allowed to point out how bad Russell played but guys like Colborne,Wideman,Jooris,etc get thrashed consistently. I honestly feel Russell is one of the weak links on team, so why should I not make my thoughts into words just like everyone else does ?

I don't think anybody is saying you can't express your thoughts on how a certain player performed, I think the issue is that you express similar thoughts on this particular player multiple times and at times in multiple threads. I think everybody gets that you don't like Kris Russell, we don't need to have it beat into our skulls.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I really don't understand the reluctance of some hardcore fans here to criticize the obvious. This was not a close game, where both teams fought really hard and one got luckier. To me, this was a very poorly coached and executed game against the opponent whose game is well-known and was expected. Harltey said as much this morning :"we knew they will be clogging the neutral zone". Well then, what have you done to the game plan to combat that? What's the point of bringing a knife to a gun fight? One poster already commented on the issues of consistently poor PP and poor zone entry this season. That's coaching.

To dismiss the importance of this loss (and a similar loss to Anaheim a little earlier) is to neglect the looming question: what does this team need to do to be able to fight bigger and grittier defensively-oriented teams successfully?

I don't think it is a reluctance to criticize, but my reaction was more directed at the sky is falling crowd who is ready to trade any veteran or slumping core piece after a loss. Edit: or fire Hartley

Whether you think it was a close game that could go either way, or a blow out disguised by decent goaltending, it was a loss. One loss.

My take is that they played poorly. No one stood out, other than Ferland and Ramo. If the coach and players came out and said, "Man we played great, we just didn't get the bounces", I would be more pissed. All I heard from Hartley and Gio is that they played really poorly and deserved to lose. I think that is correct and that they will work to avoid that next game. If/When they win that one, CP,please don't plan the parade.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

People keep saying stuff like this ignoring that the Flames are three points away from picking 3rd overall. What do you mean they are not going to fall back to the bottom of the league? They are at the bottom of the league.

y.

They are 3 points away from being 28th but they're also only 4 out of 15th in the league. By your rationale, they're as much a middle of the pack team as they are a bottom feeder.