2016 Garbage bag day @ the dome

[Weitz]

Or they haven't finalized the process yet?

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Par

This is just ludacris, either you know, if he is exempt from expansion draft or not, "having a feeling" on this situation is not good, make sure you know.

Actually, THIS is Ludacris:

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Had a quick look at the trends for special teams and it's interesting. Everything is improving but you have to be careful to assume an improvement when the team is playing out the string will have the lift to change things for next year.

Penalty Killing
Terrible from games 15 to 30, essentially killing their season. Good run to game 55 then falls off the cliff again. Excellent later on when things look lost. Overall trend of rolling 5 game looks has them improve from 72% to 78% through the season.


Powerplay
This one much more optimistic to me. Terrible from games 15 to 35 but then pretty consistently good after that and clearly trending in the right direction. This one looks "fixed" to me compared to the PK stats.


Special Team Goals
Finally throw percentages out the window and look at straight special team goals as a positive or negative influence. Team was a sink hole until game 35, then did well for a spell but went back into the tank again. Recovery in goal differential all comes after the team is playing out the string.

The regression line may show positive trends but the rolling averages show wild inconsistency. Special teams may be improving but are far from fixed.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Par

I did not say it is all his fault(I would call the league and tell them give a exact answer), I think this is expansion thing is not well thought out, it is just go to Las Vegas and/or Quebec City and grab the $500 Million or the $1 billion that is going to come with this.

"Hey Gary, it's Brad here. You need to give me the exact details on these expansion rules that haven't been finalized yet. I have some anxious fans in Calgary"

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The regression line may show positive trends but the rolling averages show wild inconsistency. Special teams may be improving but are far from fixed.

Wouldn't every teams graph show some wild inconsistencies? Hockey is a inconsistent game of streaks. Score at will for a couple game cant score for a couple. PP gets hot, then it goes cold. Even good teams have ups and downs, good and bad stretches.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Wouldn't every teams graph show some wild inconsistencies? Hockey is a inconsistent game of streaks. Score at will for a couple game cant score for a couple. PP gets hot, then it goes cold. Even good teams have ups and downs, good and bad stretches.

Yes but those are already rolling averages that should smooth out the couple bad games problem. That last graphic showing 30 games below water followed by 20 games above water followed by 15 games below water etc.

[Komskies]

Interesting graphs, love seeing data like that. It would be cool to see a comparison to the Ducks who finished the year with the #1 PP and #1 PK.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Actually, THIS is Ludacris:

Hahahaha good one.

[Funkhouser]

This post is sub-Par

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

I suppose I can see giving Hartley another kick at the can with a legitimate #1 goaltender. I can see that from Hartley's perspective and why Treliving might be inclined to do him that favour.

HOWEVER, it goes beyond just goaltending. Hartley's system as is stands is not conducive to long term success. Nothing about his system drives possession. The stretch pass does not work any longer. Yes, you have three all-star defenseman who can pull off incredibly accurate long range passes, but that doesn't matter when the opposing team has you figured out all year. Take Ken Hitchcock's system for example. He has an equally high flying, highly skilled defense, but unless the situation calls for it, they don't do stretch passes. They simply chip it to a forward, who chips it to the center, and they progress into the neutral zone. The stretch pass has been figured out and Hartley didn't adjust all year.

Another thing is the cycle (which drives possession, which creates scoring chances). The Flames cannot do this outside of their top line, and even then Gaudreau and Monahan have spurts of futility against bigger, more aggressive teams when cycling. This team simply cannot cycle the puck. Is that a personnel issue or a coaching issue? I'm leaning towards a coaching issue because the Flames have the types of players to be able to cycle effectively. Monahan, Gaudreau, Backlund, Frolik, Bennett, Colborne have all shown an ability to cycle on occasion. Next season this needs to become a focus for this group or else they'll never survive in the Western Conference (like this season). They can no longer rely on a stretch pass leading to a rush leading to a goal. Those plays don't happen very often anymore in this league. The key to success is the cycle.

