Flames Fan Forum

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Please provide a source

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume it was at the Fan Forum this entire thread is about. The one United started

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

things i'd love to have heard about:
- what is the plan short/long term regarding what position bennet will play?
- do they intend to give any guys in the AHL a look this year up in the big leagues?
- any comment on why the AHL team has struggled to the degree they have this season?

Agreed on all 3 points. I honestly expected the Flames to regress and be one of the poor teams in the league, but I was not expecting Stockton to be as bad as they are. If they're keeping the long term plan in mind, then why haven't they given more opportunities to some of the AHLers who have performed well? Also, if Bennett isn't going to be the centre, that means the Flames are going to need to find a number 1 centre via trade, free agency or draft. It's not easy finding a number 1 either.

Those to me are more important than the Flames PP and PK.

[Toonage]

Not sure of the process here. Stockton has been bad but you're wondering why more of that team hasn't been given a look at the NHL level?

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by markgio

if bennett isn't going to be the centre, that means the flames are going to need to find a number 1 centre via trade, free agency or draft. It's not easy finding a number 1 either.

#23

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Agreed on all 3 points. I honestly expected the Flames to regress and be one of the poor teams in the league, but I was not expecting Stockton to be as bad as they are. If they're keeping the long term plan in mind, then why haven't they given more opportunities to some of the AHLers who have performed well? Also, if Bennett isn't going to be the centre, that means the Flames are going to need to find a number 1 centre via trade, free agency or draft. It's not easy finding a number 1 either.

Those to me are more important than the Flames PP and PK.

In regards to more opportunities to AHL players, this comes up all the time. We don't have any grade A prospects in Stockton chomping at the bit really. Putting players in situations that they aren't even close to ready for isn't the best way to develop them, and therefore isn't the best thing to do for the teams long term plan. Playing players in right situations for their current development stage (whether that be keeping them in the AHL, sheltering their NHL minutes / competition or playing a future NHL centre at wing) is the best way to develop and keep focused on the long term plan.

This notion that being in a rebuild means play whatever young players you have NHL minutes is so off base and leads to 10 year rebuilds.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

So you're saying that Hartley has lost the room and players no longer listen to him? Guess that means it's time to move on.

I think I'll take a break from CP until the Hartley apologists are gone. I can't believe how right HF boards was when they always say CP is just one big circle jerk of homers.

Whoa. That's pretty dramatic. Maybe you should clean your glasses before trashing everyone else. Let's look at this objectively.

Hartley has been in place for 3 seasons.
-- 2013: New as coach. Flames finally tear down and trade Iggy and company
-- 2014: Flames make the playoffs with a largely rookie squad
-- 2015: Flames sit just outside the playoffs with largely a rookie squad

This is year 3 of the rebuild. If your expecting a Stanley Cup contender, then you're out to lunch. That doesn't make the rest of us homers.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Goodlad

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume it was at the Fan Forum this entire thread is about. The one United started

Oh he will never read this response. Per his post he is taking a break from CP until all Hartley apologists are gone, at which time he will return from his absence where he exclusively browsed HF. Fascinating stuff

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Whoa. That's pretty dramatic. Maybe you should clean your glasses before trashing everyone else. Let's look at this objectively.

Hartley has been in place for 3 seasons.
-- 2013: New as coach. Flames finally tear down and trade Iggy and company
-- 2014: Flames make the playoffs with a largely rookie squad
-- 2015: Flames sit just outside the playoffs with largely a rookie squad

This is year 3 of the rebuild. If your expecting a Stanley Cup contender, then you're out to lunch. That doesn't make the rest of us homers.

You're missing a season in between the tear down and the playoff year. it was the season where they drafted Bennett after finishing 27th.

[Bingo]

always kills me when someone calls a bunch of guys that argue every day a collective when they don't agree with a view that they currently have.

I'm on the fence with Hartley ... not sure where that puts me in the circle jerk.

[Badgers Nose]

I'm not happy with full year three.

My beef is the lack of graduation from the AHL. That's no one's fault other than the players themselves.

Having said that, I think kids like Agostino, Grant and Hamilton have surprised and deserve a call up.

I hope BT manages to move out some deadwood before the deadline and create some development slots. In years past the late season call ups were always a highlight for me.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Bingo

always kills me when someone calls a bunch of guys that argue every day a collective when they don't agree with a view that they currently have.

I'm on the fence with Hartley ... not sure where that puts me in the circle jerk.

In the middle. Pretty much the worst spot.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

No idea about this site - but according to this - the Flames are at 39.5% on faceoffs when on the shorthanded (which is brutal).

http://faceoffs.net/stats/team-faceoffs?situation=sh

But eyeballing it, I don't see an obvious correlation between SH FO stats and the PK rankings.

http://faceoffs.net/stats/team-faceoffs

There is not much difference between the best and worst faceoff teams (8.7%). You might expect a small difference like this a random event that should have one of two outcomes 50 % of the time.

AZ the best team, wins about 33 faceoffs a game out of 62 total faceoffs. A difference of 4 per game.