Finally, special teams have been pounded to death on these message boards, so I won't get into them, but there's no way you go through the entire year with special teams that bad and not adjust. It wasn't all on Gelinas. It's on Hartley too. I know Hartley's a hard head and wants to make other coaches adjust to him, but at some point you have to be a man, take an L, and make changes.

Put me in the fire Hartley category. I have no problems with him as a man. He's obviously a decent dude, gets along very well with his players, he's a good motivator, very good with young players, a media guru, but it's just run it's course. Let's bring in a new coach.

[Vox]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

But Hartley also said him and Trevy are like partners and that Hartley did what's in the best interest of the organization, which not a lot of coaches are willing to do. If Hartley was only protecting his job, things would've been different:

1) Raymond wouldn't have made the team out of camp over Byron
2) Ortio wouldve been lost on waivers
3) Hamilton would've probably been scratched early on
4) Hiller and Backstrom wouldn't have gotten all those starts at the end

Keep in mind Hartley is not a micromanager. Gelinas is being groomed and was given fre reign of the special teams, good or bad. So when your a company man and a team player, then your less likely to be thrown under the bus.

Originally Posted by New Era

Are these comments Hartley's or Trelivings, or just yours?

Some of the comments are MarkGio's, some are a direct quote from Hartley.

Hartley specifically stated that he and Treliving are "partners", and that Treliving get's in early every morning and talks to each of the coaches. He said they work together on players and strategy and that he understands there is more to his job than just coaching. Players are assets that have to be considered. Hartley said they (coaches and Treliving) believed Ortio would be lost on waivers at the beginning of the year, and they did not want to risk that. He reiterated multiple times they were in agreement on the goalie situation. Hartley spoke for about an hour, and I missed the middle part of the interview, but I believe that points 1, 3 and 4 are MarkGio's interpretation not direct quotes.

The interview was interesting. I got the same impression as MarkGio that the coaches gave a lot of consideration to Treliving objectives as well as to winning the games. First thought in my head was that Hartley trying to give Treliving the best chance to move out certain players could explain some ice-time decisions. I quite liked the "partnership" approach that Hartley discussed. Seemed to imply there is a real strategy in place to build the team for the long term. By that was my inference, not a direct statement.

Hope that helped answer the question.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

Another thing is the cycle (which drives possession, which creates scoring chances). The Flames cannot do this outside of their top line, and even then Gaudreau and Monahan have spurts of futility against bigger, more aggressive teams when cycling. This team simply cannot cycle the puck. Is that a personnel issue or a coaching issue? I'm leaning towards a coaching issue because the Flames have the types of players to be able to cycle effectively. Monahan, Gaudreau, Backlund, Frolik, Bennett, Colborne have all shown an ability to cycle on occasion. Next season this needs to become a focus for this group or else they'll never survive in the Western Conference (like this season). They can no longer rely on a stretch pass leading to a rush leading to a goal. Those plays don't happen very often anymore in this league. The key to success is the cycle.

Totally agree with your assessment of the stretch pass/breakout/neutral zone failures.

However re: the bolded above, that is your subjective view and though you state it as fact, I don't agree with it. There are multiple systems that can work. The Chicago Blackhawks don't cycle the puck, the score off the rush and from the point. That's what Hartley's system is designed to do as well. Just because LA is big and bad and cycles, doesn't mean that's the only way to create offense.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by bax

It's not his fault. The exact rules haven't been released yet. They will be at some point before the draft. So no, not ludacris.

To add to this, not only have the exact rules not been released yet, but I am sure Treliving is privy to what is being discussed and in what direction things are going. For all we know, prospects in Gillies' situation might have already been decided as exempt and Treliving knows it, and is just being a bit facetious with the media until the NHL makes a formal release.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

I suppose I can see giving Hartley another kick at the can with a legitimate #1 goaltender. I can see that from Hartley's perspective and why Treliving might be inclined to do him that favour.

HOWEVER, it goes beyond just goaltending. Hartley's system as is stands is not conducive to long term success. Nothing about his system drives possession. The stretch pass does not work any longer. Yes, you have three all-star defenseman who can pull off incredibly accurate long range passes, but that doesn't matter when the opposing team has you figured out all year. Take Ken Hitchcock's system for example. He has an equally high flying, highly skilled defense, but unless the situation calls for it, they don't do stretch passes. They simply chip it to a forward, who chips it to the center, and they progress into the neutral zone. The stretch pass has been figured out and Hartley didn't adjust all year.

Another thing is the cycle (which drives possession, which creates scoring chances). The Flames cannot do this outside of their top line, and even then Gaudreau and Monahan have spurts of futility against bigger, more aggressive teams when cycling. This team simply cannot cycle the puck. Is that a personnel issue or a coaching issue? I'm leaning towards a coaching issue because the Flames have the types of players to be able to cycle effectively. Monahan, Gaudreau, Backlund, Frolik, Bennett, Colborne have all shown an ability to cycle on occasion. Next season this needs to become a focus for this group or else they'll never survive in the Western Conference (like this season). They can no longer rely on a stretch pass leading to a rush leading to a goal. Those plays don't happen very often anymore in this league. The key to success is the cycle.

Finally, special teams have been pounded to death on these message boards, so I won't get into them, but there's no way you go through the entire year with special teams that bad and not adjust. It wasn't all on Gelinas. It's on Hartley too. I know Hartley's a hard head and wants to make other coaches adjust to him, but at some point you have to be a man, take an L, and make changes.

Put me in the fire Hartley category. I have no problems with him as a man. He's obviously a decent dude, gets along very well with his players, he's a good motivator, very good with young players, a media guru, but it's just run it's course. Let's bring in a new coach.

Agreed with everything.

Something that grinds my gears about fans who find Hitchcock or Julien "boring" coaches. So you enjoy watching the D ice the puck 5 times in a row because the only acceptable pass is a stretchy pass?

The 1-0 loss to Anaheim this season was a perfect example of this. It wasn't effort, it wasn't compete, they were all working their butts off. The team was engaged, trying to match the Ducks physically and lots of chirping between the benches. They were forced to try a futile play, over and over and over. Most frustrating game I've attended live in as long as I can remember

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by heep223

Totally agree with your assessment of the stretch pass/breakout/neutral zone failures.

However re: the bolded above, that is your subjective view and though you state it as fact, I don't agree with it. There are multiple systems that can work. The Chicago Blackhawks don't cycle the puck, the score off the rush and from the point. That's what Hartley's system is designed to do as well. Just because LA is big and bad and cycles, doesn't mean that's the only way to create offense.

Most goals are scored shortly after some entry. The theory that cycling is essential are misguided IMO

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

I suppose I can see giving Hartley another kick at the can with a legitimate #1 goaltender. I can see that from Hartley's perspective and why Treliving might be inclined to do him that favour.

HOWEVER, it goes beyond just goaltending. Hartley's system as is stands is not conducive to long term success. Nothing about his system drives possession. The stretch pass does not work any longer. Yes, you have three all-star defenseman who can pull off incredibly accurate long range passes, but that doesn't matter when the opposing team has you figured out all year. Take Ken Hitchcock's system for example. He has an equally high flying, highly skilled defense, but unless the situation calls for it, they don't do stretch passes. They simply chip it to a forward, who chips it to the center, and they progress into the neutral zone. The stretch pass has been figured out and Hartley didn't adjust all year.

Another thing is the cycle (which drives possession, which creates scoring chances). The Flames cannot do this outside of their top line, and even then Gaudreau and Monahan have spurts of futility against bigger, more aggressive teams when cycling. This team simply cannot cycle the puck. Is that a personnel issue or a coaching issue? I'm leaning towards a coaching issue because the Flames have the types of players to be able to cycle effectively. Monahan, Gaudreau, Backlund, Frolik, Bennett, Colborne have all shown an ability to cycle on occasion. Next season this needs to become a focus for this group or else they'll never survive in the Western Conference (like this season). They can no longer rely on a stretch pass leading to a rush leading to a goal. Those plays don't happen very often anymore in this league. The key to success is the cycle.