The site allows you to filter for different scenarios.

Ex. Short-handed

Here we see the worst 5 teams at shorthanded faceoffs:

NJ 40.8%
CGY 39.5%
COL 38.7%
VAN 38.5%
CHI 38.0%

Does this correlate to PK success? . . .

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/st...rcentage/2015/

NJ has 9th best PK
CGY is 30th
COL is 22nd
VAN is 14th
CHI is 17th

Of the top 10 faceoff teams, 6 are not currently playoff teams.

[Badgers Nose]

How does FO% relate to scoring chances?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

In the grand scheme of everything? No, it's not a major reason worth mentioning. It's scary that our coach thinks it's the main reason.

Even if the Flames were an elite team on faceoffs and won 55% of the draws on the PK, they are now playing with a now only slightly loaded dice. Faceoff ranges between good and bad centremen do not range significantly enough for it to be a mitigating or causing factor.

Now consider how many times a goal was scored scored because the Flames lost a faceoff that they would have won if they were a better faceoff team. It is almost completely negligible. Not zero, correct, but not enough to concern oneself with.

I'm not the one with tunnel vision here.

I don't know about the PK, but faceoffs are absolutely why the PP sucks. Monahan doesn't win the opening draw and it sets everything back. The #1 unit has to make another trip back and forth down the ice, and lets the other team set up along the blue line. Again, it may not be the only thing, but Monahan wins two extra opening PP draws per game, the results will come.

A few weeks ago, (forgive me, I forget who we were playing) but we had three offensive zone faceoffs with the net empty in the last minute. Monahan won all three draws, and the Flames had three scoring chances.

When you win faceoffs is important.

As for the PK. Not having reliable bottom pairing D hurts. Smid can only get in the way by accident, and Engelland isn't great either. Factor in league average at best goaltending and a bunch of players who have no confidence in the man in the mask, and what we're left with are predictable results.

On the Janko matter - Burke said he needs to play with more pace. That's why we have the AHL. As a reminder, the biggest red flag about the kid was his quality of competition playing Canadian High school. He's now a 4year NCAA centre who played a substantial role on a national championship team. He does seem to take a year to acclimate to new leagues, but he's done nothing but trend upward.

I will say this about Jankowski as well - if, after four years of this back and forth horse#### we let him walk away, I will be very irritated. Are we so overflowing with potential NHL centres in Stockton that this kid isn't an asset?

I don't believe for a second Treliving or Burke value a 2017 2nd round pick over Mark Jankowski.

[DynastyEra]

The problem with the PK IMO is the poor decision making on applying pressure. So often I see them go hard on the point and collapse to try and block a shot only to leave 2 guys wide open on the other side ready for a one timer or a 3 second look/10 foot gap to line up either a perfect shot or another one timer pass elsewhere.
Their structure is dependent on keeping the cycle to the outside and not allowing anyone in tight, the problem with this is at some point they NEED to leave the box to attempt to poke and apply pressure. Yet they are almost always baited into allowing this to happen. Makes for an easy counter saucer to the open winger down low - Russell then goes down to block the pass only for that winger to take that gap to walk around him and as Hamilton goes to cover for Russell he leaves the backdoor tap in for the opposite side winger.
Basically you can interchange Russ and Hamilton with anyone else, but as soon as Russell goes down its already because he over committed and gives the other team a quick, and dangerous opportunity.
Teams have learned to be patient against the Flames on the PP because it seems having a 1 1/2 minute shift on the PK is standard practice for Hartley right now.

[polak]

Me watching the Hartley hate boil over:



In all seriousness I've never really thought about the importance of faceoffs before this and just accepted that they were important like every talking head seemed to say they were. It made sense on the surface but reading this discussion you guys are totally right. They seem less consequential than I realized.

[Bingo]

The other variable on special teams is compensating for goaltending. A team that knows their goaltender will make every save he can see (Kiprusoff days), can play a much different style than a team that feels they have to over compensate for a guy that they have little faith in.

No coincidence that the Flames PK was dead last until Ramo found it, and then brutal again in the last three games with Ramo out for the season.

No trust.

Hockey is a position game, and if you don't trust your teammates to do their jobs you get pulled out of the spot you should be in creating holes and opportunities.

But coaches rarely hang their goaltenders out to dry, ... I think only MacTavish had that angle and it did little good for him. I'm guessing behind closed doors they all agree that goaltending is killing them this season.

[rayne008]

Originally Posted by united

Me sitting 50 feet away from him.

Nothing to add, but this comment made my day.

[PeteMoss]

FWIW - Flames are 4th worst in faceoff percentage on the PP and 2nd overall if you only look at the offensive zone faceoffs.

[flamesfan1297]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Please provide a source

Why do we need a source for everything? It really bugs me whenever someone says something that another poster disagrees with or doesn't believe, so they ask for a source. Really, does every little thing need a source. Maybe you could provide a source to where you got your information from, because it is wrong. Did you even read the OP?! Or did you just assume?
We get if, you don't like Hartley, that's fine. But get your information right if your going to try and make him look bad, or whatever you were trying to do.