Finally, special teams have been pounded to death on these message boards, so I won't get into them, but there's no way you go through the entire year with special teams that bad and not adjust. It wasn't all on Gelinas. It's on Hartley too. I know Hartley's a hard head and wants to make other coaches adjust to him, but at some point you have to be a man, take an L, and make changes.

Put me in the fire Hartley category. I have no problems with him as a man. He's obviously a decent dude, gets along very well with his players, he's a good motivator, very good with young players, a media guru, but it's just run it's course. Let's bring in a new coach.

Regarding the cycle - I lean more towards a personnel issue. What players are good on the cycle regularly for the Flames? Ferland, Colborne, Frolik, Backlund... that is about it as far as I can remember.

Monahan is good on the cycle too - when Ferland or Colborne are on it. Johnny pitches in, but I can't say he is good on the cycle.

The cycle is a physical battle along the boards. Flames for the last 6 years have been a team that scores mostly on the rush. That is why I couldn't stand Brent Sutter as it forced the Flames to not only cycle for offence, but play the full 200ft along the boards.

Anaheim and LA this season have basically castrated the Flames. You are right - they (and many other teams) have done well in neutralizing the stretch-pass. However, they not only neutralize the cycle game - they annihilate it. They are equally skilled up front but in much bigger and stronger packages. They just control the boards against Calgary, while clogging up the neutral-zone and preventing stretch passes.

In my opinion, Darryl Sutter himself couldn't get the Flames to play an effective cycle game outside of 1 or 1.5 lines. Until the Flames get bigger, they simply won't generate as much off the cycle as they do off the rush.

I mentioned that Frolik and Backlund are good on the cycle - but only in spurts. I think they are better at the forecheck than at establishing a cycle actually. I have been insisting that Calgary needs to retain Colborne due to his size and skill combo, even if he is underwhelming at times. He can at least help Calgary establish a bit of a cycle, though one can hardly call it a cycle if he is the only one on a line that can effectively do so.

I do notice Bennett becoming more and more effective along the boards, but he is still too young and gets knocked down by the bigger forwards and defencemen. I do think in a short time, he will add that dynamic for the Flames.

What I do notice is that with Russell gone and Wideman out, the Flames did a better job at breaking up the cycle in their own end. However, they lost a bit in transitioning the puck up the ice I felt when Jokipakka and Nakladal were on the ice. I have no idea how to track that through advanced stats, and perhaps confirmation bias was at play, but it sure seemed that way to me.

If Hartley utilized or forced the Flames to cycle more, I would demand him to get fired actually. If the Flames find themselves a top-line gritty winger to play with Gaudreau and Monahan, and if someone like Pribyl ends up joining the Flames, then I think they can add the cycle game to their repertoire. I think they simply lose battles cycling the puck simply because they are not strong enough along the boards yet, especially when you have 2 smaller guys on the ice at the same time (Gaudreau + Hudler, Gaudreau + Shinkaruk).

[Flames Draft Watcher]

If we wanna cycle then we need two more powerforwards. Of course I think we need that regardless of if we attempt to change our offensive style or not.

[Toonage]

If they can also win board battles, I'd be thrilled.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

If we wanna cycle then we need two more powerforwards. Of course I think we need that regardless of if we attempt to change our offensive style or not.

I would prefer two power-forwards of course, but even two "Colborne-like physical" players would help a lot. Just some size and strength along the boards coupled with an ability to make a good play when the opportunity arises on the cycle. I mean, I think Jankowski will help the cycle if he ends up as a top-6 guy down the road, even though I wouldn't project him to be a physical power-forward.

If this team managed to land an above average goalie and some size and skill on the right side - lookout!

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Thanks for reading my post guys, and yes, I do agree that needing a cycle in the Flames forecheck and possession is a matter of opinion. You all bring up good points.

But I think we can all pretty well agree that the stretch pass has jumped the shark. Enough of that crap. The Flames need a much more sound breakout option than icing the puck a hundred times a game, like saillas said.